A simple fix for the Transgender issue.

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,771.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
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.
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'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.
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.

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.

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.
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.
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.
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.

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.
Isn't a reason to keep doing the same thing.
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.

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

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,106.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
No, not at all.

It's more like a Christian politely asking me not to use "God" or "Jesus" as if they are swear words.
I used to do that, and I had a Christian friend that asked me not to. So I changed my behaviour and stopped doing that. It was me choosing to be respectful to my friend.
Actually, wouldn't it be closer to going around telling Christians that they're not actually Christian? You know, something deemed so offensive it is specifically against the rules here.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: stevil
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,106.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
They aren't asking me to believe they were born female, they are asking me to believe they are NOW female. This is not true.

People don't get all bent out of shape over using nicknames, even though that's not their legal name. It's just how some people choose to identify themselves. I don't know why it suddenly gets so difficult when it is a pronoun instead of a proper noun. Seems pretty petty to me.
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Except you are forcing your worldview upon them by not respecting their wishes of which pronouns to use.
So by refusing to cater to his wishes, I am imposing my worldview upon him? Do you see how ridicules that sounds? So by refusing to accept Jesus, you are imposing your worldview upon all Christians! Care to try again?

No. It would be like a Christian asking me to accept Jesus and me saying that I won't and that he also has to refer to Jesus as a myth just because I think Jesus is a myth.
No; that would be an example of you telling Christians how to believe. I am not telling these people how they should believe, I'm just refusing to believe as they do. Care to try again?

Ah, so if they don't respect your wishes, they are being arrogant, but when you do it it's perfectly justified.
Respecting my wishes means to believe as I choose. They aren't doing that, they are insisting I believe as THEY choose. Care to try again?
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
People don't get all bent out of shape over using nicknames, even though that's not their legal name. It's just how some people choose to identify themselves. I don't know why it suddenly gets so difficult when it is a pronoun instead of a proper noun. Seems pretty petty to me.
This is not something as simple as a nickname; their agenda is that transwomen are equal to biological women. This is something I do not accept. Do you?
 
Upvote 0

stevil

Godless and without morals
Feb 5, 2011
6,964
5,730
✟247,332.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
So by refusing to cater to his wishes, I am imposing my worldview upon him? Do you see how ridicules that sounds?
How would you feel if I referred to you as "she" and "her". And I kept doing that, right in front of you, with other people around.
Would it bother you? Would you care?
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
How would you feel if I referred to you as "she" and "her". And I kept doing that, right in front of you, with other people around.
Would it bother you? Would you care?
I would ask him why is he referring to me this way. If his response was that he is referring to scientific biology, and according to science I am a she, I would research and find out if he is correct. If he is correct then I would understand why a person who accepts scientific explanations would refer to me this way; if he is incorrect, I would proceed to inform him that according to science I am a he.

Rachael Dolezal was vilified as a white woman because she identified as a black woman and attempted to live her life as one. Do you feel she should have been criticized this way? Or do you think she should be allowed to be considered trans black
 
Upvote 0

stevil

Godless and without morals
Feb 5, 2011
6,964
5,730
✟247,332.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I would ask him why is he referring to me this way. If his response was that he is referring to scientific biology, and according to science I am a she, I would research and find out if he is correct. If he is correct then I would understand why a person who accepts scientific explanations would refer to me this way; if he is incorrect, I would proceed to inform him that according to science I am a he.
Oh my,

Let's say they just insist on calling you "she" and "her" because it is a personal preference of theirs to call you that.
Would you be ok with that?
Would you try to avoid this person?
Would you feel weirded out that a person is calling you she, and her infront of others people that you know well?


Rachael Dolezal was vilified as a white woman because she identified as a black woman and attempted to live her life as one. Do you feel she should have been criticized this way? Or do you think she should be allowed to be considered trans black
I don't go around addressing people by their colour.
I don't say "Hello white woman"

I have no problems with a white person dressing like a black person, talking like one, liking food and music that blacks normally like.

If this person makes a statement that they are black, I'm not too worried. I'm not going to make an issue of it.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,710.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
So by refusing to cater to his wishes, I am imposing my worldview upon him? Do you see how ridicules that sounds? So by refusing to accept Jesus, you are imposing your worldview upon all Christians! Care to try again?

Me not believing in Jesus does not affect the Christian who asks me to.

You refusing to use a person's preferred pronouns DOES affect that person.

Maybe YOU would care to try again.

No; that would be an example of you telling Christians how to believe. I am not telling these people how they should believe, I'm just refusing to believe as they do. Care to try again?

So if a person says to you, "I believe I am a woman," you feel perfectly justified in saying back to them, "I don't think you know that better than I do."

Respecting my wishes means to believe as I choose. They aren't doing that, they are insisting I believe as THEY choose. Care to try again?

Maybe that's because they are in a better position than you to know what is right for them? They're the experts on themselves, why would you ever think you know them better?
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Oh my,

Let's say they just insist on calling you "she" and "her" because it is a personal preference of theirs to call you that.
Would you be ok with that?
Would you try to avoid this person?
Would you feel weirded out that a person is calling you she, and her infront of others people that you know well?
If the person did not have what I would consider a legitimate reason for referring to me as a woman, I would be offended.

I don't go around addressing people by their colour.
I don't say "Hello white woman"

I have no problems with a white person dressing like a black person, talking like one, liking food and music that blacks normally like.

If this person makes a statement that they are black, I'm not too worried. I'm not going to make an issue of it.
Dressing like a black person? Talking like a black person? Never mind. Why do you suppose many of your fellow liberals and progressives who have no problem with a man identifying as a woman, had a totally different attitude when it came to race and vilified Rachael when she identified as black? What's the difference?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Me not believing in Jesus does not affect the Christian who asks me to.
Actually it does. Christians care about you and they believe you are on your way to Hell and they hate to see you going there so it pains them to see you willfully reject their Christ.

You refusing to use a person's preferred pronouns DOES affect that person.
No it doesn't because they aren't a part of the conversation. I use biological pronouns when I am talking to someone else.

So if a person says to you, "I believe I am a woman," you feel perfectly justified in saying back to them, "I don't think you know that better than I do."
Really??? What on Earth did I say that gave you the impression I would say something like that to a person?

Maybe that's because they are in a better position than you to know what is right for them? They're the experts on themselves, why would you ever think you know them better?
Remember I'm not trying to change their behavior, they are trying to change mine.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,710.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Actually it does. Christians care about you and they believe you are on your way to Hell and they hate to see you going there so it pains them to see you willfully reject their Christ.

Are you serious? You think this is even remotely similar to trans people being misgendered?

No it doesn't because they aren't a part of the conversation. I use biological pronouns when I am talking to someone else.

So you're happy to disrespect someone behind their back, but not brave enough to do it to their face, and you pretend this is courtesy?

Really??? What on Earth did I say that gave you the impression I would say something like that to a person?

The fact that you would ever refer to them as a man just because they happen to have a penis.

Remember I'm not trying to change their behavior, they are trying to change mine.

Oh rubbish. Do you insist that people should not refer to ships as "she" because ships don't have genitals? This has nothing to do with that. It's got to do with you thinking you are better qualified to determine what pronouns to use for someone, even if they tell you otherwise. And it's incredibly disrespectful.
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Are you serious? You think this is even remotely similar to trans people being misgendered?
Mis-gendering happens when the person is not around. Rejecting Christianity happens when they are around.

So you're happy to disrespect someone behind their back, but not brave enough to do it to their face, and you pretend this is courtesy?
Male and female pronouns aren't used towards the person you are talking to. This is just how the English language works.

The fact that you would ever refer to them as a man just because they happen to have a penis.
Referring to a man as a man does not equal telling them I know more than they know about themselves.

Oh rubbish. Do you insist that people should not refer to ships as "she" because ships don't have genitals?
Nobody is demanding I refer to a ship as "she".
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,106.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
How would you feel if I referred to you as "she" and "her". And I kept doing that, right in front of you, with other people around.
Would it bother you? Would you care?
Also remember to point out that he's not "equal" to a real male, to continue behavior analogous to that advocated in post 485.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

stevil

Godless and without morals
Feb 5, 2011
6,964
5,730
✟247,332.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Dressing like a black person? Talking like a black person? Never mind. Why do you suppose many of your fellow liberals and progressives who have no problem with a man identifying as a woman, had a totally different attitude when it came to race and vilified Rachael when she identified as black? What's the difference?
I'm not aware of this case.
Also I consider myself as an individual, rather than belonging to the liberal or progressive groups.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,710.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Mis-gendering happens when the person is not around. Rejecting Christianity happens when they are around.

Wow, you really don't get it.

Referring to a person with the pronouns they tell you best reflect them does not mean you have to change your beliefs. I mean, no one has a problem referring to Eve from Wall*E as female, even though she's a fictional robot. Referring to someone as a she instead of a he requires nothing from you.

Me not rejecting Christianity for fear of hurting a Christian's feelings requires a great deal from me.

Honestly, if you can't see the difference, then you need more than I am capable of giving you.

Male and female pronouns aren't used towards the person you are talking to. This is just how the English language works.

Yes, because my husband, when referring to me using feminine pronouns, has never done so in my presence...

*Rolls eyes*

Referring to a man as a man does not equal telling them I know more than they know about themselves.

No, but referring to a woman as a man just because you think your conclusion that "penis = man" even when they tell you otherwise most certainly does.
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Wow, you really don't get it.

Referring to a person with the pronouns they tell you best reflect them does not mean you have to change your beliefs. I mean, no one has a problem referring to Eve from Wall*E as female, even though she's a fictional robot. Referring to someone as a she instead of a he requires nothing from you.

Me not rejecting Christianity for fear of hurting a Christian's feelings requires a great deal from me.

Honestly, if you can't see the difference, then you need more than I am capable of giving you.
Words have meaning to me; perhaps for you they don't but for me they do. I do not see trans women as real women; I see them as men who imagine themselves as women. Just because you can imagine yourself as something, does not mean you are. I believe it is their agenda to get everybody to perceive them as real women, because that is the only way they can be treated as real women. It would require intellectual dishonesty on my part in order to perceive them this way; it would require I lie to myself. This is a big deal for me. This is why I refuse to treat them as real biological women, this is why I refuse to perceive them, and speak of them as real biological women. Trans gender women do not equal biological women in my view that's why I do not pretend they are equal.

No, but referring to a woman as a man just because you think your conclusion that "penis = man" even when they tell you otherwise most certainly does.
Why do you keep retorting to that "penis = man" over and over even after I've made it clear countless times that is not my reason? I've never said "penis = man" that is something you just made up and attempted to pin on me, and each time you bring it up I keep telling you that is not my position. Perhaps the reason you don't understand my position is because you either aren't listening to what I am saying, or you refuse to acknowledge my reasons for holding the positions I do, because "penis = man is much easier to refute.
Transgender women are still biological men, and they are completely aware of this. Do you agree?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,710.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I do not see trans women as real women; I see them as men who imagine themselves as women. Just because you can imagine yourself as something, does not mean you are.

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.
 
Upvote 0