There are lots of men who like dressing like women and wearing makeup, they even have a name for it; cross dressing. And they are still men who don’t go around claiming they are womenDisclaimer: I am not transgender and I am not an expert and my views are changing as I learn more about transgender people. This may not be 100% accurate but it is how I see it as of now.
I am not talking about gender roles or anything that 100% only applies to one gender. I am talking about personality traits, preferences etc. In our society it is acceptable for most women to wear dresses or skirts, most men do not want to wear dresses. Makeup is the same way, most men don't want to wear makeup in the same way they most women do. It is about how men and women are different in their personalities etc.
Wait a minute; are you saying jobs like school teacher are for women, and jobs like engineers are for men? That IS sexist! There are women who are police officers, Marines, truck drivers, construction workers, and there are men who choose to be stay at home dads, airline stewards, and nurses. A biological woman who doesn’t like wearing makeup, perhaps wants to be an engineer, and prefers jeans over dress has no reason to feel like a guy because of this. What you are suggesting are outdated, sexist ideas that have been dispelled long ago and for good reason.Over 75% of elementary school teachers are women. Why? Because there is something about teaching little kids that women find satisfying more than most men. Same way with engineering, 80% of engineers in the US are men. I think there is something about this field that most men like and most women would rather so something else.
It seems what you resonate with gender dysphoria is based on sexism and misogyny. Why would you defend such thoughts and ideas?Add all these things up and if a person resonates mainly with the opposite gender then they may want to identify as that gender.
I’m not saying they should be discriminated against, I’m just saying their delusions should not be taken seriouslyOver 60% of Americans say they are more supportive of transgender rights than 5 years ago. Everyone is never going to agree but most people do agree that transgender people should not be discriminated against and that is rising every year.
When I said “wrong” I didn’t mean morality, I meant wrong as in inaccurate.Me neither and I never said that morality does not exist.
What you listed above was based on sexismI did above. And its not about what we expect a woman to be like but what most women are like.
Grasp the wind made an excellent point. If I am talking to a transgender person, the only pronoun I use when speaking of them is “you” or “your”. I don’t use the pronoun he, or she unless I am talking about you to somebody else. So since the transgender is not a part of the conversation when I refer to him as a he, or him; he is not being disrespected or harmed in any way. I think they are just creating a problem that does not exist.Because this would lead to catastrophe and people would get hurt. Treating transgender people with respect harm no one. You have never come up with how calling a person a particular pronoun harms you in any way.
Reptiles are cold blooded animals, mammals are warm blooded. To call a cold blooded animal a mammal, or a warm blooded animal a reptile is wrong/inaccurate regardless of what goes on inside of their heads.I don't see the need in this but at least no one would get hurt.
Why is it wrong?
Dialogues aren't the only kind of conversations.Grasp the wind made an excellent point. If I am talking to a transgender person, the only pronoun I use when speaking of them is “you” or “your”. I don’t use the pronoun he, or she unless I am talking about you to somebody else. So since the transgender is not a part of the conversation when I refer to him as a he, or him; he is not being disrespected or harmed in any way. I think they are just creating a problem that does not exist.
You claimed that trans people aren't going to hear anything other than "you" in reference to them in a conversation. In a conversation involving you, me, and a trans person, they'll likely hear "he" or "she" in reference to them.What's your point?
In a 3 way conversation, you generally refer to the person by name. If I were to refer to you as "she", to the other person, it would give the appearance that I am ignoring you.You claimed that trans people aren't going to hear anything other than "you" in reference to them in a conversation. In a conversation involving you, me, and a trans person, they'll likely hear "he" or "she" in reference to them.
What?? Using a pronoun or using a proper name are interchangeable. We use pronouns because it sounds awkward to use proper names over and over again. It has nothing to do with ignoring the person. Let's say there's a trans woman named Sally who is part of our conversation right now. I could turn to you and say, "Well, Sally here understands what I'm talking about and she agrees with me." But you're claiming that I should say, "Well, Sally here understands what I'm talking about and Sally agrees with me." Otherwise she'll feel ignored? Poppycock.In a 3 way conversation, you generally refer to the person by name. If I were to refer to you as "she", to the other person, it would give the appearance that I am ignoring you.
Ummm that IS objectivity. That's why math is objective. That's why measurements, time, distance volume, etc. is objective; because mankind has agreed on arbitrary standards.
What prevents it from being objective? Are you suggesting that which is objective is incapable of change?No. When laws can change completely just crossing a state line or leaving the city limits, you can't say it's "objective."
When the effect of a law can change just because a group of three or five or nine people say one day that the law means something different from what everyone thought it meant the day before, you can't say it's "objective."
Yes. When speaking about a person when they are close enough to hear, the masculine/feminine pronoun may be used in typical language. Under such circumstances I would probably just use their name to save trouble because I would refuse to refer to them as anything other than their biological sex.What?? Using a pronoun or using a proper name are interchangeable. We use pronouns because it sounds awkward to use proper names over and over again. It has nothing to do with ignoring the person. Let's say there's a trans woman named Sally who is part of our conversation right now. I could turn to you and say, "Well, Sally here understands what I'm talking about and she agrees with me." But you're claiming that I should say, "Well, Sally here understands what I'm talking about and Sally agrees with me." Otherwise she'll feel ignored? Poppycock.
Great! Then we agree they aren't just inventing problems where there aren't any like you said originally.Yes. When speaking about a person when they are close enough to hear, the masculine/feminine pronoun may be used in typical language. Under such circumstances I would probably just use their name to save trouble because I would refuse to refer to them as anything other than their biological sex.
It's great that you'll be nice enough to not intentionally use a pronoun that people are going to find insulting, but we both know there are plenty of folks that ain't nice and will do it for the sake of being insulting. So there is a problem, and for folks like you that care which pronouns you say, the simple fix is just not using pronouns. Sounds fine to me.I think they are just creating a problem that does not exist.
Yes. When speaking about a person when they are close enough to hear, the masculine/feminine pronoun may be used in typical language. Under such circumstances I would probably just use their name to save trouble because I would refuse to refer to them as anything other than their biological sex.
No we don’t agree; I believe they areGreat! Then we agree they aren't just inventing problems where there aren't any like you said originally.
Let me clarify. I will continue to refer to people according to their sex not gender. If a person tells me they want me to refer to them as Zi, Xi, or some other nonsense when they are close enough to me to hear me talking to someone else about them, I will either explain to them I don’t address gender; I address biological sex, or if I don't have time for such a discussion to save trouble I will just address them by name. Hope that clears things up.It's great that you'll be nice enough to not intentionally use a pronoun that people are going to find insulting, but we both know there are plenty of folks that ain't nice and will do it for the sake of being insulting. So there is a problem, and for folks like you that care which pronouns you say, the simple fix is just not using pronouns. Sounds fine to me.
Well, we established that you were all wrong about this:No we don’t agree; I believe they are
Which was your justification for thinking they were just making up problems that don't exist. So you should agree with me. You've been wrong about everything you and I have discussed, why don't you agree yet?Grasp the wind made an excellent point. If I am talking to a transgender person, the only pronoun I use when speaking of them is “you” or “your”. I don’t use the pronoun he, or she unless I am talking about you to somebody else. So since the transgender is not a part of the conversation when I refer to him as a he, or him; he is not being disrespected or harmed in any way.
Ahh. So you don't care if you disrespect or harm people. Gotcha.Let me clarify. I will continue to refer to people according to their sex not gender. If a person tells me they want me to refer to them as Zi, Xi, or some other nonsense when they are close enough to me to hear me talking to someone else about them, I will either explain to them I don’t address gender; I address biological sex, or if I don't have time for such a discussion to save trouble I will just address them by name. Hope that clears things up.
No we have notWell, we established that you were all wrong about this:
As I said before, I believe transgenderism is based on delusion. They may be sincere in what they are saying, but I believe it is all based on delusion; not reality. I have yet to have someone give an adequate explanation of what it means to identify as another sex. Clizby WampusCat gave a perspective but the explanation given gave the impression transgenderism is based on sexism, misogyny, and outdated ideas of years past. I sorta doubt it is based on that, but that was the explanation given on post #182, the best explanation I've gotten thus far. Perhaps you can explain; perhaps I'm missing something.Which was your justification for thinking they were just making up problems that don't exist. So you should agree with me. You've been wrong about everything you and I have discussed, why don't you agree yet?
I dont see it as disrespect to refer to someone by their biological sex. Why do you find it disrespectful?Ahh. So you don't care if you disrespect or harm people. Gotcha.
Sure we did. Remember, you said:No we have not
So I said:I don’t use the pronoun he, or she unless I am talking about you to somebody else. So since the transgender is not a part of the conversation when I refer to him as a he, or him; he is not being disrespected or harmed in any way.
And you agreed:Let's say there's a trans woman named Sally who is part of our conversation right now. I could turn to you and say, "Well, Sally here understands what I'm talking about and she agrees with me."
Trans people are part of conversations where a pronoun like "he" or "she" will be used to refer to them. You were wrong, and you acknowledged that. Now you just don't want to work this realization into your thinking process because you want to keep imagining that the offense is manufactured, but you don't have any reason to think that anymore. The reason you gave is gone.Yes. When speaking about a person when they are close enough to hear, the masculine/feminine pronoun may be used in typical language.
It's disrespectful to intentionally do things that you know will offend people. Since being offended is irrational (i.e. based solely on emotional reasons), that applies to everything, not just transgender people. I don't tell Jesus jokes to Christians because it will offend them; it doesn't matter that I think what they believe is wrong. I'm not going to hop up on a free-speech-soapbox and offend people just on the principle that I think everyone should stop being offended about anything.As I said before, I believe transgenderism is based on delusion. They may be sincere in what they are saying, but I believe it is all based on delusion; not reality. I have yet to have someone give an adequate explanation of what it means to identify as another sex. Clizby WampusCat gave a perspective but the explanation given gave the impression transgenderism is based on sexism, misogyny, and outdated ideas of years past. I sorta doubt it is based on that, but that was the explanation given on post #182, the best explanation I've gotten thus far. Perhaps you can explain; perhaps I'm missing something.
I dont see it as disrespect to refer to someone by their biological sex. Why do you find it disrespectful?
What prevents it from being objective? Are you suggesting that which is objective is incapable of change?
I don't think you understand how anachronistic your worldview is, even by Christian standards. True Jesus-shaped ethics is not based on presumed objectivity, but intersubjectivity. Ethical norms are not transcendent and separated from humanity, but situated within our concrete existence.
What prevents it from being objective? Are you suggesting that which is objective is incapable of change?