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

[Moral Orel]

I do not recommend Promise Keepers as a Christian organization

I used Promise Keepers because they explicitly defined "man" in terms that contradict biology and they are an anti-trans organization. That's all the information I needed to expose the hypocrisy of the "but 'man' and 'woman' always refers to biology" farce of an argument people keep repeating.

 

[Kylie]

Didn’t you just say they wanted their own space? If they are shunned from society as a result of their own space, that’s their doing not mine.

You really think that trans people don't want to be a part of society?

I bring it back to biology because I pointed out I use biology, not gender as defined by progressives. Thats why we’re having this conversation right now!

I'm glad we can admit your ideas are the problem.

As I pointed out before, if you have XX chromosomes instead of XX, if you have a Uterus instead of a prostate, if you have a testosterone level of 15-25 instead of 900-1200, (I could go on but I think you get the picture) you are a biological female; not male. And just for the record; male and female are biological descriptions.

That's a rubbish way of doing it. Are you giving people an examination to see what their chromosomes are before you refer to them as either a man or a woman? You probably can't even tell me what your chromosomes are, or have you had a medical procedure done that specifically checks them? If not, you are just ASSUMING what your chromosomes are based on what you have in your pants. But that's not always accurate. Going by the XX=female and XY=male idea, you're gonna get it wrong sometimes. https://www.accordalliance.org/faqs...-you-a-man-does-lacking-one-make-you-a-woman/

And are you measuring their testosterone levels? Are you conducting an internal examination to see if they have a prostate or a uterus? No, you aren't. You're just using this "biology" as an excuse to justify your disrespect of trans people.

 

[Ken-1122]

Trans people didn't start using "man" and "woman" in nebulous, subjective ways. They continued to use "man" and "woman" in nebulous subjective ways the same way most people do from time to time.

Can you give an example of this happening in the past?

People commonly attribute subjective attributes to "man" and "woman" so we both already understand the concept that "sex" is distinct from "gender". This has been going on a long time before trans people entered the scene.

I believe I said “biology” instead of sex. Can you give examples of gender being distinct from biology in the past?

I never said anything of the sort.

I never said anything of the sort.

I don't know how to respond to questions you pull whole-cloth out of your imagination.

*You said we separate sports based on biological sex, not gender.
*I responded; then why do they fight to have biological men compete against biological women in sports?
*You responded this was due to the arguments people like me make.
*I took this as a claim, if we didn’t make such arguments, they would not fight to have men compete against women. If I’ve misunderstood you, if you meant something different, explain what you meant.

No one is redefining gender. I already demonstrated, and you agreed, that there is a distinction between the concepts of "sex" and "gender"

What post number did I agree to this? Perhaps you misunderstood me.

 

[Ken-1122]

I used Promise Keepers because they explicitly defined "man" in terms that contradict biology and they are an anti-trans organization.

I've already pointed out to you they did not do this. Why do you continue to make this claim?

 

[Ken-1122]

You really think that trans people don't want to be a part of society?

I was just going by what YOU said.

I'm glad we can admit your ideas are the problem.

No; I think my ideas are brilliant; you are the one who seems to see it as a problem.

That's a rubbish way of doing it. Are you giving people an examination to see what their chromosomes are before you refer to them as either a man or a woman?

Of course not! I make assumptions about them based on how they look. That’s what everyone does.

 

[Moral Orel]

I've already pointed out to you they did not do this. Why do you continue to make this claim?

Because it's true and your refutation failed. If a real man weeps, then a biological male who does not weep is not a man. If a person can be a biological male and at the same not be a man, then the concepts are distinct.

Can you give an example of this happening in the past?

See above.

I believe I said “biology” instead of sex. Can you give examples of gender being distinct from biology in the past?

Sex refers to biology, gender does not.
See above.

*I responded; then why do they fight to have biological men compete against biological women in sports?

That's a lie. Or do you expect me to believe you don't know what you said?

What post number did I agree to this? Perhaps you misunderstood me.

I pointed it out when you did it and you did not contend it. If you need to reread posts to refresh your memory to keep up with the conversation, that's on you. If you can't keep up with the conversation, that's your failing and not my responsibility.

 

[Ken-1122]

Because it's true and your refutation failed. If a real man weeps, then a biological male who does not weep is not a man. If a person can be a biological male and at the same not be a man, then the concepts are distinct.

Again; they were using the “no true scotsman” fallacy, referring to men vs real men. They were not claiming people who do not do as they claimed were not men, but rather women, animals, or something else. I think you know this, but are so desperate to get a win, you’ve hit rock bottom, and have now started to dig!
What Is the "No True Scotsman" Fallacy?

See above.

Proven wrong; see above.

Sex refers to biology, gender does not.

Again; point to an example from the past of gender not being in reference to biological sex.

That's a lie. Or do you expect me to believe you don't know what you said?

It was not an exact quote; the jest was the same. I don’t recall the exact words I used, but my point was, sports are not always separated by biology, there is an attempt to separate them by gender, with gender to be defined by what goes on inside your head.

I pointed it out when you did it and you did not contend it. If you need to reread posts to refresh your memory to keep up with the conversation, that's on you. If you can't keep up with the conversation, that's your failing and not my responsibility.

I suspect either you misunderstood me, or you are willfully being dishonest. For the record, I do not agree with that position, so please refrain from claiming that I do.

 

[didactics]

Does having a Y chromosome make you a man? Does lacking one make you a woman? | Accord Alliance

Something doesn’t seem right here. Take a look at this from Medline Plus:


“Androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS) is when a person who is genetically male (who has one X and one Y chromosome) is resistant to male hormones (called androgens). As a result, the person has some of the physical traits of a woman, but the genetic makeup of a man.”
Androgen insensitivity syndrome: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia



Now look at what you have posted from Accord Alliance:


“But there are girls and women who have XY chromosomes. This can happen, for example, when a girl has androgen insensitivity syndrome.”
https://www.accordalliance.org/faqs...-you-a-man-does-lacking-one-make-you-a-woman/



That’s not correct. That’s a mistake. What Accord Alliance was describing is true of females with Swyer syndrome:


“In approximately 15-20 percent of patients, Swyer syndrome occurs due to mutations of the sex-determining region Y (SRY) gene on the Y chromosome or deletion of the segment of the Y chromosome containing the SRY gene.”
https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/swyer-syndrome/



This statement was correct from Accord Alliance:


“And there are boys and men who have XX chromosomes. This can happen, for example, when a gene on the Y chromosome ends up on an X chromosome, causing that X chromosome to function more like a Y.”


This is what’s known as de la Chapelle syndrome, and you can read about it here: https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/46xx-testicular-disorder-of-sex-development/


But are you noticing something? Females with Swyer syndrome have a mutation occurring or deletion on important parts of the SRY gene. With de la Chapelle syndrome, a translocation occurs, a piece of the SRY gene attaches with an X chromosome.

But maybe it’s just a battle over words. Was Accord Alliance implying that a male with androgen insensitivity syndrome can be someone who self identifies as a girl or woman?

 

[Moral Orel]

It was not an exact quote; the jest was the same.

No, it was not. For someone so obsessed with words, you sure don't care about what you really say.

For the record, I do not agree with that position, so please refrain from claiming that I do.

No walking stuff back just because you don't like what it means for your position. Sex and gender are distinct concepts, you accepted it, now move on.

 

[Kylie]

I was just going by what YOU said.

And taking it to a ludicrous extreme.

No; I think my ideas are brilliant; you are the one who seems to see it as a problem.

You are the only one who thinks your ideas are brilliant. I've not seen anyone else here who says they agree with you.

Of course not! I make assumptions about them based on how they look. That’s what everyone does.

And you hold your assumptions to be a more accurate representation of who they are than what they actually tell you.

 

[Kylie]

Something doesn’t seem right here. Take a look at this from Medline Plus:


“Androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS) is when a person who is genetically male (who has one X and one Y chromosome) is resistant to male hormones (called androgens). As a result, the person has some of the physical traits of a woman, but the genetic makeup of a man.”
Androgen insensitivity syndrome: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia



Now look at what you have posted from Accord Alliance:


“But there are girls and women who have XY chromosomes. This can happen, for example, when a girl has androgen insensitivity syndrome.”
Does having a Y chromosome make you a man? Does lacking one make you a woman? | Accord Alliance



That’s not correct. That’s a mistake. What Accord Alliance was describing is true of females with Swyer syndrome:


“In approximately 15-20 percent of patients, Swyer syndrome occurs due to mutations of the sex-determining region Y (SRY) gene on the Y chromosome or deletion of the segment of the Y chromosome containing the SRY gene.”
Swyer syndrome - NORD (National Organization for Rare Disorders)



This statement was correct from Accord Alliance:


“And there are boys and men who have XX chromosomes. This can happen, for example, when a gene on the Y chromosome ends up on an X chromosome, causing that X chromosome to function more like a Y.”


This is what’s known as de la Chapelle syndrome, and you can read about it here: 46,XX testicular disorder of sex development: MedlinePlus Genetics


But are you noticing something? Females with Swyer syndrome have a mutation occurring or deletion on important parts of the SRY gene. With de la Chapelle syndrome, a translocation occurs, a piece of the SRY gene attaches with an X chromosome.

But maybe it’s just a battle over words. Was Accord Alliance implying that a male with androgen insensitivity syndrome can be someone who self identifies as a girl or woman?

Sorry, are you suggesting that Swyer syndrome and AIS are the same thing?

 

[Ken-1122]

No, it was not. For someone so obsessed with words, you sure don't care about what you really say.

I care about exact words when exact words are important. In this case exact words were not important as long as my point is understood.

No walking stuff back just because you don't like what it means for your position. Sex and gender are distinct concepts, you accepted it, now move on.

There is no moving on with this. I've was clear, I do not agree with that. If you wish to continue with this conversation, you need to respect what I say my beliefs are and are not.

 

[Ken-1122]

You are the only one who thinks your ideas are brilliant. I've not seen anyone else here who says they agree with you.

Check out post #669, 726, & 739. It's been approx once per day. How many likes and agrees have you gotten lately?

And you hold your assumptions to be a more accurate representation of who they are than what they actually tell you.

As I said before, once I entered a public men room, I saw what looked like a lady, I said this is the mens room, this person said he was a man. I assumed he was a biological man and went about my business.

 

[Kylie]

Check out post #669, 726, & 739. It's been approx once per day. How many likes and agrees have you gotten lately?

I ask for examples of people who agree with you, and the only person you can show is yourself.

Of course, if you are claiming that the number of "likes" we have is somehow important, then let me point out this:

I joined in November 2013, and you joined in January 2011. You've been here for nearly three years more than I have. In that time, how many likes have we received?

Likes:
Kylie: 1567
Ken: 466

Prayers:
Kylie: 9
Ken: 9

Agrees:
Kylie: 1909
Ken: 672

Funny:
Kylie: 245
Ken: 31

Winner:
Kylie: 405
Ken: 204

Informative:
Kylie: 152
Ken: 56

Friendly:
Kylie: 43
Ken: 27

Useful:
Kylie: 43
Ken: 31

Optimistic:
Kylie: 281
Ken: 35

If you want to see for yourself, you can check my profile page HERE, and yours HERE.

So, I've received more likes than you in every single category, despite having been for less time than you! And don't try to tell me that it's because I have more posts than you. I have a total of 13,142 posts and you have 12,475. That's less than a 10 percent difference. Just 667 posts difference. But by all means, let's play that game, shall we? Because it looks like I win.

As I said before, once I entered a public men room, I saw what looked like a lady, I said this is the mens room, this person said he was a man. I assumed he was a biological man and went about my business.

And if this person was born with a vagina, you'd refer to them as "she," wouldn't you?

 

[Moral Orel]

I care about exact words when exact words are important.

I answered the question you asked. The question you asked was not what you later claimed it was.

the jest was the same. I don’t recall the exact words I used

You claim to know the gist was the same, but you don't know what you said... lol

you need to respect what I say my beliefs are and are not.

Not after you tell me what they really are and then change them back after you realize what it means to your "argument".

There is no moving on with this. I've was clear, I do not agree with that.

I know you're dead in the water with this startling revelation that treating gender as something non-biological was already normal. But those are the facts I demonstrated. Now you're lying, as you've lied so many times before, because the implications of you acknowledging that distinction absolutely destroys the farce you've perpetuating thus far.

There is a whole other concept as to the preferences, behaviors, and feelings people typically attribute the qualities of "masculine" and "feminine" to, and that concept is gender. You want to shut down conversations by controlling their speech so that they can't talk about that concept, and you've admitted that as well. We can't even get to a real conversation about where biological sex matters and where gender matters because you're dying on the hill of your fallacies.

It's over. You lost. I've demonstrated that you're putting up a dishonest, fallacious argument. You're not going to get any better. You aren't going to be convinced otherwise because your Equivocation Fallacy that you think is an argument is, by definition, unreasonable and irrational.

 

[Ken-1122]

I ask for examples of people who agree with you, and the only person you can show is yourself.

No; I provided proof of other people who agree with me.

I've received more likes than you in every single category, despite having been for less time than you!

The fact that more people like your responses than mine does not surprise me. I stay away from forums where most share my views, I prefer discussions where I get more disagreements because I like knowing how the other side think, and I like having my views challenged.

And if this person was born with a vagina, you'd refer to them as "she," wouldn't you?

Again; if this person were a biological female, I would refer to them as a biological female. However there was no way for me to find out, so I took them at their word.

 

[Ken-1122]

I answered the question you asked. The question you asked was not what you later claimed it was.

How was it different?

You claim to know the gist was the same, but you don't know what you said... lol

Wrong. I made the point that progressives have fought to have biological men compete in female sports.

Not after you tell me what they really are and then change them back after you realize what it means to your "argument".

I didn’t do that.

I know you're dead in the water with this startling revelation that treating gender as something non-biological was already normal. But those are the facts I demonstrated.

You keep saying this, I keep asking for examples of this happening in the past, and you seem to forget to provide examples. Again; provide examples of this happening in the past.
And don’t go bringing back that Promise Keepers absurdity, you know better than that.

There is a whole other concept as to the preferences, behaviors, and feelings people typically attribute the qualities of "masculine" and "feminine" to, and that concept is gender.

True! And that concept has a history of bigotry, misogamy, and justifying male dominated societies. I thought we were supposed to be past that already. We’re supposed to be in a society where women can do anything a man can do; these gender roles and limitations is supposed to be something we are trying to get away from.

 

[Moral Orel]

How was it different?

Go back and read your own posts. I'm not looking them up for you just because you wanted to write something other than what you actually wrote. You could have referenced your own words a long time ago when it was just a few posts ago. You chose to make things up instead. That's what you do.

Wrong. I made the point that progressives have fought to have biological men compete in female sports.

Wrong. You asked a question, which is not making a point, and "why do they fight?" was not the question. You've already admitted you don't remember what you said. How are you telling me what you said??

I answered the question you asked, and then you responded to my post as though I answered a question you just made up that never happened. You sure do make a lot of stuff up.

I didn’t do that.

You did. Now you're lying about it.

You keep saying this, I keep asking for examples of this happening in the past, and you seem to forget to provide examples. Again; provide examples of this happening in the past.
And don’t go bringing back that Promise Keepers absurdity, you know better than that.

That's the example you acknowledged was making a distinction, so yeah, I don't need another example. The concept of "manhood" is distinct from the concept of "biological male". It didn't need proving because it's so common, but I proved it anyways.

I don't care if you lie some more and say that acknowledgement never happened. It did, you lost. Your whole argument rests on one big Equivocation Fallacy and a giant pile of lies.

 

[Moral Orel]

No; I provided proof of other people who agree with me.

Now you're lying to @Kylie too? You provided proof of one person agreeing with you, not "people".

 

[didactics]

Sex refers to biology, gender does not.
See above.

According to etymonline.com, the word “transgendered” came into existence in 1974. The Promise Keepers was founded in 1990.