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

[Ken-1122]

Then why do you have a chance with other people? What opportunity do you have to examine the biology of other people that you did not have here?

I never claimed to examine the biology of others, I said I make an assumption of their biology based on how they look. You know; kinda like everybody else does.

Poisoning the well. You dismiss it as "absurd" and "a game" in order to justify why you don't want to do it.

I didn’t poison the well; they did when the took the original “I’m a male in a female’s body” to what we have now with a hundred different genders and everybody getting their own pronoun.

 

[Kylie]

Your experiences are a result of stimulus and response and sentience....so I'm not sure exactly what you're asking here....

Could you rephrase the question?

I'm asking how much of who we are is a result of that "stimulus and response and sentience."

 

[Kylie]

I never claimed to examine the biology of others, I said I make an assumption of their biology based on how they look. You know; kinda like everybody else does.

So what? You made an assumption about the person you saw in the men's room and then chose to ignore that in order to accept them at their word. Why can't you do that in other cases?

I didn’t poison the well; they did when the took the original “I’m a male in a female’s body” to what we have now with a hundred different genders and everybody getting their own pronoun.

"Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a type of informal fallacy where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing something that the target person is about to say." SOURCE

Did you present adverse information about a target in order to discredit it or ridicule it?

Yes, when you said "this type of absurdity is a game I do not wish to play." You said it was absurd, and you said it was nothing more than a game.

So yeah, you were poisoning the well.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Simple. You separate gender from biological sex as distinct concepts. In areas that biology isn't relevant, then you speak of gender from it's purely sociological standpoint. In areas that biology does matter, then the sociological concept of gender is irrelevant.

I'd say that's worth considering if it appeared to be a goal the trans activists are satisfied with....

But I don't recall any of them claiming they want the doctor to use the pronouns aligned with biology. They always want to go with the sociological pronouns....regardless of what type of situation.

When you consider that words like "latinx" are steps towards degendering an entire language....it's clear that they want no reference to biology.

In all honesty, masculinity and femininity aren't exactly biological concepts just like sexuality isn't a biological concept. Biology generally creates a disposition one way or the other for all of these things, but they are distinct from scientific facts. So if I decide "he" refers to masculine folk and "she" refers to feminine folk, who's to say I'm wrong? Humans literally just made up language anyways.

I'm not concerned with ideas about gender roles or norms. Whatever is left once you remove those from the term gender....that's all we need to discuss.

I can use whichever pronouns match the masculine or feminine way people present themselves without lying because those pronouns have nothing to do with the concept of biological sex for me.

How does one present themselves as a "they"?

And if those pronouns don't connect in any way to biological sex....what are they connecting to? Fashion? Behavior?

If the trans person thinks differently about that, so what? Who cares? I didn't create the confrontation that will spark that discussion that I don't want to bother with anyways.

And sure, going along with pronouns might make some folk ask for more, so then you just say "no" to the unreasonable stuff. Slippery Slope is a fallacy. You can say, "Sure, whatever" to reasonable stuff without becoming obligated to go along with just any old thing.

And that's the thing....people seem willing to allow a lot so long as they aren't the ones who have to deal with it.

As for the claim of detaching gender from sex...I doubt you seriously believe this. Why the hesitation and dodging of the question I posed to you? You don't have to provide graphic detail....you can simply say that you would or wouldn't engage in a sexual relationship with such a person.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Why do I need to write out the answer to this? Surely you read the exchange that you inserted yourself into before posting... right?

I read a few posts prior....I skipped over the knowing vs believing stuff.

It seems that your response to whether or not biology is related to the terms man and woman can be easily understood by the answer you give.

Whether or not she is actually a she or if she is actually a well disguised he seems to be an inference we can make from your answer.

 

[Ken-1122]

So what? You made an assumption about the person you saw in the men's room and then chose to ignore that in order to accept them at their word. Why can't you do that in other cases?.

That IS what I would do. I'm not gonna tell a complete stranger who looks like a woman, that they are a man! If that is the impression I gave you, you've misunderstood me.[/QUOTE]

 

[Kylie]

That IS what I would do. I'm not gonna tell a complete stranger who looks like a woman, that they are a man! If that is the impression I gave you, you've misunderstood me.

But you've stated many times essentially that.

If you meet someone who was born with a penis and they tell you that they are a woman, what pronouns would you use if you told me about it later? Would you refer to them as a he or a she?

 

[didactics]

But you've stated many times essentially that.

If you meet someone who was born with a penis and they tell you that they are a woman, what pronouns would you use if you told me about it later? Would you refer to them as a he or a she?

Let me know if you don't like me butting in here. I just wanted to insert my own thoughts on this one. If it were me, I would not immediately jump to conclusions. I would ask for clarification. I might say, "Are you telling me you're trans?" If he says, "Yes", I might not care, but that doesn't mean that I don't value him as a human being. It just means that I've made up my mind not to respect by using his preferred pronouns. What's the worst that can happen? Does he report me to HR? (If we're in the workplace)

 

[Kylie]

Let me know if you don't like me butting in here. I just wanted to insert my own thoughts on this one. If it were me, I would not immediately jump to conclusions. I would ask for clarification. I might say, "Are you telling me you're trans?" If he says, "Yes", I might not care, but that doesn't mean that I don't value him as a human being. It just means that I've made up my mind not to respect by using his preferred pronouns. What's the worst that can happen? Does he report me to HR? (If we're in the workplace)

My thoughts are that it makes no difference to me. I see no need to ask a person if they are trans if I suspect they are, in just the same way I wouldn't feel the need to ask a person in a wheelchair why they are in that wheelchair.

As far as I am concerned, it's a person, treat them with respect.

 

[Ken-1122]

But you've stated many times essentially that.

If you meet someone who was born with a penis and they tell you that they are a woman, what pronouns would you use if you told me about it later? Would you refer to them as a he or a she?

Is this person a biological man or intersexual

 

[Kylie]

Is this person a biological man or intersexual

If you want any more information than what they have provided, you'll have to ask them.

 

[Moral Orel]

As a rule, yes. But there has occasionally been exceptions to that rule done on a case by case basis.

So when you said "no longer" you meant "usually don't". k

 

[Moral Orel]

Some believe that personal pronouns should be assigned on the basis of prevailing cultural gender stereotypes. Others believe that they should be assigned on the basis of the subjective gender preferences of the person being referred to. Which of these two positions do you hold to? If neither, then what third position do you hold to?

By "presents themselves" are you talking primarily about their objective appearance or their subjective beliefs?

For the most part, I'd go with the first. Basically my own subjective expectations of what a guy or gal looks like. Let's be honest, even putting the trans topic aside, it can be ambiguous at times. In those cases the person in question can correct me. And yes, "ambiguous" is subjective as well, but I think that by generally following these guidelines I'm not going to upset anyone minding their own business.

That means I won't be learning any new pronouns. I won't be using "they" as a singular. If you look like Al Borland, I'm not calling you "she". I don't know if that last one is even an actual trans thing, or if that's just a troll move, but I know it happens sometimes.

 

[didactics]

My thoughts are that it makes no difference to me. I see no need to ask a person if they are trans if I suspect they are, in just the same way I wouldn't feel the need to ask a person in a wheelchair why they are in that wheelchair.

As far as I am concerned, it's a person, treat them with respect.

But you've stated many times essentially that.

If you meet someone who was born with a penis and they tell you that they are a woman, what pronouns would you use if you told me about it later? Would you refer to them as a he or a she?

I only replied that way because your hypothetical statement presupposes that it would be news to me. If it wasn't news, then I wasn't using the preferred pronouns to begin with.

 

[Moral Orel]

I'm not concerned with ideas about gender roles or norms. Whatever is left once you remove those from the term gender....that's all we need to discuss.

On the contrary, let's give those concepts of roles and norms to gender, and we'll say "sex" concerns the biological. We have two concepts at play, it creates less confusion to have two words.

And if those pronouns don't connect in any way to biological sex....what are they connecting to? Fashion? Behavior?

Sure, why not? We still have more technical terms when we're talking about biologically pertinent topics, like "male" and "female".

As for the claim of detaching gender from sex...I doubt you seriously believe this. Why the hesitation and dodging of the question I posed to you? You don't have to provide graphic detail....you can simply say that you would or wouldn't engage in a sexual relationship with such a person.

Ahh, your Argument from Silence fallacy is better evidence for what I really believe than what I've already explicitly stated in this very thread. Noted.

 

[Ana the Ist]

On the contrary, let's give those concepts of roles and norms to gender, and we'll say "sex" concerns the biological. We have two concepts at play, it creates less confusion to have two words.

Let's not...norms and roles are matters of expectation. I don't care if some woman or man acts masculine or feminine or in any other way breaks with traditionally understood roles and norms. That's not the issue.

The issue is a claim about feelings and their relationship with someone's identity....and that relationship with the society around them. We can just stick to that.

Sure, why not? We still have more technical terms when we're talking about biologically pertinent topics, like "male" and "female".

Because they don't. We may identify people according to secondary sex characteristics....but those characteristics are not what the words "he" and "she" refer to.

Definition of HE

Note that it refers to a male....as you did regarding biology above.

Ahh, your Argument from Silence fallacy is better evidence for what I really believe than what I've already explicitly stated in this very thread. Noted.

If you already answered my question somewhere in this 30 page thread....please link me the post or at least provide the post number.

I've only pointed out that it's easy to disregard biology when you don't have to confront it in any way that relates to the issue.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm asking how much of who we are is a result of that "stimulus and response and sentience."

When combined with genetics?

I'm guessing about 100%.

 

[Moral Orel]

Let's not...norms and roles are matters of expectation. I don't care if some woman or man acts masculine or feminine or in any other way breaks with traditionally understood roles and norms. That's not the issue.

The issue is a claim about feelings and their relationship with someone's identity....and that relationship with the society around them. We can just stick to that.

We haven't diverged from that. A "gender identity" doesn't have to involve that person's biological sex. The overly-woke folk want to eliminate the concept of biological sex, you want to eliminate the concept of gender identity. They're both clearly at play in this topic. Trying to eliminate ways to convey ideas is only going to lead to confusion.

Because they don't. We may identify people according to secondary sex characteristics....but those characteristics are not what the words "he" and "she" refer to.

Definition of HE

Did you just cite a dictionary definition at me as though it is authoritative? You realize that humans literally just made up language, right?
Words are useful if they convey the meaning you want to get across. When I say "Dave told me that he is going on vacation next week" the only meaning I want to get across is that "he" refers back to "Dave". I'm not trying to convey "Dave who has a penis". So who cares if we always used to think of sex and gender as being inextricably intertwined? They aren't. Big whup. Once you separate the ideas you can enjoy a nuanced position like I do.

If you already answered my question somewhere in this 30 page thread....please link me the post or at least provide the post number.

Hey, did you know that every time you quote someone, that little quote box has a link to where you snipped the quote from? So if you stumble across a conversation that you find interesting, all you have to do is click that little arrow to retrace your steps through that conversation without having to scan page after page for the relevant info you're looking for? Neat huh?

No. If you want to join a conversation midway, it's on you to get yourself up to speed on that conversation. Instead, you chose to come at me with an over the top scenario that had zero bearing on the discussion I was having.

I've only pointed out that it's easy to disregard biology when you don't have to confront it in any way that relates to the issue.

It sure is. It's incredibly useful and saves a lot of time to not confront things that aren't related to an issue. When biology matters, we can talk about it. When it doesn't matter... why are we talking about it?

 

[Ken-1122]

If you want any more information than what they have provided, you'll have to ask them.

How did I find out he has a penis?

 

[Kylie]

I only replied that way because your hypothetical statement presupposes that it would be news to me. If it wasn't news, then I wasn't using the preferred pronouns to begin with.

So if you knew a person was trans, you would deliberately use the wrong pronouns?