When two worldviews collide.

[Bradskii]

Wait until you are 18. These things aren't taken on a case by case basis why should medical transitioning?

Because you don't undergo a considerable amount of psychological interviews and medical examinations to determine if you can buy booze, drive a truck etc. I explained that to you. Did you miss it? Medical procedures aren't determined by age. They are determined by what is best for the person involved. On (and here it comes again) an individual basis.

If you think that psychological decisions should be made on individuals, and most of us do, then it makes no sense to determine that a person is entirely competent to make decisions as to what that person wants and then say 'But hang on, we have to wait a few weeks for her birthday.'

Age is, and always should be, used as a guide as to what's best. But only as a guide. People (I need an acronym for this) must, and will be, treated on an individual basis. Tough luck if you disagree. That's the way it works.

 

[Bradskii]

And no one should be required to use pronouns that don't actually belong to the person.

You can use whatever you like. And you will be judged on it.

 

[rjs330]

In some cases it's hard to tell. So yeah, it's really handy if they give some indication. If I didn't know the dude in the picture I would have no idea just by looking at him. We had a thing in an office where I worked where we brought in pictures of ourselves from our younger days and everyone had to guess who they belonged to. Mine was taken when I was 16. Hair down to here. Good looking kid. Fresh faced. Too cute for words. Two people thought the picture was of one of the electrical engineers. She wasn't pleased.

And what is a man? Good grief, these dopey questions never end. Are you talking biologically or in regards to gender? Most of us biological guys were born male and have the requisite wedding tackle and if someone asks because there may be some doubt (if for example you have long hair and look cute, like I did) you may have to nominate.

If someone considers themselves female and is transitioning but still has that afore mentioned equipment then it will be up to that person if they would like you to consider them male or female. Yeah, I know. Tough for you to do. But do your best.

Well pictures are always the best way to tell. A man can have long hair and these days a woman can grow a beard.

But do really expect me to buy the fact that when meeting someone you have no clue if they are a man or woman? You said your wife tells you she is. You didn't know that? When you started dating did you have to clarify whether or not you were a man or woman?

The question isn't dopey, but the answers sure can be. Just answer the question to the best of you ability.

 

[Bradskii]

Well pictures are always the best way to tell. A man can have long hair and these days a woman can grow a beard.

But do really expect me to buy the fact that when meeting someone you have no clue if they are a man or woman? You said your wife tells you she is. You didn't know that? When you started dating did you have to clarify whether or not you were a man or woman?

The question isn't dopey, but the answers sure can be. Just answer the question to the best of you ability.

I already did...

If someone is introduced as Jack and looks like a dude then I will refer to him as a dude unless I am corrected. Likewise if someone is introduced as Jill and looks like a woman then I will refer to her as a woman. Unless I am corrected.

Sometimes, and this has always been the case (an old friend of mine very many years ago thought he was in with a chance with the person he was chatting to - until we pointed out that it was, shades of The Crying Game, a guy), it's a little vague. Maybe where you live all the guys wear hats and chew tobacco and look tough and all the ladies wear frocks and makeup and giggle a lot. That's not the same here. Sometimes it's best to check. I've done it more than once in company. And literally last week I called the person behind the bar 'mate' and got a scowl in return. From her.

Why do you see this as such a problem?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sure. But we do use 1. And so "1" can mean more than one thing.

Right....the symbol 1 can have more than a single concept attached to it. These are however, completely different and unrelated concepts. In a binary language where the symbol 1 means "on" that symbol has a completely different concept from the numerical concept of "one".

In other words, I can't take the binary concept attached to 1 and interchange it with the numerical concept of 1. For example....

"On + on = 2" doesn't make any sense. It doesn't make any sense in the same way that "off + off = 6" doesn't make any sense. In other words....I can't swap out the two different concepts because they are completely different and unrelated to each other. The binary meanings and numerical meanings are completely different.

This is also how I know and have proven (several times in this thread btw) that the concepts of "biological sex" and "gender" aren't just similar....they are nearly 100% the same concept. I wouldn't be able to swap out the two concepts as I did several times in the thread and still have those paragraphs mean the exact same thing.

Let's continue setting that aside for a moment though and go back to the word "woman" that brought us here in the first place. I was taking the position that trans activists were trying to change the biological meaning of the word woman that refers to chromosomes, reproductive organs, gametes, etc.

You on the other hand claimed that they aren't trying to change the biological meaning of woman (the one that refers to the biological concept of "woman") at all but instead.....they wanted to expand the socio-cultural meaning of woman....something that apparently, isn't the same as the biological concept of "woman". I replied to this (and I'm paraphrasing here) that I only know the biological concept because we've essentially removed basically all the socio-cultural limitations on what a woman can be. I told you that I essentially only go by the biological concept of women.....something you seemed to think was either very unlikely or outright impossible.

I was hoping to demonstrate that it's n9t only possible....but you do it all the time. The numerical concept of 1 not only doesn't have a socio-cultural definition or meaning....you had to find another language (binary) to even find a different concepts.

Now, so we don't continue to go in circles at the beginning of each reply....I'm going to separate this from the rest of my reply. It's rather simple at this point....

1. Do you still think that trans activists are trying to expand this fabled "socio-cultural definition of woman" that's not related to the biological concept of woman?

2. If so, do you think you can even provide me with the socio-cultural definition of "woman" that seems to have become the running joke of conversations on this topic? Fair warning, if you refer to the link you provided I will likewise use that link to show my position....even though I don't think I can copypaste the text I can simply screenshot the pages.

I will reply to the remainder of your post here in my next reply.

How is language not a socio-cultural example? What is language if not socio-cultural?

And I said that I'm pretty skeptical that pretty much anyone manages to have a concept of "man" or "woman" which isn't culturally freighted in any way. I still am.

Well, men can't be members, by definition.

But society is so much more than what's controlled by government.

Are we? I thought we were looking for ways in which social definitions of men and women applied.

Yes, it is. And a few posts back you conceded it was (with your comments about wordplay).

The first seems fairly frivolous to me, the second not superfluous at all. If we're going to design cars for safety, surely we ought to make sure they're safe for people who aren't the size, shape and weight of the average bloke?

I can certainly see possible solutions beyond that. Like actually nurturing attitudes of valuing and celebrating diversity.

Well, it hasn't.

Things like closing the global lliteracy gap, providing basic perinatal care to all, and working to overcome the worst of the world's poverty (which disproportionately impacts women) are right up there.

Lol. In a Christian worldview, Caesar is always subordinate to God.

Destroy society? No. Improve society, which might involve some deconstruction along the way? For sure. After all, if (for example) we actually managed to successfully challenge the worlds military-industrial complex and its cavalier destruction on a large scale, the people being made rich by that structure might well feel that we're (to quote a local radio shock-jock) "destroying the joint." I'd rather have that than thousands more dead innocents, though.

Any power structure that impedes human flourishing is inherently unjust.

Don't mistake me for a Marxist.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Christians can disagree about what we think God's will is.

See my next reply for a response to this section.

 

[Paidiske]

1. Do you still think that trans activists are trying to expand this fabled "socio-cultural definition of woman" that's not related to the biological concept of woman?

I wouldn't phrase it exactly that way, but basically, yes, I believe trans activists are not trying to convince you that a person biologically of one sex is, in fact, able to be biologically of the other sex, but that that person can belong to, and function as a member of, the social category or group associated with the other sex.

Ie: they're not saying that a man can become, in every respect, biologically female. But they're saying that that person can be treated socially as belonging to that side of the binary, in situations where that matters, and that this is what is aimed at with slogans like, "transwomen are women."

2. If so, do you think you can even provide me with the socio-cultural definition of "woman" that seems to have become the running joke of conversations on this topic?

Anyone belonging to the group or category so labelled.

 

[rjs330]

Because you don't undergo a considerable amount of psychological interviews and medical examinations to determine if you can buy booze, drive a truck etc. I explained that to you. Did you miss it? Medical procedures aren't determined by age. They are determined by what is best for the person involved. On (and here it comes again) an individual basis.

If you think that psychological decisions should be made on individuals, and most of us do, then it makes no sense to determine that a person is entirely competent to make decisions as to what that person wants and then say 'But hang on, we have to wait a few weeks for her birthday.'

Age is, and always should be, used as a guide as to what's best. But only as a guide. People (I need an acronym for this) must, and will be, treated on an individual basis. Tough luck if you disagree. That's the way it works.

If you think kids are being given considerable amounts of psychological interviews and medical exams before starting the medical transitioning, I've git a really nice bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Besides affirmative care does not do that. In fact Wpath soc does not require it.

The other point is consent. Which kids don't have the ability to consent to because they don't really understand what they are signing up for. They got some medical doctor affirming their desire, nothing else has been tried and they are being told this will solve all their problems.

Yes waiting few weeks isn't going to harm anyone. I would argue that even 18 year olds are competent enough, but we've given a number on adulthood and I'm fine with that. As long as they accept responsibility for the consequences.

So you are good with 15 year olds getting married? I mean if they see a psychologist and they determine they are competent enough to make that decision?

Tough luck? No that's not the way it works as we've seen in France, Sweden, Finland, the UK etc. And it appears that even Australia is looking at this. So just cause it's the way it works now doesn't mean it's always going to work that way.

Kids should NOT be treated on an individual basis.

 

[rjs330]

I wouldn't phrase it exactly that way, but basically, yes, I believe trans activists are not trying to convince you that a person biologically of one sex is, in fact, able to be biologically of the other sex, but that that person can belong to, and function as a member of, the social category or group associated with the other sex.

What is that other group based upon? What exactly is the social category or group "women" based upon? I think you might have accidentally answered that question, but let's see where it goes.

 

[rjs330]

I wouldn't phrase it exactly that way, but basically, yes, I believe trans activists are not trying to convince you that a person biologically of one sex is, in fact, able to be biologically of the other sex, but that that person can belong to, and function as a member of, the social category or group associated with the other sex.

What is that other group based upon? What exactly is the social category or group "women" based upon? I think you might have accidentally answered that question, but let's see where it

 

[Paidiske]

What is that other group based upon? What exactly is the social category or group "women" based upon?

It's based on a biological reproductive binary.

But that doesn't mean we're never flexible about it as a social category, or that we can't be.

 

[Bradskii]

If you think kids are being given considerable amounts of psychological interviews and medical exams before starting the medical transitioning, I've git a really nice bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Besides affirmative care does not do that. In fact Wpath soc does not require it.

The other point is consent. Which kids don't have the ability to consent to because they don't really understand what they are signing up for. They got some medical doctor affirming their desire, nothing else has been tried and they are being told this will solve all their problems.

Yes waiting few weeks isn't going to harm anyone. I would argue that even 18 year olds are competent enough, but we've given a number on adulthood and I'm fine with that. As long as they accept responsibility for the consequences.

So you are good with 15 year olds getting married? I mean if they see a psychologist and they determine they are competent enough to make that decision?

Tough luck? No that's not the way it works as we've seen in France, Sweden, Finland, the UK etc. And it appears that even Australia is looking at this. So just cause it's the way it works now doesn't mean it's always going to work that way.

Kids should NOT be treated on an individual basis.

Finland is probably the most cautious of any country. But...https://genspect.org/finland-takes-another-look-at-youth-gender-medicine/

'And even though puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones are still available for minors (an argument weaponised by the advocates of gender-affirming care in the US, as Leor Sapir wrote recently), it’s on a carefully-evaluated case-by-case basis in those with early-childhood onset of gender dysphoria and no co-occurring mental health conditions.'

Do you see that? Carefully evaluated case-by-case basis. Gee, why hasn't anyone suggested that..?

So Finland is your go-to example of what should be done. So do you agree it can be done on 'a carefully-evaluated case-by-case basis in those with early-childhood onset of gender dysphoria and no co-occurring mental health conditions.'?

No, you don't. So what really is the point of bringing them up as a great example?

 

[rjs330]

It's based on a biological reproductive binary.

But that doesn't mean we're never flexible about it as a social category, or that we can't be.

A social category that's based upon biological reproductive category (women,) that allows men in it is no longer a social category based on big logical reproduction. It's just group open to all and not based on anything. It certainly isn't a women's group.

 

[Paidiske]

A social category that's based upon biological reproductive category (women,) that allows men in it is no longer a social category based on big logical reproduction. It's just group open to all and not based on anything. It certainly isn't a women's group.

Or we could be more nuanced and have social categories based on biological reproductive binaries, but open (by negotiation) to trans people, and even others on occasion (as often happens now for particular purposes). And for most things, most of the time, that would be fine.

As I understand it, this is pretty much what trans activists are asking for (to go back to the point Ana and I were debating), except perhaps that they want to remove the negotiation bit and basically make it open without question to trans people.

 

[rjs330]

Finland is probably the most cautious of any country. But...https://genspect.org/finland-takes-another-look-at-youth-gender-medicine/

'And even though puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones are still available for minors (an argument weaponised by the advocates of gender-affirming care in the US, as Leor Sapir wrote recently), it’s on a carefully-evaluated case-by-case basis in those with early-childhood onset of gender dysphoria and no co-occurring mental health conditions.'

Do you see that? Carefully evaluated case-by-case basis. Gee, why hasn't anyone suggested that..?

So Finland is your go-to example of what should be done. So do you agree it can be done on 'a carefully-evaluated case-by-case basis in those with early-childhood onset of gender dysphoria and no co-occurring mental health conditions.'?

No, you don't. So what really is the point of bringing them up as a great example?

I wonder seriously why you aren't saying "So, Sweden is your go to example of what should be done"? Could it be because Sweden isn't doing what Finland does? Yes, I think that's it. Finland is just one of many countries I've mentioned. Why isn't Sweden or the UK my "go to example?". Oh I know, it's because they disagree with you.

And Finlands approach seems far and away better than what we have here, which isn't even close.

 

[Bradskii]

I wonder seriously why you aren't saying "So, Sweden is your go to example of what should be done"? Could it be because Sweden isn't doing what Finland does? Yes, I think that's it. Finland is just one of many countries I've mentioned. Why isn't Sweden or the UK my "go to example?". Oh I know, it's because they disagree with you.

And Finlands approach seems far and away better than what we have here, which isn't even close.

I mentioned Finland because it was the example you originally used. Used as...what? What we should be doing? Well, it can't be that because you disagree with them in any case. And Sweden will allow puberty blockers and hormone treatment at age 16 on a case by case basis, individually assessed. So do you agree with that? No. Again you don't.

How is it possible for you to offer examples of what should be done when you state that it should not be done at all. How can you say it's 'far and away better' when you think it's worse than doing nothing? It's simply bizarre.

 

[Sabri]

I'm an atheist. I don't believe that God exists. I'm an agnostic. I have no proof that He doesn't.

The first concerns belief. The second knowledge.

The second is tied in to science. Most things in science cannot be proved. Which is where Mike gets confused between faith, belief and knowledge.

When did you come to become an Atheist. We’re you a Christian and then transitioned to become an Atheist?

 

[Sabri]

I said, and this is the last time I will say it, you have been told all you need to know and you will be told nothing more.

It’s funny that you don’t give details, but demand details from others. Isn’t it ironic?

 

[rjs330]

Or we could be more nuanced and have social categories based on biological reproductive binaries, but open (by negotiation) to trans people, and even others on occasion (as often happens now for particular purposes). And for most things, most of the time, that would be fine.

As I understand it, this is pretty much what trans activists are asking for (to go back to the point Ana and I were debating), except perhaps that they want to remove the negotiation bit and basically make it open without question to trans people.

Well groups can do whatever they want. You get to choose who you want in and who you don't. But if your group claims to be a woman's group based on biological reproductive capabilities and then allows men into the group it ceases to be a woman's group based on biology. It's just a group. It's no longer a woman's group. See patriarchy wins again.

You are right trans people want to be allowed to be a part of groups that are based on biology. A biology that they don't possess. This is an elimination of biological groups. It's just a group open to anyone. It's no longer a men's group or a woman's group.

The group might as well say they are a womans group open to women and men who think they are women. I think men who don't think they are women would have an argument to join as well because they too are biological males. And as long as you are letting in one kind of biological males it's discrimination not to allow other kinds of biological males. Why are they discriminating based upon some existential feeling?

 

[Ana the Ist]

How is language not a socio-cultural example?

Language is socio-cultural. Of course it is....I'm not arguing otherwise.

The concepts aren't necessarily socio-cultural though. Language uses words to express concepts.

So each language may have a different word for the numerical concept of the number 1.....those concepts are not socio-cultural. They all refer to the exact same concept.....regardless of language, culture, society, or time. That's why when ancient Romans subtract III from X they get VII....just as we subtract 3 from 10 and get 7. Whatever the ancient Latin term for woman was....my guess is it referred to the one of the two sexes capable of bearing children.

What is language if not socio-cultural?

All of them are....but we aren't talking about language, we're talking about the concepts they describe.

I'm hoping that this is a good faith question and not an attempt to obfuscate.

And I said that I'm pretty skeptical that pretty much anyone manages to have a concept of "man" or "woman" which isn't culturally freighted in any way. I still am.

Well you'll need to pull up that non-biological definition of man or woman that's essentially one steeped in socio-cultural meaning....I don't even care which culture you choose....yours or mine will do.

Well, men can't be members, by definition.

Again, that's not stopping them from attending meetings or supporting the group it seems so a better example is needed.

But society is so much more than what's controlled by government.

And this is why I often describe wokism as authoritarian or totalitarian in nature. I don't need the moral opinions of the woke to guide my behavior any more than I do Christians.

Are we? I thought we were looking for ways in which social definitions of men and women applied.

I'm no longer sure you even have a social definition.

Yes, it is. And a few posts back you conceded it was (with your comments about wordplay).

I "conceded" that they were trying to change the biological meaning of woman or man. That's the wordplay they've engaged in. I'm fairly certain you know this as well so please don't mischaracterize my argument. If you want, I will begin screenshotting the pages and proving my point.

The first seems fairly frivolous to me, the second not superfluous at all. If we're going to design cars for safety, surely we ought to make sure they're safe for people who aren't the size, shape and weight of the average bloke?

That's an argument that recognizes an inherent biological difference between men and women....something denied by those who wish for trans women to participate in women's sports.

I can certainly see possible solutions beyond that. Like actually nurturing attitudes of valuing and celebrating diversity.

You can't control people's thoughts....nor should you seek to. If you want to eliminate racism or at least minimize it to the least amount of significance....then you must promote the idea it has no value (which is the proven objective fact). As long as you promote the idea it has value (contrary to fact) then you will never control what that value is...and many will inevitably decide upon a negative value for some races.

Well, it hasn't.

What rights don't women have to Australia? They have at least all the same rights men do in the US.

Things like closing the global lliteracy gap, providing basic perinatal care to all, and working to overcome the worst of the world's poverty (which disproportionately impacts women) are right up there.

So feminism has no need to exist in your nation?

Lol. In a Christian worldview, Caesar is always subordinate to God.

It would seem Jesus contradicted himself then.

Destroy society? No.

Didn't you already concede that?

Improve society, which might involve some deconstruction along the way?

aka destroy society. Take a look at what your faith based ideology has wrought here in the US. It's only hurt everything it's tried to improve.

For sure. After all, if (for example) we actually managed to successfully challenge the worlds military-industrial complex and its cavalier destruction on a large scale, the people being made rich by that structure might well feel that we're (to quote a local radio shock-jock) "destroying the joint." I'd rather have that than thousands more dead innocents, though.

The woke here got us involved in a war immediately after they helped remove a president who was ending wars.

Any power structure that impedes human flourishing is inherently unjust.

If you could reliably identify such power structures I'd agree. Unfortunately, the woke here destroyed the police....a group that was helping the black community....and the results are disasterous.

Don't mistake me for a Marxist.

Just because you don't know your master's name doesn't mean you don't serve him.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Christians can disagree about what we think God's will is.

But you cannot both be correct.

 

[rjs330]

I mentioned Finland because it was the example you originally used. Used as...what? What we should be doing? Well, it can't be that because you disagree with them in any case. And Sweden will allow puberty blockers and hormone treatment at age 16 on a case by case basis, individually assessed. So do you agree with that? No. Again you don't.

How is it possible for you to offer examples of what should be done when you state that it should not be done at all. How can you say it's 'far and away better' when you think it's worse than doing nothing? It's simply bizarre.

No Finland was not the example I first used. I used Europe as the example and included countries who have moved away from Wpath affirmative model. Finland was one of them. They were not THE example but one of many. I don't know what you didn't say Sweden was THE example I originally used.

Well I do actually because Sweden doesn't agree with you. So you can't use them.

But let's look at Finland shall we? Finland continued to allow kids with early childhood dysphoria to have the possibility of medicalization. This despite the fact that their research showed dubious results of it. And they are doing it against the findings of their own reviews. They realize they are EXPERIMENTING on a VERY SMALL subset of children who claim dysphoria. They fully accept that what they are doing is experimenting on kids as research and not because they have come to some conclusion this is the right thing to do. So even they do not agree with you on this.

Unless you are claiming it's being done in Australia and the US as an research experiment on a tiny majority of kids in an experimental clinic.