When two worldviews collide.

[stevevw]

All they were arguing about was the terminology being used which might cause problems in a medical sense. That was plainly obvious. There were NOT denying that gender exists, which was the reason you posted the link in response to the two I gave which defined it. And what did we find? Another two definitions of gender which exactly matched the ones I gave you.

Rather than giving evidence that it doesn't exist, you actually presented evidence that it does. Now you have 4 examples of a definition for gender, could you tell me exactly what part of it with which you have a problem?

Tell me if they say gender identity exists then why have they called for the reality of womens sex replace gender identity. How is this not denying or at least deminishing gender identity.

I mean thats what its all about isn't it words, narratives and "terminology" ect represent reality according to ideologues. So if womens sex narratives and terminology replaces gender identity ones then that is literally denying gender identity.

They are not going to come out and explicitly say gender identity is unreal. They are smarter than that as they would be in big trouble if they did. No they used the science and logic to make the case. But its still more or less saying gender identity is unreal when it comes to the reality of womens sex.

 

[Bradskii]

I mean they are not going to come out and explicitly say gender identity is unreal.

I'm glad you agree that they didn't say it. Because they never came close to denying that it exists. But which is actually the reason you linked to that article. And, as I said, the article gave the definition of gender twice so that people reading it wouldn't be as confused about what was said as you were.

Now you have a number of definitions from separate sources, one from a conservative newspaper. Now you can tell me what you disagree with in those definitions. And this time you can use as many links as you like to back up your opinion.

I'll be here hanging around here while you're considering that, so no need to rush.

 

[stevevw]

I'm glad you agree that they didn't say it. Because they never came close to denying that it exists. But which is actually the reason you linked to that article. And, as I said, the article gave the definition of gender twice so that people reading it wouldn't be as confused about what was said as you were.

Now you have a number of definitions from separate sources, one from a conservative newspaper. Now you can tell me what you disagree with in those definitions. And this time you can use as many links as you like to back up your opinion.

I'll be here hanging around here while you're considering that, so no need to rush.

Notice how they refer to Queer theory and Postmodernism as the definition of gender identity and that its a subjective social construction. They do this for a reason. If you understand these things then you will know they are implying gender identity is not a real thing as far as the objective reality of sex is concerned. Queer theory is an unscientific idea and Postmodernism is about interpretations of words where words, terminology and narratives create reality.

So yes they were saying when it comes to womens sex gender identity is unreal. Certainly even replacing the terminology of gender identity with womens sex is at the very least deminishing the importance of gender identity. So even if you claim they are not deenying gender identity they are certainly deminishing its importance.

 

[Bradskii]

Notice how they refer to...

I'm not interested in what aspect of gender they were referring or why they were referring to it. The fact that they were talking about it is what should be crashingly obvious to you. Nobody discusses in detail something that they think doesn't exist.

Yet again, you now have 4 definitions of gender which all say the same thing. Denying that it exists at this point is simply being perverse. Reread the definitions (two of which were in your own link) and tell me what about it you disagree with. And link to some evidence that backs up whatever you claim.

 

[stevevw]

I'm not interested in what aspect of gender they were referring or why they were referring to it.

Why that is a very important destinction they are pointing to that relates to how they see gender identity as something unreal. Your actually dismissing an important part of their definition of gender identity. It shows your not interested the facts.

The fact that they were talking about it is what should be crashingly obvious to you. Nobody discusses in detail something that they think doesn't exist.

Yet again, you now have 4 definitions of gender which all say the same thing. Denying that it exists at this point is simply being perverse. Reread the definitions (two of which were in your own link) and tell me what about it you disagree with. And link to some evidence that backs up whatever you claim.

So tell me how does a socially constructed thing exist in reality. How do we measure it to know its a real thing that exists as an objective reality.

The the authors say that a womens sex should replace gender identity how is this not denying or deminishing gender identity.

 

[Bradskii]

Why that is a very important destinction they are pointing to that relates to how they see gender identity as something unreal.

They were talking about confusion with labels. Not arguing that gender doesn't exist. The definitions given (twice) in that same article shows that it does. It was defined twice. I can give you another dozen if you like. Read any one of them and tell me what you disagree with. And link to some evidence to back up any claims you might make.

 

[stevevw]

They were talking about confusion with labels. Not arguing that gender doesn't exist.

The question is why were they talking about that confusion. They were talking about the confusion because a subjective identity was denying biological reality of women and mothers through the terminology. So they are saying gender ideology terminology is making people and especially women confused about the reality of sex. Therefore re-establishing terminology that aligns back with sex will help stop and minimize this confusion.

The definitions given (twice) in that same article shows that it does. It was defined twice. I can give you another dozen if you like. Read any one of them and tell me what you disagree with. And link to some evidence to back up any claims you might make.

So your saying by simply giving a definition you are also agreeing that the definition is correct and factual and something they agree with. So if someone is talking about ghosts for example and give the definition of what a ghost is they are also saying they believe in ghosts.

 

[Bradskii]

So your saying by simply giving a definition you are also agreeing that the definition is correct and factual...

No. I'm saying that the definitions given are the standard definitions for gender. You perversely say that something that is defined in any medical or scientific paper, article, blog or report regarding the matter doesn't exist. So read the definitions and tell me what you think is wrong about them. Please give links to back up any claims that you make.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

We would obviously disagree with that.

Perhaps. But as an Existentialist who treats with academic levels of Critical Analysis, I might surprise you with what I "actually" believe about the nature of the Bible.

You see, the trick is this: neither of us "knows" if the bible is true in any substantial way, but being that we'll both move on daily into the future, we're both going to find out if it is ... and to what extent it is.

You've seen enough of the comments in threads like this to know that there's a significant shortfall in that.

Right. And where education and epistemology and science are central issues, I know it doesn't have to be that way among Christians. But, out of their emotional and social ties, attenuated as they are among those they trust, they decide to be remain in the shortfall.

Which comes in handy when someone tells you that you are wrong. 'Ah, but Jesus said I could expect that happening. So I must be right.'

I don't find it very convenient. And what's more, I never assume I'm right simply because some total Secularist (or fundamenalist Christian) deigns to poke his/her finger into my eye ...

"Rightness" is an epistemic relation to the facts and the evidences and the frailties of human perception. Sometimes, I'm wrong. More often, though, my lack of rightness presents itself simply because I haven't yet studied some aspect of reality (whatever "reality" really is-----it's amazing that so many folks are gung ho to insist to me that "they know").

If you have people denying that gender even exists, if you have people linking to articles that they think back up their position but actually define the very concept they are trying to deny, then it's not ignorance. If you have people saying that gender is determined by your genitalia then it's not ignorance. There is a gargantuan amount of information out there about gender so appealing to ignorance is not an available excuse. It's a denial.

I don't deny that to describe various states of psycho-sexual perception, the term "gender"---like many terms in the history of human language---has been created and/or used in various new ways, linguistically speaking in historical contexts.

Sex and Gender Identity | A guide through the history of sexuality and gender identity.

The point I'm wanting to make here is this: if Secularists want to create/modify their usage of a term to reflect some newer aspect of science (psychology) that have been developed to help treat those with Gender Dysphoria, I'm open to them doing so. They just shouldn't expect everyone else's entire Worldviews to change simply because they're promoting new denotational delineations on their own behalf. Especially not if its done not simply for the sake of science, but for some aspects of social activism, particularly the type that aspires on any "Globalists" levels.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes and in the whole transgenderism ideology it's not just the Christians involved. The left often likes to just think it's only the Christians who are in opposition to this. It's their way of helping to dismiss the arguments against it. It's often the "you're just a Christian who opposition is based on your Christian faith and beliefs." Then they can dismiss any argument you make.

However there are MANY who are against this ideology, particularly for children, who are not Christians. They are scientists, councilors, researchers, psychologists, therapists etc. They have come to realize the scientific basis for this is extremely lacking. The research is garbage and there is zero research to show that transitioning a child even socially is a good thing.

Who are these specific Non-christian scientists, counselors, researchers, psychologists, therapists, etc. ??? Bring forth their work ...

Even societies who have previously embraced the methodology of dealing with trans kids proposed and distributed by transactivist organizations have totally backed away from that. WHO apparently is late to the party and hasn't gotten the memo.
I mean even the Dutch who were strong on this have moved far from their previous positions. Yet leftists want to dismiss all of that and simply focus on, "you are a Christian so what you say is irrelevant because it's only based upon your belief system."

I know it's been used against me. Even when I have never mentioned God or the Bible in my posts of opposition.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No. I'm saying that the definitions given are the standard definitions for gender. You perversely say that something that is defined in any medical or scientific paper, article, blog or report regarding the matter doesn't exist. So read the definitions and tell me what you think is wrong about them. Please give links to back up any claims that you make.

The great thing about "definitions" is that they're never absolute being that they are determined by human usage, not some ontological necessity that we perceive to exist out there in the world around us and to which we've assigned them.

This is why dictionaries don't determine the meaning of words; rather, they report how they have been commonly used.

Moreover, somewhere in the mix of human life and experience, I think we have to remember that "science" isn't a synonym for "reality."

 

[Bradskii]

They just shouldn't expect everyone else's entire Worldviews to change...

People can view the world as best they see it. But we have two non overlapping magisteria here to coin a phrase. Scientific and medical matters aren't based, and nor should they be based, on what is written.

 

[stevevw]

No. I'm saying that the definitions given are the standard definitions for gender.

Yes but your using the fact that the authors gave a definition of gender identity somehow means the authors are acknowledging that gender identity is a real thing that should trump sex. They are not and quite the opposite.

You perversely say that something that is defined in any medical or scientific paper, article, blog or report regarding the matter doesn't exist. So read the definitions and tell me what you think is wrong about them. Please give links to back up any claims that you make.

No I am saying that just because the authors gave the definition doesn't mean 'the authors' think it exists beyond the definition. Definitions don't make things exist in the real world, though Postmodernist think they do. They gave the definition to compare the two postions of gender identity and sex in womens health. This was to show the difference between gender identity being a subjective belief and biological sex being an embodied reality and how the two positions can conflict.

This was necessary to make their arguement that gender identity terminology makes women as a sex invisible and dehumanized. They could not have done that if they did not give the definition of gender identity. So we could say first 'they gave the definition of gender identity' and second 'they showed that this definition is unreal when it comes to womens sex and health'.

That is why they referred to Queer theory and Postmodernism as part of the definition of gender identity. Saying its a subjective idea that is not based in science. This was their basis for saying gender identity should not trump womens sex in the terminology they use because GI is unscientific and womens sex is biological reality.

But they could not have done that without giving the definition of both gender identity and sex. But just because they gave the definition of gender identity 3 times doesn't mean they were also validating gender identity as something real that could trump womens sex. They weren't and in fact were arguing the opposite.

That is why I say we have to go beyond the definitions to the body of the article which goes into details about how womens sex is the reality and gender identity is not and can actually do harm to women, girls and children. Hense the quotes I linked earlier which show this.

At the end of the day what they are advocating (to use sexed terminology instead of the current gender identity terminology) is what gender identity ideologues oppose because it will then make gender identities less important in certain situations. So the authors are certainly not helping their cause according to identity ideological thinking.

 

[Bradskii]

The great thing about "definitions" is that they're never absolute being that they are determined by human usage, not some ontological necessity that we perceive to exist out there in the world around us and to which we've assigned them.

This is why dictionaries don't determine the meaning of words; rather, they report how they have been commonly used.

Moreover, somewhere in the mix of human life and experience, I think we have to remember that "science" isn't a synonym for "reality."

If there is a common definition for something yet somebody denies it exists then their opinion is of no interest to me. If they want to claim it as fact then I expect some evidence from them to back it up. Otherwise...it just remains their opinion and will be treated as such.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If there is a common definition for something yet somebody denies it exists then their opinion is of no interest to me. If they want to claim it as fact then I expect some evidence from them to back it up. Otherwise...it just remains their opinion and will be treated as such.

Where the subscription to a definition is crucial, I'd rather have a clearly and discernibly "substantiated" definition rather than one that is merely "common."

 

[Bradskii]

Yes but your using the fact that the authors gave a definition of gender identity somehow means the authors are acknowledging that gender identity is a real thing that should trump sex.

Sex and gender refer to different things. The article gave the definition of gender. The discussion in the article was about sex and the WHO guidance referred to sex. Following the generally scientific acceptance that a binary definition is not always valid. See here: Sex Redefined: The Idea of 2 Sexes Is Overly Simplistic

That is not something we are discussing nor do I wish to discuss it. It's gender we are discussing and it's gender you say doesn't exist. It's gender that has been defined and it's that definition that you need to address.

Tell me what about it you disagree with and give me some evidence for any claim that you make.

 

[Bradskii]

Where the subscription to a definition is crucial, I'd rather have a clearly and discernibly "substantiated" definition rather than one that is merely "common."

It's not substantiated by virtue of it being common. It's common because it is substantiated. And you are free to argue against the definition just as Steve is.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's not substantiated by virtue of it being common. It's common because it is substantiated. And you are free to argue against the definition just as Steve is.

I'd have to deny that that is the case. There's been known to be a bit of fraud here and there where the sciences are concerned, especially in the "soft" sciences.

So no, I'm going to have to say that "common" usage of a even a scientific term doesn't necessarily equate to, or reflect, that a term has been fully "substantiated."

I know, I know. I'm perverse because I'm going to bring in the mediating effects of applying the epistemic debates that reside within the field of the Philosophy of Science and in the Nature of Science.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sex and gender refer to different things. The article gave the definition of gender. The discussion in the article was about sex and the WHO guidance referred to sex. Following the generally scientific acceptance that a binary definition is not always valid. See here: Sex Redefined: The Idea of 2 Sexes Is Overly Simplistic

That is not something we are discussing nor do I wish to discuss it. It's gender we are discussing and it's gender you say doesn't exist. It's gender that has been defined and it's that definition that you need to address.

Tell me what about it you disagree with and give me some evidence for any claim that you make.

I'd prefer to see some stats on the distribution and range of reported "differences or disorders" on the spectrum ...

Do you have that to help substantiate this article? I have to ask because I find it hard to see a disorder as normalized if it only applies to 1 or 2 percent of the overall population, especially if the "difference" isn't causing any specific problems in reproduction or in psychological coherence where one's perceived gender is essentially being lived out. [E.G. the woman in this article has DSD, but she's still having a baby and still feels to be "a biological woman" who expects to do so.]

 

[Bradskii]

I'd have to deny that that is the case. There's been known to be a bit of fraud here and there where the sciences are concerned, especially in the "soft" sciences.

Don't be nonsensical. There would have to be fraud by every person in every single department that dealt with such matters in every state or country on the planet. With obvious exceptions such as Saudi etc.

But again, you are free to find any authoratitive evidence to the contrary and present it. 'I think there's been a bit of fraud' isn't it.