Is it right or wrong for a person to change the gender they are born with?

[Skepdick]

Do you listen to hypocrites?

Everyone's a hypocrite, so there's no escaping it.

If you don't know what a definition is then this conversation cannot proceed any further.

Obviously! You know what a definition is and I don't. That's why I am asking you to define "definition"!

Do you have a problem with being held accountable to your very own standards of knowledge, or something?

I'm sure you know what it is, but you intellectual dishonesty prevents you from answering the question.

Very well! Take the moral high ground, Mr Intellectual Honesty, and step up to my request.

Define "define".

Thanks for all the meaningless scribbles.

What do you mean by "meaning"?

[Skepdick]

What makes something a penis, or not a penis? What makes something a man, or not a man?

The very process of constructing abstract categories and manufacturing a binary classification rule is what makes something X and not-X.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_rule

You are confusing logic and abstract reasoning for the denotational use of language.

You are confusing some scribble on the screen with what the scribble refers to.

I assure you, the confusion is all yours.

What does logical negation refer to?

I'm not talking about the scribble, "penis".

Neither am I. I am talking about the referent for the scribble "penis". You know damn well I can show you a photo of it!

Why can't you show me a photo of the referent for the scribble "gender" ?

I'm talking about, and have always be talking about, what you want to show me, as that is what words are for: scribbles that show things that are not scribbles (well maybe except for the scribbles, "scribble" and "word".)

After all, what makes a scribble a word and not just a scribble?

Sophist. Here's a photo of a penis. Show me a photo of sex; or gender. Why can't you?

[Trajk Logik]

But you're not as shown by your need to call me names that I did not self-determine.

So what? You don't believe in self-determination.

I've never said such a thing. Define "self-determination". We are our actions, despite what we, or others, might label ourselves as. I can claim to be a baseball player, but if I don't play baseball, am I a baseball player?

As I already mentioned before, one's sexual identity is determined by a very small class of behaviors and properties. A man cannot give birth or have a menstrual cycle, nor do they have any of the other properties (chromosomes, estrogen, etc.) that women have. So a man cannot be a woman, no matter how hard they try.

There are some traits and behaviors that we have no control over having or not. Some we do have control over, like being a baseball player - just need to choose to play baseball. This is why it is considered racist and sexist to judge people based on their skin color or sex, because this is something that they have no control over. We do judge people based on their free choices and actions. Actions speak louder than words and your actions have more to do with your identity than the words of someone that does not know you or has never met you. So we do have some degree of self-determination, but not completely, as evidenced by your request for proof of my claim. What you are requesting is an observation of behaving in some way that shows I am a Dark Lord of the Sith. What behaviors and traits determine, or prove, one is a man or a woman?

[Trajk Logik]

Show me a photo of sex; or gender. Why can't you?

Are you saying that sex and gender do not exist?

Read a biology book.

Do you listen to hypocrites?

Everyone's a hypocrite, so there's no escaping it.

If you don't know what a definition is then this conversation cannot proceed any further.

Obviously! You know what a definition is and I don't. That's why I am asking you to define "definition"!

Do you have a problem with being held accountable to your very own standards of knowledge, or something?

Talk about calling a kettle black.

You wouldn't be able to use the English language without knowing what a definition is. You use definitions by using scribbles to refer to things. Definitions are the relationship between some scribble or utterance and what the scribble or utterance refers to.

Now it is up to you to establish the relationship between the scribble, "gender" and what it refers to, the same as you did with "penis".

[Skepdick]

Show me a photo of sex; or gender. Why can't you?

Are you saying that sex and gender does not exist?

Read a biology book.

Are you saying that God doesn't exist?

Read a Bible.

[Trajk Logik]

Show me a photo of sex; or gender. Why can't you?

Are you saying that sex and gender does not exist?

Read a biology book.

Are you saying that God doesn't exist?

Read a Bible.

If gender does not exist, then how can one change it through self-determination? What is it they are changing, if anything?

[Skepdick]

But you're not as shown by your need to call me names that I did not self-determine.

So what? You don't believe in self-determination.

I've never said such a thing.

Sure you did - In actions more than words. You are refering me to Biology textbooks as an arbiter on identity.

Define "self-determination".

Sure. I myself determine what determines identity!

We are our actions

despite what we, or others, might label ourselves as. I can claim to be a baseball player, but if I don't play baseball, am I a baseball player?

And even if you do play baseball. Does that make you a baseball player? What game do you have to play to be a man?

I drive a car. Does that make me a driver?
I breathe. Does that make me a breather?
I sleep. Does that make me a sleeper?

What I am is undecided and undecidable. I do stuff. I have a bunch of properties.

They don't define me.

As I already mentioned before, one's sexual identity is determined by a very small class of behaviors and properties. A man cannot give birth or have a menstrual cycle, nor do they have any of the other properties (chromosomes, estrogen, etc.) that women have. So a man cannot be a woman, no matter how hard they try.

And why have you defined "man" that way?

There are some traits and behaviors that we have no control over having or not. Some we do have control over, like being a baseball player - just need to choose to play baseball.

That's not a trait... Having a penis is a trait. Playing basketball isn't

This is why it is considered racist and sexist to judge people based on their skin color or sex, because this is something that they have no control over. We do judge people based on their free choices and actions. Actions speak louder than words and your actions have more to do with your identity than the words of someone that does not know you or has never met you. So we do have some degree of self-determination, but not completely, as evidenced by your request for proof of my claim. What you are requesting is an observation of behaving in some way that shows I am a Dark Lord of the Sith. What behaviors and traits determine, or prove, one is a man or a woman?

No idea! I just use the words...

[Skepdick]

If gender does not exist, then how can one change it through self-determination? What is it they are changing, if anything?

If God doesn't exist, then how can one change from theism to atheism? What is it they are changing, if anything?

[Iwannaplato]

If gender does not exist, then how can one change it through self-determination? What is it they are changing, if anything?

This is a contradiction, sadly, the Left woke side. And just to put my reaction in context, I more or less come from that side. But part of the time one will hear that gender does not exist, that it is all cultural and that sex is meaningless (biologically, psychologically). But you will then also here that a transperson who identifies as a woman IS a woman. And my guess is that some transpeople are aware of this and realize that in some deep way they are not accepted by their supporters, even as their supporters publically and vocally support them. If there is no essential difference, then there would be no need to change to the other sex, no need for the operations, hormones, etc. I don't know how this has gone on so long without this contradiction being more central to discussions. I must be crazymaking for some people, including transpeople and their families.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

If gender does not exist, then how can one change it through self-determination? What is it they are changing, if anything?

If God doesn't exist, then how can one change from theism to atheism? What is it they are changing, if anything?

Growing out of believing in fairies doesn't alter your chromosomes dipshit, but as an adult you will likely look a bit different from the way you look at four.

[Skepdick]

If gender does not exist, then how can one change it through self-determination? What is it they are changing, if anything?

This is a contradiction, sadly, the Left woke side.

Does there ever come a point at which philosophers figure out that the operand "exist" can be used to refer to the presence of a concept in one's epistemology; completely decoupled from ontology?

Saying "X doesn't exist" is just another way of saying "I don't use those terms/concepts to reason about reality".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences)

The irony, of course is that the epistemic use of the term is orders of magnitude more sophisticated than the naive use of the term. It actually signals meta-cognitive awareness.

[Iwannaplato]

Saying "X doesn't exist" is just another way of saying "I don't use those terms/concepts to reason about reality".

I don't think that's what most people mean when they say X doesn't exist. But either way. The message is X doesn't exist AND X does exist. Which I think is problematic even if they use it the way you say above.

[Skepdick]

Saying "X doesn't exist" is just another way of saying "I don't use those terms/concepts to reason about reality".

I don't think that's what most people mean when they say X doesn't exist.

That's literally what every intelligent person capable of thinking and forming concepts for themselves means. They understand they are never talking about the teritory - they are always talking about the map!

Perception is reality.

But either way. The message is X doesn't exist AND X does exist. Which I think is problematic even if they use it the way you say above.

There's literally no problem. It's just the usual idiosyncracy which arises with code-switching.

A person recognises that to you X exists.
You don't recognise that to that person X doesn't exist.

The person is way smater than you, so insted of wasting their time to bring you over to their perspective, they simply adopt yours terminology for the sake of common ground. You were being handled with gloves; but you caught wind of the code-switch and you are pretending like there's some kind of "problem".

Yeah! YOU are the problem. And you are being managed.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Saying "X doesn't exist" is just another way of saying "I don't use those terms/concepts to reason about reality".

I don't think that's what most people mean when they say X doesn't exist.

That's literally what every intelligent person capable of thinking and forming concepts for themselves means. They understand they are never talking about the teritory - they are always talking about the map!

Perception is reality.

But either way. The message is X doesn't exist AND X does exist. Which I think is problematic even if they use it the way you say above.

There's literally no problem. It's just the usual idiosyncracy which arises with code-switching.

A person recognises that to you X exists.
You don't recognise that to that person X doesn't exist.

The person is way smater than you, so insted of wasting their time to bring you over to their perspective, they simply adopt yours terminology for the sake of common ground. You were being handled with gloves; but you caught wind of the code-switch and you are pretending like there's some kind of "problem".

Yeah! YOU are the problem. And you are being managed.

'Safe'....

[Iwannaplato]

That's literally what every intelligent person capable of thinking and forming concepts for themselves means. They understand they are never talking about the teritory - they are always talking about the map!

Well, I stand by most people thinking that they are talking about the territory, meaning something/asserting something about the territory. Whatever that means about their intelligence.

Perception is reality.

So, when you are talking about, here, about intelligent people, you are talking about your map of intelligent people, not the actual people out there.

There's literally no problem. It's just the usual idiosyncracy which arises with code-switching.

A person recognises that to you X exists.
You don't recognise that to that person X doesn't exist.

Nope. I can see them talking to third parties on their own team and contradict themselves in minutes.

The person is way smater than you

That's you in a nutshell. You can't have a civil discussion You have to insult - I know, you'll say you were just stating the facts, lol. In any case, it makes you look weak to me. You can't rely on your arguments. And you can't even refer to the specifics of the topic once in your responses to me. IOW not once do you take up gender, trans-issues.

But I don't take it personally because you were just talking about your convenient map of anyone who disagrees with you and not me.

Back on ignore.