sex/gender is simple

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: sex/gender is simple

Post by Immanuel Can »

Advocate wrote: Sat Dec 19, 2020 7:16 pm If they meant the same thing we wouldn't need two words.
The fact that there are two words tells us nothing more than that there is some interest group that wants to make that distinction. It doesn't give us any evidence the wanted distinction is justified. That argument needs to be supplied.

"Man" and "male" are two words: that doesn't mean they're two different things. They can refer to exactly the same individual.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: sex/gender is simple

Post by Immanuel Can »

Advocate wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 7:14 pm
Bruce Jenner is a mentally ill man, not a healthy woman
It's an identity. You can choose it in relation to biological sex, in opposition to biological sex, or be asexual. It's a valid identity each way.
"Valid"? What can you mean by using that word?

It certainly doesn't mean "logically valid." It doesn't mean "empirically established." It doesn't mean "factually grounded." It doesn't even mean so much as "historically conventional" or "universally recognized now." And it certainly doesn't mean "true."

All it can mean is "something Advocate and friends want to believe despite all logic, empirical facts, historical consensus and truth."

That's not "valid."
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: sex/gender is simple

Post by Advocate »

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=521411 time=1627650948 user_id=9431]
How would this follow? Are you saying we have reason to think that "gender" is entirely unrelated to biological sex? You'll have to show that argument, because it's not evident.
[quote]

Gender is typically based on sex, always has been, but that doesn't mean it always will. Gender identity is typically based on gender as a social construct, but it doesn't necessarily have to be. Sexual identity isn't particularly different than gender identity, both are more or less contingent on the understandings that came before, sex in the case of gender, and sex and/or gender in the case of identity.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: sex/gender is simple

Post by Immanuel Can »

Advocate wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 3:22 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 2:15 pm How would this follow? Are you saying we have reason to think that "gender" is entirely unrelated to biological sex? You'll have to show that argument, because it's not evident.
gender as a social construct
Gender isn't a social construct.

As you say, normal people think biological sex and gender are harmonious, if not quite identical. It's only the manipulators of language who recently have decided to declare that one is negotiable, or that the whole thing's merely "a social construct." But gender and biological sex existed long before society ever "constructed" a thing.

And both are genetic. You can't get more basic and "non-constructed" than that.
Gary Childress
Posts: 7966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: sex/gender is simple

Post by Gary Childress »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 3:10 pm
Advocate wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 7:14 pm
Bruce Jenner is a mentally ill man, not a healthy woman
It's an identity. You can choose it in relation to biological sex, in opposition to biological sex, or be asexual. It's a valid identity each way.
"Valid"? What can you mean by using that word?

It certainly doesn't mean "logically valid." It doesn't mean "empirically established." It doesn't mean "factually grounded." It doesn't even mean so much as "historically conventional" or "universally recognized now." And it certainly doesn't mean "true."

All it can mean is "something Advocate and friends want to believe despite all logic, empirical facts, historical consensus and truth."

That's not "valid."
I think the idea is to be more accepting of some people and not stigmatize them because they have a desire to dress or be the opposite sex. I mean, I can see what seem to me to be valid reasons to let them be what they want without calling them "ill" or whatever. If a person wants to get a sex change (as long as they are of consenting age) or just dress and act like the opposite sex, then we live in a free country, the technology is available, they can do what they want. Personally, I wouldn't want to date a transgender person. I may even slip up and call them by the wrong pronoun once in a while. But as long as they don't go overboard into really stupid land and start the spiel "calling a transgender person by the wrong pronoun is 'violence' against transgender people," and they accept that not everyone is going to bend over backward to cater to their pronoun wishes. Then I think there can be reasonably mutual understanding and amicable relations. And as far as pronouns, I'll call a person him or her according to what they want to be called as long as there's ultimately no confusion that they are indeed transgender and not really what they want to be. The last thing I would want to do is spend resources and time dating someone only to find out they are transgender. To me, that would be a pretty serious lack of consideration.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: sex/gender is simple

Post by Immanuel Can »

Gary Childress wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 4:24 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 3:10 pm
Advocate wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 7:14 pm
It's an identity. You can choose it in relation to biological sex, in opposition to biological sex, or be asexual. It's a valid identity each way.
"Valid"? What can you mean by using that word?

It certainly doesn't mean "logically valid." It doesn't mean "empirically established." It doesn't mean "factually grounded." It doesn't even mean so much as "historically conventional" or "universally recognized now." And it certainly doesn't mean "true."

All it can mean is "something Advocate and friends want to believe despite all logic, empirical facts, historical consensus and truth."

That's not "valid."
I think the idea is to be more accepting of some people and not stigmatize them because they have a desire to dress or be the opposite sex.
Wait a minute, though, Gary.

Everything, and I mean everything depends on whether or not that desire is a mental illness. It's no kindness at all to normalize somebody's sickness. It just means you're denying them any help, or any hope of being cured.

So it's not about "stigmatizing." It's about diagnosing, realizing there's a problem, and getting the poor person the help they need. And what good person wouldn't want to do that? In fact, what kind of a twisted individual would want to encourage the sick to remain sick?

But all of this doesn't explain Advocate's use of the word "valid" to describe a body-dysmorphic person's confusion.
Gary Childress
Posts: 7966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: sex/gender is simple

Post by Gary Childress »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 4:36 am
Gary Childress wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 4:24 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 3:10 pm
"Valid"? What can you mean by using that word?

It certainly doesn't mean "logically valid." It doesn't mean "empirically established." It doesn't mean "factually grounded." It doesn't even mean so much as "historically conventional" or "universally recognized now." And it certainly doesn't mean "true."

All it can mean is "something Advocate and friends want to believe despite all logic, empirical facts, historical consensus and truth."

That's not "valid."
I think the idea is to be more accepting of some people and not stigmatize them because they have a desire to dress or be the opposite sex.
Wait a minute, though, Gary.

Everything, and I mean everything depends on whether or not that desire is a mental illness. It's no kindness at all to normalize somebody's sickness. It just means you're denying them any help, or any hope of being cured.

So it's not about "stigmatizing." It's about diagnosing, realizing there's a problem, and getting the poor person the help they need. And what good person wouldn't want to do that? In fact, what kind of a twisted individual would want to encourage the sick to remain sick?

But all of this doesn't explain Advocate's use of the word "valid" to describe a body-dysmorphic person's confusion.
Maybe the person doesn't want to be pitied, though? Maybe they just want to be what they want to be and accepted for it. As long as they can still function relatively well in society, work, feed themselves, take care of themselves, etc. Then I could care less. Like I say, just be truthful and say, "i'm transexual and would like to go by the pronoun ___." That way there is less confusion for the rest of us.
Gary Childress
Posts: 7966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: sex/gender is simple

Post by Gary Childress »

And again, I don't necessarily think they should use opposite bathrooms or be allowed to get massive alterations to their body before the age of consent.
Last edited by Gary Childress on Sun Aug 01, 2021 5:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: sex/gender is simple

Post by Immanuel Can »

Gary Childress wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 4:57 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 4:36 am
Gary Childress wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 4:24 am

I think the idea is to be more accepting of some people and not stigmatize them because they have a desire to dress or be the opposite sex.
Wait a minute, though, Gary.

Everything, and I mean everything depends on whether or not that desire is a mental illness. It's no kindness at all to normalize somebody's sickness. It just means you're denying them any help, or any hope of being cured.

So it's not about "stigmatizing." It's about diagnosing, realizing there's a problem, and getting the poor person the help they need. And what good person wouldn't want to do that? In fact, what kind of a twisted individual would want to encourage the sick to remain sick?

But all of this doesn't explain Advocate's use of the word "valid" to describe a body-dysmorphic person's confusion.
Maybe the person doesn't want to be pitied, though?
Is it "pity" to free somebody from a damaging delusion? Maybe. But if we need pity in order to get up the gumption to do the right thing for them, what does that matter? A better motive would be the desire to see them healthy, happy and well. And I don't think you need pity per se for that.

And what's the relevance of whether they "want" it or not? After all, we're not talking about somebody in touch with who and where they really are. We're talking about a man who looks in the mirror and imagines a woman, or a woman who imagines man. They're not in shape to make good decisions, and if we join them in their delusions, how will that help them?
Like I say, just be truthful and say, "i'm transexual and would like to go by the pronoun ___."
You don't have the right to compel the speech of others. You don't get to dictate what others say. You can ask them NOT to say something hurtful, or even make it illegal for them to say something actually destructive, like crying "Fire" in a movie theatre. But you can't tell them what TO say. Nobody has a right to do that. You can't make them parrot your nonsense, if you're delusional.

So what a transsexual should say is, "Please don't call me 'sir' or 'he.'" And you can choose or refuse. But he has no right at all to insist you must call him "she" or "her." That's compelled speech, and it's a violation of others' rights.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: sex/gender is simple

Post by Immanuel Can »

Gary Childress wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 5:04 am And again, I don't necessarily think they should use opposite bathrooms or be allowed to get massive alterations to their body before the age of consent.
Well, what does the fact that "massive alterations to their body" are actually involved tell you? That what they are, and what they want are massively incompatible...in other words, that they're out of touch with reality.
Gary Childress
Posts: 7966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: sex/gender is simple

Post by Gary Childress »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 5:07 am
Gary Childress wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 5:04 am And again, I don't necessarily think they should use opposite bathrooms or be allowed to get massive alterations to their body before the age of consent.
Well, what does the fact that "massive alterations to their body" are actually involved tell you? That what they are, and what they want are massively incompatible...in other words, that they're out of touch with reality.
As long as they can provide for themselves relatively well in society, and as long as their means of altering themselves doesn't cause serious problems for themselves or others, then I say let them pretend to be what they want. I couldn't care less at this point. Now if they want help. If they come along and say, "I am confused about my gender, can you help me overcome that confusion so that I no longer want to be the opposite gender," then, by all means, give them help. But as long as they are functional and can take care of themselves, then more power to them if they don't want help. I won't force someone to seek help if they can function fine without it.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: sex/gender is simple

Post by Immanuel Can »

Gary Childress wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 5:29 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 5:07 am
Gary Childress wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 5:04 am And again, I don't necessarily think they should use opposite bathrooms or be allowed to get massive alterations to their body before the age of consent.
Well, what does the fact that "massive alterations to their body" are actually involved tell you? That what they are, and what they want are massively incompatible...in other words, that they're out of touch with reality.
As long as they can provide for themselves relatively well in society, and as long as their means of altering themselves doesn't cause serious problems for themselves or others, then I say let them pretend to be what they want.
But wait a minute, Gary. At best, we're talking about somebody who's genuinely body-dysmorphic: that means his sense of identity, his grasp on reality, is not secure at all. He's mentally ill -- at best. Why on earth would you want to let somebody mentally ill be mentally ill?

But at worst, this person is being perverted and cunning. Perhaps he or she wants access to vulnerable others. Perhaps he or she is trying to purloin a medal, an honour, and job or a scholarship to which he or she is just not entitled. We're now talking about a person who is lying. Why would we want to let somebody who's a liar, a manipulator or a predator be what they want to be?
Now if they want help...

Which ones? The perverts and predators? The manipulators? Or the actually, sincerely mentally ill ones? Which one are you waiting for to ask for help? Is that a reasonable expectation from any of them?
Gary Childress
Posts: 7966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: sex/gender is simple

Post by Gary Childress »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 5:50 am
Gary Childress wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 5:29 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 5:07 am
Well, what does the fact that "massive alterations to their body" are actually involved tell you? That what they are, and what they want are massively incompatible...in other words, that they're out of touch with reality.
As long as they can provide for themselves relatively well in society, and as long as their means of altering themselves doesn't cause serious problems for themselves or others, then I say let them pretend to be what they want.
But wait a minute, Gary. At best, we're talking about somebody who's genuinely body-dysmorphic: that means his sense of identity, his grasp on reality, is not secure at all. He's mentally ill -- at best. Why on earth would you want to let somebody mentally ill be mentally ill?

But at worst, this person is being perverted and cunning. Perhaps he or she wants access to vulnerable others. Perhaps he or she is trying to purloin a medal, an honour, and job or a scholarship to which he or she is just not entitled. We're now talking about a person who is lying. Why would we want to let somebody who's a liar, a manipulator or a predator be what they want to be?
Now if they want help...

Which ones? The perverts and predators? The manipulators? Or the actually, sincerely mentally ill ones? Which one are you waiting for to ask for help? Is that a reasonable expectation from any of them?
Like I say, as long as they can provide for themselves, meaning work, and support themselves and don't cause serious problems for themselves or others (meaning create conditions where they or others can't work and support themselves), then they are fine in my book. And I'll add, as long as they don't break any laws, they are fine. I think that takes care of "predators". BTW, "normal" people can be predatory, perverts or manipulators too. Are all people who identify as the opposite gender necessarily "perverts," "predators" or "manipulators"?
Gary Childress
Posts: 7966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: sex/gender is simple

Post by Gary Childress »

As far as getting help. Again, my position is that if they don't want it, then I'm not going to force them into it unless they are causing some significant problems for themselves or others with respect to meeting the fundamental needs of living.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: sex/gender is simple

Post by Age »

henry quirk wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 7:06 pm
Advocate wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 10:06 pm Sex is biology. Only biologists get to decide what it means.
Gender is social. Everyone gets to decide what it means.
Sexual identity is psychological. You get to decide what it means for you.
a trans-man recently reported that, after bein' exposed to tear gas during a peaceful protest he had a period

why?

cuz he is actually a mentally disordered she

sexual identity is rooted in the flesh: joe may think he's a gal, may dress like a gal, may surgically mutilate himself to affect the appearance of a gal but he's still a guy
But who and/or what is a 'he', to you?
henry quirk wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 7:06 pm Bruce Jenner is a mentally ill man, not a healthy woman
Post Reply