Referring to a thing's, "sex," as, "gender," is just a kind of sloppy langauage. In most Latin root languages, gender refers to certain nouns having no direct relation to sex. "She's a good ship," does not imply a ship is female. Sex has a specific meaning and pertains to things that connect or match up as opposites, including plumbing and electrical connectors, and animal reproductive organs. Technically there is no such thing as, "sexual orientation," for example, because sex only refers to the physical equipment, not the practices. It is always possible to force wrong connections, i.e. male to male, or female to female, though it's always dangerous.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 11:49 pmIt's not about what you 'believe'. Gender and sex mean the same thing. To say that one is a 'social construct' is a social construct. People said 'gender' when they didn't want to say 'sex'.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 8:55 pmI believe some argue that gender is a "social construct" and some argue that race is a "social construct" as well. Both often appear on applications and forms that we fill out designed to categorize us into groups of similar attributes for various purposes. Race is more or less based on the amount of melanin in a person's skin. Gender seems to be defined differently than sex. Sex is based on the biological attributes of a person and gender apparently refers to social roles or something like that. However, for purposes of participating in sports, and medical considerations, I would think sex (biological attributes) is a more applicable attribute to consider.mickthinks wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 4:56 pm
In every way I can think of. Explain why you think they are the same.
As far as using bathrooms, I suppose we could base it on some sort of classification system other than biological sex if we wanted to. Heck, we could make it coed and let everyone shower and pee together, however, I'm not sure how it would work out in a pragmatic, functional sense. I also wonder if any gain associated with changing bathroom policy is worth the discomfort and social upheaval it seems to create. It just doesn't seem all that critical to me for a relatively few who "identify" as the opposite sex to use the bathroom of the opposite sex. If it all comes down to a "social construct," then Why can't they just bite the bullet and do it as tradition dictates? Why does everyone else need to change to accommodate the few?
JK Rowling vs. History
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: JK Rowling vs. History
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22453
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: JK Rowling vs. History
Yeah, it is. I suppose you may be the one exception, but I'm not betting on that one.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Jul 21, 2021 1:11 amIt's not universal.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 11:27 pmInteresting that you can say something that's definitely universal cannot possibly be "inborn." I can't see a reason for you saying that.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 9:33 pm I see no intrinsic defect or flaw in human beings. Most human beings end up damaging their own minds by their own chosen beliefs and behavior, but it's not necessary or forced on them. It's not some inborn fault.
-
- Posts: 8313
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
- Location: Professional Underdog Pound
Re: JK Rowling vs. History
I was just going off definitions I googled. According to what I googled gender supposedly has something to do with social roles. I suspect the definition of Gender has been changed since PC started calling attention to it. Good point regarding social constructs. As soon as anyone tries to discredit things as being "social constructs" it kind of begs the question of whether the notion of "social construct" is a "social construct."vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 11:49 pmIt's not about what you 'believe'. Gender and sex mean the same thing. To say that one is a 'social construct' is a social construct. People said 'gender' when they didn't want to say 'sex'.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 8:55 pmI believe some argue that gender is a "social construct" and some argue that race is a "social construct" as well. Both often appear on applications and forms that we fill out designed to categorize us into groups of similar attributes for various purposes. Race is more or less based on the amount of melanin in a person's skin. Gender seems to be defined differently than sex. Sex is based on the biological attributes of a person and gender apparently refers to social roles or something like that. However, for purposes of participating in sports, and medical considerations, I would think sex (biological attributes) is a more applicable attribute to consider.mickthinks wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 4:56 pm
In every way I can think of. Explain why you think they are the same.
As far as using bathrooms, I suppose we could base it on some sort of classification system other than biological sex if we wanted to. Heck, we could make it coed and let everyone shower and pee together, however, I'm not sure how it would work out in a pragmatic, functional sense. I also wonder if any gain associated with changing bathroom policy is worth the discomfort and social upheaval it seems to create. It just doesn't seem all that critical to me for a relatively few who "identify" as the opposite sex to use the bathroom of the opposite sex. If it all comes down to a "social construct," then Why can't they just bite the bullet and do it as tradition dictates? Why does everyone else need to change to accommodate the few?
- vegetariantaxidermy
- Posts: 13983
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
- Location: Narniabiznus
Re: JK Rowling vs. History
You have a rare gift. The ability to think.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Jul 21, 2021 3:23 amI was just going off definitions I googled. According to what I googled gender supposedly has something to do with social roles. I suspect the definition of Gender has been changed since PC started calling attention to it. Good point regarding social constructs. As soon as anyone tries to discredit things as being "social constructs" it kind of begs the question of whether the notion of "social construct" is a "social construct."vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 11:49 pmIt's not about what you 'believe'. Gender and sex mean the same thing. To say that one is a 'social construct' is a social construct. People said 'gender' when they didn't want to say 'sex'.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 8:55 pm
I believe some argue that gender is a "social construct" and some argue that race is a "social construct" as well. Both often appear on applications and forms that we fill out designed to categorize us into groups of similar attributes for various purposes. Race is more or less based on the amount of melanin in a person's skin. Gender seems to be defined differently than sex. Sex is based on the biological attributes of a person and gender apparently refers to social roles or something like that. However, for purposes of participating in sports, and medical considerations, I would think sex (biological attributes) is a more applicable attribute to consider.
As far as using bathrooms, I suppose we could base it on some sort of classification system other than biological sex if we wanted to. Heck, we could make it coed and let everyone shower and pee together, however, I'm not sure how it would work out in a pragmatic, functional sense. I also wonder if any gain associated with changing bathroom policy is worth the discomfort and social upheaval it seems to create. It just doesn't seem all that critical to me for a relatively few who "identify" as the opposite sex to use the bathroom of the opposite sex. If it all comes down to a "social construct," then Why can't they just bite the bullet and do it as tradition dictates? Why does everyone else need to change to accommodate the few?
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: JK Rowling vs. History
I have no idea what your experience has been, but I really am sorry for you if all the people you have ever known are mentally defective and suffer from psychological flaws. Perhaps you are mistaking fallibility, the necessity of learning, and the possibility of making mistakes with defects and flaws. Or perhaps you have your own preconceived notion of what human being are supposed to be and since they do not meet your expectation, you consider them flawed or defective. Or perhaps you are applying that mystic notion of Utopia to the entire universe, that anything short of a paradise where everyone automatically knows everything and never makes a mistake is flawed or defective.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 21, 2021 1:48 amYeah, it is. I suppose you may be the one exception, but I'm not betting on that one.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Jul 21, 2021 1:11 amIt's not universal.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 11:27 pm
Interesting that you can say something that's definitely universal cannot possibly be "inborn." I can't see a reason for you saying that.
One thing is certain, if wrong behavior is caused by some mental defect, if evil is just the result of some inborn flaw, no one is guilty of anything.
Do all your friends know you consider them mental defects?
-
- Posts: 1523
- Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
- Location: Augsburg
Re: JK Rowling vs. History
The same way that they are different in other matters. Why do you think that race and gender are the same "in trans matters"?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 9:31 pm How is "race" a different case from "gender" in "trans" matters?
No running away now.
- Attachments
-
- Screen Shot 2021-07-21 at 13.52.38.png (69.58 KiB) Viewed 1361 times
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22453
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: JK Rowling vs. History
"All people lie sometimes," but you think that's not a flaw? I think you're defining down the concept.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Jul 21, 2021 12:11 pm Perhaps you are mistaking fallibility, the necessity of learning, and the possibility of making mistakes with defects and flaws.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22453
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: JK Rowling vs. History
Not an answer. You're still giving nothing definite at all.mickthinks wrote: ↑Wed Jul 21, 2021 12:54 pmThe same way that they are different in other matters.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 9:31 pm How is "race" a different case from "gender" in "trans" matters?
Let's go this way: what argument that works (for you) for transsexualism does NOT work for transracialism, or transabilism or transspeciesism?
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: JK Rowling vs. History
How is lying a flaw or defect. If you were living in a Nazi state and the police asked if your Jewish neighbors were Jewish, would you tell the truth, knowing they would be hauled off to a death camp.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 21, 2021 1:23 pm"All people lie sometimes," but you think that's not a flaw? I think you're defining down the concept.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Jul 21, 2021 12:11 pm Perhaps you are mistaking fallibility, the necessity of learning, and the possibility of making mistakes with defects and flaws.
Any flaw or defect any human being has they chose to have or chose not to prevent when they could have. You're defining any characteristic of a human being that does not fit your view of what a human being is supposed to be as a flaw or defect.
Your premise is, "a human being without any defect or flaw will never lie," but there is no basis whatsoever for that premise. All of nature practices deception, mostly as a form of protection, especially against predators. It's what camouflage is. The ability to deceive is not a flaw, but like all other abilities it can be used for either good or harm.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
-
- Posts: 1523
- Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
- Location: Augsburg
Re: JK Rowling vs. History
I am not making or defending any "argument for transexualism" in the abstract. All I would say here is that there are people whose path to contentment lies through some kind of gender reassignment in accord with their sense of themselves, and I think we should defend their right to take that path. You seem to be opposed to that, and you wish to exploit a whole package of false equivalences in order to justify your support for their oppression. That's what I take you to be trying to do here:Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 21, 2021 1:24 pm... what argument that works (for you) for transsexualism does NOT work for transracialism, or transabilism or transspeciesism?
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 3:15 am If being "transsexual" is possible, why is being "transracial" taboo? Rachel Dolezal claims to "identify" as a person of colour...why can't she?
And what about "transabled" people, who demand the "right" to have their legs paralyzed or their eyes gouged out, so they can "identify" as handicapped? Why aren't we just as enthused about that?
Or, for that matter, why can't one identify as "transspecies," as an monitor lizard, an eagle or a halibut?
- vegetariantaxidermy
- Posts: 13983
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
- Location: Narniabiznus
Re: JK Rowling vs. History
I see that J K Rowling has been getting a lot of death and rape threats from these 'poor oppressed' (yet 'oddly' rabidly misogynistic) ''women'' because she sides with science.
- vegetariantaxidermy
- Posts: 13983
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
- Location: Narniabiznus
Re: JK Rowling vs. History
What you 'think' is irrelevant because it doesn't affect you. It's women who are being affected and effectively 'erased'. It looks very much like thinly-veiled misogyny when males butt into women's affairs.mickthinks wrote: ↑Wed Jul 21, 2021 2:32 pmI am not making or defending any "argument for transexualism" in the abstract. All I would say here is that there are people whose path to contentment lies through some kind of gender reassignment in accord with their sense of themselves, and I think we should defend their right to take that path. You seem to be opposed to that, and you wish to exploit a whole package of false equivalences in order to justify your support for their oppression. That's what I take you to be trying to do here:Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 21, 2021 1:24 pm... what argument that works (for you) for transsexualism does NOT work for transracialism, or transabilism or transspeciesism?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 3:15 am If being "transsexual" is possible, why is being "transracial" taboo? Rachel Dolezal claims to "identify" as a person of colour...why can't she?
And what about "transabled" people, who demand the "right" to have their legs paralyzed or their eyes gouged out, so they can "identify" as handicapped? Why aren't we just as enthused about that?
Or, for that matter, why can't one identify as "transspecies," as an monitor lizard, an eagle or a halibut?
Last edited by vegetariantaxidermy on Wed Jul 21, 2021 7:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.