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

[Skepdick]

By being an adult human female.

I didn't ask what makes you an "adult human female". I asked what makes you a "woman".

But hey, while we are playing this silly game.... What makes you an "adult human female"?

What ''game'' am I ''playing''? Stating facts is now a ''game''?

Maybe you are stating facts. Maybe you aren't. Lets look the matter more deeply, shall we?

What makes it a "fact" that you are an "adult human female" ?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I didn't ask what makes you an "adult human female". I asked what makes you a "woman".

But hey, while we are playing this silly game.... What makes you an "adult human female"?

What ''game'' am I ''playing''? Stating facts is now a ''game''?

Maybe you are stating facts. Maybe you aren't. Lets look the matter more deeply, shall we?

What makes it a "fact" that you are an "adult human female" ?

Fuck off weirdo.

[Skepdick]

What ''game'' am I ''playing''? Stating facts is now a ''game''?

Maybe you are stating facts. Maybe you aren't. Lets look the matter more deeply, shall we?

What makes it a "fact" that you are an "adult human female" ?

Fuck off weirdo.

So you don't know why you call yourself an "adult human female" ?

Thought so.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Maybe you are stating facts. Maybe you aren't. Lets look the matter more deeply, shall we?

What makes it a "fact" that you are an "adult human female" ?

Fuck off weirdo.

So you don't know why you call yourself an "adult human female" ?

Thought so.

You asked me what makes me a woman. I answered. And I don't called myself an 'adult human female'. I am one.
What more is there to say exactly?

[Skepdick]

You asked me what makes me a woman. I answered. And I don't called myself an 'adult human female'. I am one.
What more is there to say exactly?

You answered? Where?

Surely the that which makes you an "adult human female" is also that which makes you a "woman" ?

So what makes you an "adult human female"?

[Iwannaplato]

I only balk when it comes to kids deciding and there is medical intervention when they are, well, kids?

[Skepdick]

I only balk when it comes to kids deciding and there is medical intervention when they are, well, kids?

If it's reversible/temporary - I don't care.

If it's one way/permanent - come back when you are 18 and I'll gladly take your money.

My policy is "I've informed you that your decision is totally crap. Despite my belief that you shouldn't follow through with this I am here to profit not preach."

[Trajk Logik]

You end up going so far as to pull the rug out from under your own argument. You're willing to question a man's claim of being a man (notice how you already assumed they are a man making the claim - contradiction)

It seems my request for charity fell on deaf ears. Despite me making the general point on identty. Irrespective of who makes the claim.

You're the one using terms like "man" to refer to the person making the claim that they are a man.

you must also question whether or not a trans-gender's claim isn't a degenerate/pathological case.

I don't need to question it. The way I see it - all claims of identity are equally pathological.

If we can tolerate your pathological claim that you are a "man"; or a "woman"; we can tolerate anybody's pathological claim that they are an attack helicopter.

The fact that you assume that it isn't when all other cases of cutting off other body parts are pathological just exposes your inconsistency.

What makes sexual parts so special in your mind in that cutting them off isn't an example of a pathology, but cutting off your arms is. Ever heard of somatic delusions?

You are working overtime to strawman me, you fucking twat (yes, I am intentionally turning rude now - people who don't practice charity deserve nothig but violent derrision).

You're the one using language that assumes the claim is true before it's even claimed. If you actually believe what you say about identity, you would have said something like, "some entity that claims it is a man". Because your language use does not reflect what your say about identity claims being pathological because you are claiming that others have the identity of being a man and a fucking twat, you are either trolling, or pathological.

Nobody is talking about amputating body parts in context of gender changes. It's an option, but not a necessity.

Why would it even be an option if gender had nothing to do with physiology?

Try being more consistent.

I am consistently inconsistent, you ad-hominem peddling wanker. Focus on the point, not on me.

Which is to say that what you say nullifies what you said before, leaving a net 0.

You haven't actually said anything at all.

But you're making an unfounded special case for trans-genders in that what they claim is true. Inconsistent.

No I am not. I am merely granting them the same leeway you've granted yourself and others.

You enjoy the privilege of determining your own identity - an identity founded upon... nothing. So I am being as consistent as I can be: I am granting them EXACTLY the same privileges.

Excellent. I identify as a Dark Lord of the Sith. You may address me as, "My Master".

Are you claiming that gender is founded upon or determined by sex? Justify.

All categories/categorisation schemes are social constructs. The number of buckets for "gender" are completely arbitary.

We could have one gender for specimen with short penises and another gender for specimen with long ones.
It's entirely up to us.

How could you even talk about short vs long penises if those categories are social constructs? Why would you even bring up penises, which is a sexual organ, when talking about gender, if it has nothing to do with each other? If you don't see with your own observations the commonality of certain types of people over others, search for specific ones for the purpose of mating, then I don't see how you could even understand the terms being used here. How could you ever know what the scribbles, "man" and "woman" refer to if you weren't able to categorize your observations of the world and find those categorizations useful for the purpose of survival and procreation? Mental categorizations can only ever be useful in a universe where similarities exist.

Biological sex is based on a combination of traits:

- chromosomes (in humans, XY is male, XX female)
- genitals (penis vs. vagina)
- gonads (testes vs. ovaries)
- hormones (males have higher relative levels of testosterone than women, while women have higher levels of estrogen)
- secondary sex characteristics that aren’t connected with the reproductive system but distinguish the sexes, and usually appear at puberty (breasts, facial hair, size of larynx, subcutaneous fat, etc.)

Using genitals and gonads alone, more than 99.9% of people fall into two non-overlapping classes—male and female. When 99.9% of something can be determined based on just two characteristics, that is not a social construction, but a biological reality. If it were 50% then I could see your having a point, but that isn't the case. This what makes the terms, "man" and "woman" useful. If it were 50%, the terms would be useless. You have to explain why the terms are useful to defend your position.

Good question. Why do trans-people make the claims they do? Are they delusional? Are they seeking attention or want to impose their beliefs on others? Did their parents raise their daughter as a boy because they wanted a boy and not a girl?

You can ask the exact same question of straight people?

Are you delusional about your gender? Are you seeking attention or want to impose your beliefs on others? Did your parents raise you as a "boy" or "girl" simply because biological factors told them they must classify you one way or the other?

In a society where it is criminal to walk around naked in public, we must wear clothes so it will be useful to know male from female for mating purposes. Try to look at this from a sociobiological and evolutionary psychological standpoint. We don't see female peacocks trying to pickup male feathers and attach them to their bodies. Why don't we see this happen? Because that would severely diminish that female peacock's chances of finding the proper mate and reproducing, thereby leaving less of her genes in the gene pool and eventually eliminating that type of behavior from the gene pool.

If sex is your biology and what your wear is your gender, then isn't it sexist to say that you have to wear a dress to be a woman? It seems to me that wearing a dress doesn't make you a woman. That is determined by biology as a woman can wear pants and still be a woman. Being a man or a woman is a very narrow and specific identity related to the activity of reproduction, not playing video games, driving a car, wearing pants, etc. All of these things can be done by any human being, which means that one's sexual identity shouldn't even be a consideration for doing such things. Just like one's race, sex is only a tiny part of one's whole identity. Focusing on one's sex or race as the most important part of one's identity is what leads to victimization and identity politics.

If gender is separate from biology and is a social construct, then that is the antithesis of a personal feeling. A social construct is an agreement between two or more people, not a personal feeling. To change one's gender as a social construct, we'd have to change our agreement, or society, not one's physiology, or clothing. In claiming that they are the opposite of their biology, they are abandoning the social construction, and making it useless for the purpose of finding a mate.

[Iwannaplato]

I only balk when it comes to kids deciding and there is medical intervention when they are, well, kids?

If it's reversible/temporary - I don't care.

If it's one way/permanent - come back when you are 18 and I'll gladly take your money.

My policy is "I've informed you that your decision is totally crap. Despite my belief that you shouldn't follow through with this I am here to profit not preach."

Well, I generally agree. I don't know what completely reversible interventions doctors can do with kids, but sure, if there are any. I mean, yes you can take them off hormones, but that seems risky to me with growing bodies.

If we shift to plastic surgery, the 'beauty work', I think some doctors should be put on trial. It would be a messy set of issues, with gray areas and tough calls, but hey, that's included in court purviews.

[Skepdick]

You're the one using terms like "man" to refer to the person making the claim that they are a man.

I am also using the term "attack helicopter" to refer to the person making the claim that they are an attack helicopter.
And I am using the term "person" to refer to a person making the claim that they are a person.

I am simply recognising the principle of self-determination.

You uncharitable twat.

You're the one using language that assumes the claim is true before it's even claimed.

No I am not, you braindead sophist. The notions of "claims" and "true" aren't even in scope when it comes to self-determination.

BECAUSE the notion of identity is about logic/metaphysics. Not truth/claims or any of this jazz.

If you actually believe what you say about identity, you would have said something like, "some entity that claims it is a man". Because your language use does not reflect what your say about identity claims being pathological because you are claiming that others have the identity of being a man and a fucking twat, you are either trolling, or pathological.

Fucking moron. Identity is a logical construct. Ascribing identity to any entity in reality (even yourself) is an act of psychological projection.

This stems from the well-understood problem that language doesn't relate to the world unless we make it. What we say about things is not what things are.

Why would it even be an option if gender had nothing to do with physiology?

For whatever reason. Are breast reduction surgeries right or wrong?

Which is to say that what you say nullifies what you said before, leaving a net 0.

You haven't actually said anything at all.

That's a blatant lie. The facts of my words are before you and everyone to see.

Your desire to nulify my words is not a nulification of my words.

Excellent. I identify as a Dark Lord of the Sith. You may address me as, "My Master".

But you are AGAINST the self-determination of identity. So should I be consistent with my principles (which tolerate self-determination) or yours (which don't)?

Surely, out of respect for you and your religion I should hold you accountable to your own principles?

I will gladly address you as "My Master" just as soon as you prove that your claim is true.

How could you even talk about short vs long penises if those categories are social constructs? Why would you even bring up penises

When I talk about peninses I am refering to penises. You want me to give you an ostensive definition? No problem.

Can you give me an ostensive definition of "gender"?

which is a sexual organ, when talking about gender

No it's not. It's an organ/appendage when talking about anything.

if it has nothing to do with each other? If you don't see with your own observations the commonality of certain types of people over others, search for specific ones for the purpose of mating, then I don't see how you could even understand the terms being used here.

I am interested in different physiological properties when I am pursuing different purposes.

For the purposes of designing cars the properties relevant to mating are not relevant at all.

How could you ever know what the scribbles, "man" and "woman" refer to if you weren't able to categorize your observations of the world and find those categorizations useful for the purpose of survival and procreation? Mental categorizations can only ever be useful in a universe where similarities exist.

Mental categoriszations are useful for a particular utility/goal/objective in mind. They are not always useful for different utilities/goals/objectives in mind.

You are welcome to state your agenda so as to clarify which categorisation-schema might be useful in context.

In a society where it is criminal to walk around naked in public, we must wear clothes so it will be useful to know male from female for mating purposes. Try to look at this from a sociobiological and evolutionary psychological standpoint.

We don't see female peacocks trying to pickup male feathers and attach them to their bodies. Why don't we see this happen? Because that would severely diminish that female peacock's chances of finding the proper mate and reproducing, thereby leaving less of her genes in the gene pool and eventually eliminating that type of behavior from the gene pool.

Why have you chosen that particular frame? I don't interact with other humans strictly for the purpose of mating. Do you?

If sex is your biology...

IF.

and what your wear is your gender

If clothing determined gender we would already be living in a society where I can change my clothes/gender on daily basis!

then isn't it sexist to say that you have to wear a dress to be a woman?

No, it's clothist. What clothes I wear shouldn't be any of your business.

If gender is separate from biology and is a social construct, then that is the antithesis of a personal feeling. A social construct is an agreement between two or more people, not a personal feeling.

Great! So it's settled then? Two (or more) people have already agreed that they are neither male nor female.

To change one's gender as a social construct, we'd have to change our agreement, or society, not one's physiology, or clothing. In claiming that they are the opposite of their biology, they are abandoning the social construction, and making it useless for the purpose of finding a mate.

So now you are claiming that society is constructing strictly for the purpose of mating? Justify.

[Skepdick]

If we shift to plastic surgery, the 'beauty work', I think some doctors should be put on trial. It would be a messy set of issues, with gray areas and tough calls, but hey, that's included in court purviews.

What could you possibly put them on trial for?

They are only acting on behalf of their patients. They are executing their wishes.

If the surgeon is committing a crime - then the patient is the conspirator.

[Trajk Logik]

You're the one using terms like "man" to refer to the person making the claim that they are a man.

I am also using the term "attack helicopter" to refer to the person making the claim that they are an attack helicopter.
And I am using the term "person" to refer to a person making the claim that they are a person.

I am simply recognising the principle of self-determination.

You uncharitable twat.

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

You're the one using language that assumes the claim is true before it's even claimed.

No I am not, you braindead sophist. The notions of "claims" and "true" aren't even in scope when it comes to self-determination.

BECAUSE the notion of identity is about logic/metaphysics. Not truth/claims or any of this jazz.

Ok. Then why are you wasting your time calling me names if it's not true that I am any of the names you call me?

If you actually believe what you say about identity, you would have said something like, "some entity that claims it is a man". Because your language use does not reflect what your say about identity claims being pathological because you are claiming that others have the identity of being a man and a fucking twat, you are either trolling, or pathological.

Fucking moron. Identity is a logical construct. Ascribing identity to any entity in reality (even yourself) is an act of psychological projection.

This stems from the well-understood problem that language doesn't relate to the world unless we make it. What we say about things is not what things are.

Ok. Then why are you wasting your time calling me names if it's not true that I am any of the names you call me?

So Joe Biden is not President of the United States?

The scribbles and sounds we make that refer to the states of the world are arbitrary, but the states themselves are not as I already pointed out in the case of biological sex. This is why we can use language in the first place because there are states that are similar as to be grouped into mental categories that are useful.

Why would it even be an option if gender had nothing to do with physiology?

For whatever reason. Are breast reduction surgeries right or wrong?

This has nothing to do with my question. I know it's difficult for you to focus, but try. Why is changing body parts involved with reproduction an option if gender has nothing to do with reproduction?

Which is to say that what you say nullifies what you said before, leaving a net 0.

You haven't actually said anything at all.

That's a blatant lie. The facts of my words are before you and everyone to see.

Your desire to nulify my words is not a nulification of my words.

It's not my desire that nullifies your words. It's your own actions of contradicting your self that performs the nullification. You obviously don't know what a contradiction is. When what you say now cancels out what you said before, you have effectively said nothing. This is why no one listens to hypocrites, you hypocrite.

Excellent. I identify as a Dark Lord of the Sith. You may address me as, "My Master".

But you are AGAINST the self-determination of identity. So should I be consistent with my principles (which tolerate self-determination) or yours (which don't)?

Surely, out of respect for you and your religion I should hold you accountable to your own principles?

I will gladly address you as "My Master" just as soon as you prove that your claim is true.

Why would I need to prove my claim to be true if you recognize the principle of self-determination? Do you ask a man that claims to be a woman to prove it? If not, then you are making a unwarranted special case for sexual self-determination. What's the difference? What makes sex so special in this regard that we can demand proof of those that claim to be a Dark Sith Lord, but not those claiming to be a woman when they have a penis?

How could you even talk about short vs long penises if those categories are social constructs? Why would you even bring up penises

When I talk about peninses I am refering to penises. You want me to give you an ostensive definition? No problem.

Can you give me an ostensive definition of "gender"?

Biological sex. If gender is not equivalent to biological sex, then I don't know what gender is. If you are claiming that is is not equivalent then it is incumbent upon you to provide that definition, not me.

How can you even refer to penises if there aren't things that share the same properties that you call penises that are different from the properties of vaginas? You keep saying that categories are social constructions, yet you use them to refer to real objects in the world. What makes something a penis, or not a penis? What makes something a man, or not a man?

which is a sexual organ, when talking about gender

No it's not. It's an organ/appendage when talking about anything.

I can see how your emotional state prevents your from thinking clearly. We're not talking about any appendage. We're talking about those that are involved with reproduction. You're the one that keeps bringing up penises and breasts. If gender has nothing to do with reproduction, then what does it have to do with? I'm waiting on your definition of gender as something other than the body parts involved with reproduction.

if it has nothing to do with each other? If you don't see with your own observations the commonality of certain types of people over others, search for specific ones for the purpose of mating, then I don't see how you could even understand the terms being used here.

I am interested in different physiological properties when I am pursuing different purposes.

For the purposes of designing cars the properties relevant to mating are not relevant at all.

Exactly. Because different body parts perform different functions and are therefore for different purposes. Designing a car is not relevant to gender either. So what is relevant to gender if not reproduction and the body parts involved with that?

How could you ever know what the scribbles, "man" and "woman" refer to if you weren't able to categorize your observations of the world and find those categorizations useful for the purpose of survival and procreation? Mental categorizations can only ever be useful in a universe where similarities exist.

Mental categoriszations are useful for a particular utility/goal/objective in mind. They are not always useful for different utilities/goals/objectives in mind.

You are welcome to state your agenda so as to clarify which categorisation-schema might be useful in context.

What does it mean for something to be useful if it isn't true to some extent? They are useful for similar utilities/goals/objectives. Why do you think that is the case?

In a society where it is criminal to walk around naked in public, we must wear clothes so it will be useful to know male from female for mating purposes. Try to look at this from a sociobiological and evolutionary psychological standpoint.

We don't see female peacocks trying to pickup male feathers and attach them to their bodies. Why don't we see this happen? Because that would severely diminish that female peacock's chances of finding the proper mate and reproducing, thereby leaving less of her genes in the gene pool and eventually eliminating that type of behavior from the gene pool.

Why have you chosen that particular frame? I don't interact with other humans strictly for the purpose of mating. Do you?

No, which is why I'm not really concerned with one's gender until it is time for seeking a mate. Again, what is gender if not related to sex and the seeking of mates?

If sex is your biology...

IF.

And if it's not, then what is it? You don't seem to know yourself because you still have not defined gender as anything but biological sex.

and what your wear is your gender

If clothing determined gender we would already be living in a society where I can change my clothes/gender on daily basis!

...still waiting on that definition. It seems that you want to disagree with me about what gender is, but don't know what gender is yourself.

then isn't it sexist to say that you have to wear a dress to be a woman?

No, it's clothist. What clothes I wear shouldn't be any of your business.

But it is if I were seeking a mate and I wanted to know what your biological sex is.

If gender is separate from biology and is a social construct, then that is the antithesis of a personal feeling. A social construct is an agreement between two or more people, not a personal feeling.

Great! So it's settled then? Two (or more) people have already agreed that they are neither male nor female.

Who has agreed? I certainly haven't agreed with anything you have said, because you haven't said anything, remember?

To change one's gender as a social construct, we'd have to change our agreement, or society, not one's physiology, or clothing. In claiming that they are the opposite of their biology, they are abandoning the social construction, and making it useless for the purpose of finding a mate.

So now you are claiming that society is constructing strictly for the purpose of mating? Justify.

Society is constructing the expectations of how men and women should behave in a society where it is illegal to walk around naked.

Ok, so how about that definition of gender?

[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.

Ok. Then why are you wasting your time calling me names if it's not true that I am any of the names you call me?

Why are you keeping track of my time? Let me self-determine how I spend it.

So Joe Biden is not President of the United States?

Depends on who you ask. Some recognise him as such. Some don't.

The scribbles and sounds we make that refer to the states of the world are arbitrary, but the states themselves are not as I already pointed out in the case of biological sex. This is why we can use language in the first place because there are states that are similar as to be grouped into mental categories that are useful.

"Useful" is a weasel word unless you make your goal/agenda explicit.

What's useful to one person may not be useful to another.

This has nothing to do with my question. I know it's difficult for you to focus, but try. Why is changing body parts involved with reproduction an option if gender has nothing to do with reproduction?

Why are you asking me this question? How is the question useful to you?

It's not my desire that nullifies your words. It's your own actions of contradicting your self that performs the nullification.

Justify the claim that contradiction nulifies words. What is it founded upon?

Dialetheists and para-consistent logicians would certainly disagree with such nonsense.

You obviously don't know what a contradiction is. When what you say now cancels out what you said before, you have effectively said nothing. This is why no one listens to hypocrites, you hypocrite.

Justify the claim that nobody listens to hypocrites. What is it founded upon?

As a counter-evidence to your claim of my hypocrisy I present you the fact that you have been listening to me, despite you claiming that "no one listens to hypocrites".

Medice, cura te ipsum!

Why would I need to prove my claim to be true if you recognize the principle of self-determination?

Because I am courteous, and I am holding you accountable to your principles, not mine.

Do you ask a man that claims to be a woman to prove it?

No, I don't. They don't believe in the burden of proof - you do.

If not, then you are making a unwarranted special case for sexual self-determination.

I am not doing any such thing. I am merely holding people accountable to their principles.

What's the difference? What makes sex so special in this regard that we can demand proof of those that claim to be a Dark Sith Lord, but not those claiming to be a woman when they have a penis?

The difference is that YOU are holding the belief. And YOU insist on proof/justification for truth-claims. So YOU need to live up to your own principles.

I'll explain it to you in simple terms:

If your principles say you can; or can't do something - no problem!
If your principles say I can; or can't do someting - fuck you!

nsive definition of "gender"?

Biological sex.

That's not an ostensive definition. Show me gender like I can show you a penis!

If gender is not equivalent to biological sex, then I don't know what gender is. If you are claiming that is is not equivalent then it is incumbent upon you to provide that definition, not me.

Speaking of... Show me sex like I can show you a penis.

How can you even refer to penises if there aren't things that share the same properties that you call penises that are different from the properties of vaginas?

It's just a label, dude. I'll show it to you - label it however you want.

You keep saying that categories are social constructions, yet you use them to refer to real objects in the world.

I do?

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.

I can see how your emotional state prevents your from thinking clearly. We're not talking about any appendage. We're talking about those that are involved with reproduction.

I can see how your emotional state drives you to condescention, but you have confused what YOU are talking about for what WE are talking about.

Charity... not your forte.

You're the one that keeps bringing up penises and breasts.

You may want to re-read this conversation. You brought the various appendages into focus.

If gender has nothing to do with reproduction, then what does it have to do with? I'm waiting on your definition of gender as something other than the body parts involved with reproduction.

Sure. I define gender as something other than the body parts involved in reproduction.

Satisfied?

Exactly. Because different body parts perform different functions and are therefore for different purposes. Designing a car is not relevant to gender either. So what is relevant to gender if not reproduction and the body parts involved with that?

Whatever is relevant to gender. Social constraints? The toilet-fiasco perhaps?

People with vaginas who dress up like men are bullied in both male and female toilets. Which bathroom should they use to minimise the risk of violence against their person?

What does it mean for something to be useful if it isn't true to some extent?

I don't know why you would bake that pre-supposition into your question. Falsehood is often useful too.

False promises build political careers!

They are useful for similar utilities/goals/objectives. Why do you think that is the case?

How have you asserted the "similarities" of the goals if you refuse to make them explicit?

No, which is why I'm not really concerned with one's gender until it is time for seeking a mate. Again, what is gender if not related to sex and the seeking of mates?

But is gender really your concern; or is it your partner's ability to give you biological children? Because there's plenty of women (uteruses, vaginas, chromosomes - the works) who can't have children for various medical/biological reasons.

For the purposes of reproduction - do you consider them women?

And if it's not, then what is it? You don't seem to know yourself because you still have not defined gender as anything but biological sex.

I haven't defined it as anything. Gender is whatever people use it to mean.

You are still stuck in the realm of definitions, not usage.

...still waiting on that definition. It seems that you want to disagree with me about what gender is, but don't know what gender is yourself.

It's 2023, dude. Do people still care about definitions? I thought we got past this phase - we use words. We don't define them.

But if you insist on strict definitions for every word in your vocabulary - I have no problem holding you accountable to your principles.

Define "define".

But it is if I were seeking a mate and I wanted to know what your biological sex is.

Are you seeking a mater for reproduction or for partnership?

As before: if you are interested in reproduction - perhaps you should ask the person with a vagina/uterus/chromosomes whether they are capable of bearing children.

Don't make an ASS out of you both by ASSuming.

If gender is separate from biology and is a social construct, then that is the antithesis of a personal feeling. A social construct is an agreement between two or more people, not a personal feeling.

Great! So it's settled then? Two (or more) people have already agreed that they are neither male nor female.

Who has agreed?
[/quote]
Two or more people have agreed!

I certainly haven't agreed with anything you have said, because you haven't said anything, remember?

You didn't say that the "two or more people" agreeing has to include you! It didn't include you.

The two or more people (excluding you) have agreed.

Society is constructing the expectations of how men and woman should behave in a society where it is illegal to walk around naked.

The man/woman distinction is irrelevant to the legality of walking around naked. No legal person is allowed to do it.

Ok, so how about that definition of gender?

How about your definition of "definition"?

[Trajk Logik]

You obviously don't know what a contradiction is. When what you say now cancels out what you said before, you have effectively said nothing. This is why no one listens to hypocrites, you hypocrite.

Justify the claim that nobody listens to hypocrites. What is it founded upon?

As a counter-evidence to your claim of my hypocrisy I present you the fact that you have been listening to me, despite you claiming that "no one listens to hypocrites".

If I've been listening then why do you find yourself repeating yourself to me?

Do you listen to hypocrites?

Ok, so how about that definition of gender?

How about your definition of "definition"?

If you don't know what a definition is then this conversation cannot proceed any further. I'm sure you know what it is, but you intellectual dishonesty prevents you from answering the question. Thanks for all the meaningless scribbles.

[Trajk Logik]

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.

nsive definition of "gender"?

Biological sex.

That's not an ostensive definition. Show me gender like I can show you a penis!

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