Gender reassignment/affirming surgery

[metis]

The absurdity is that you think you can discount my identity as Lord and Master simply because you think they are names and pronouns.

Ah, I can better now see where the problem lies.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Once you can't handle it. Got it. Take

You don't need to see genitals to make such a determination. The genitals thing is a distraction from the issue and utter nonsense.

So you just decide that YOUR determination of someone's gender is more accurate than the person themselves?
How does that work?

So if you meet a masculine looking female and you decide she's a male from looking at her, then that makes her a male? Nah.

It has nothing to do with someone being trans. So I say call me Lord and Master you will of course comply, correct?

Of course it does and this is a false equivalance. They're not asking to be called Lord and Master or Your Royal Highness or whatever silly TITLE you can come up with. They're just asking what everyone else asks - to be referred to as they've asked to be referred to.

Please don't try the that's not a pronoun foolishness.

Then please don't produce titles instead of pronouns.

If I have a make friend named Stacy I call him Stacy but if thought the named Stacy made him a woman that would be different and that's exactly the problem with this buffoonery.

Not in the context I presented it to you. Which you ignored. And didn't respond to my point or question.

People really seem think because they believe they are a different gender then they arenin factna different gender. Not how it works.

How do you know?

Gender is a social construct.

Your thinking can't be that concrete can it? YOU talked about "civility" but the point of Carlins quite escapes you. Really?

This isn't about political correctness. It's about common courtesy and dignity.

 

[Ignatius A]

Ah, I can better now see where the problem lies.

I doubt that.

 

[Ignatius A]

So you just decide that YOUR determination of someone's gender is more accurate than the person themselves?
How does that work?

So if you meet a masculine looking female and you decide she's a male from looking at her, then that makes her a male? Nah.

Of course it does and this is a false equivalance. They're not asking to be called Lord and Master or Your Royal Highness or whatever silly TITLE you can come up with. They're just asking what everyone else asks - to be referred to as they've asked to be referred to.

Then please don't produce titles instead of pronouns.

Not in the context I presented it to you. Which you ignored. And didn't respond to my point or question.

How do you know?

Gender is a social construct.

This isn't about political correctness. It's about common courtesy and dignity.

I never claimed accuracy that's your dysfunction not mine. What I'm saying to you is you need a better reason than courtesy to demand that I acquiesce to your demands. See it's this kind of reasoning that makes me less inclined to comply. It's not based on any science or facts it's just an ideology. Explain why I should accept your ideology.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I doubt that.

I saw it too.

 

[Ignatius A]

I saw it too.

What I dont doubt is that Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles see exactly same thing.

 

[Brickjectivity]

If an adult wants to get a sex change and it makes them happy, then more power to them.

Yes. This is an area where each (sane and grown up) individual has natural authority over their person. Laws cannot make people.

If we start growing people in test tubes and training them with AI instead of parents, we'll revisit the idea of who decides their sex. If we discover the secrets of psychology and how the id is made, we can revisit it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I never claimed accuracy that's your dysfunction not mine.

Sorry, what?

What I'm saying to you is you need a better reason than courtesy to demand that I acquiesce to your demands. See it's this kind of reasoning that makes me less inclined to comply. It's not based on any science or facts it's just an ideology. Explain why I should accept your ideology.

My reasoning that we should extend the same courtesy to trans people that we extend to every other person we meet in life is the "kind of reasoning that makes [you] less inclined to comply?" Really? Why?

Science tells us that there are people who suffer from gender dysphoria. So there are your facts.

Okay, so just go ahead and be a rude and discourteous person if you want. Good luck with that, Mrs. Lord and Master.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What I dont doubt is that Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles see exactly same thing.

I'm sure they can read.

 

[Ignatius A]

Yes. This is an area where each (sane and grown up) individual has natural authority over their person. Laws cannot make people.

If we start growing people in test tubes and training them with AI instead of parents, we'll revisit the idea of who decides their sex. If we discover the secrets of psychology and how the id is made, we can revisit it.

Even to decide for themselves what ideologies they will accept?

 

[Ignatius A]

Sorry, what?


My reasoning that we should extend the same courtesy to trans people that we extend to every other person we meet in life is the "kind of reasoning that makes [you] less inclined to comply?" Really? Why?

Science tells us that there are people who suffer from gender dysphoria. So there are your facts.

Okay, so just go ahead and be a rude and discourteous person if you want. Good luck with that, Mrs. Lord and Master.

The vast majority of people who are trans do not have gender dysphoria.

You better say Lord and Master because you dont want it be "rude" correct. When that's the force of your argument you're in trouble.

 

[Ignatius A]

I'm sure they can read.

Prove they can

 

[Brickjectivity]

Gender, being a social construct, has always been as complex as any other human social element.

Guitar, I think you are on to something; but calling it a social construct confuses me. Isn't it more complicated than that? If society could determine my gender then I'd be like modeling clay, but I'm more stubborn than a dead cow.

Obviously there has been a problem. Society has gone too far in the direction of exclusion, and now we are trying to correct and be more inclusive. We need more character, more warmth. This is what has to increase. Without these any social renewal is probably doomed.

Even to decide for themselves what ideologies they will accept?

Ignatius the future could be far weirder than fiction. Suddenly the church may need to determine which species may or may not become catholic and what kinds of creatures are ethical to create. I only mentioned as an aside that until something like that happens and we fully understand the basis of psychology, until then we cannot decide for someone else what to be. Maybe not even then, but at this time I don't know what the future holds.

 

[VoidCat]

Prove they can

I decided to go back to this thread out of boredom and take you off ignore for a bit. You do know many Blind folk can read and that on a phone there's read out loud software right? In fact Steven Wonders went to school for Blind folk im sure he learned reading.

Edit: I've even taught Braille to a Blind kid. Like its weird you dont realize that Blind folk can read. If you want i can show you how Blind folk write I'll video it.

 

[VoidCat]

If you want i can show you how Blind folk write I'll video it.

Here's a video I made just for you...

Edit: through read out loud software they can also read through technology. But that might be a bit complicated to show as I only have one phone so wouldn't be able to film me showing you how to use a phone when Blind

 

[Ignatius A]

Guitar, I think you are on to something; but calling it a social construct confuses me. Isn't it more complicated than that? If society could determine my gender then I'd be like modeling clay, but I'm more stubborn than a dead cow.

Obviously there has been a problem. Society has gone too far in the direction of exclusion, and now we are trying to correct and be more inclusive. We need more character, more warmth. This is what has to increase. Without these any social renewal is probably doomed.

Ignatius the future could be far weirder than fiction. Suddenly the church may need to determine which species may or may not become catholic and what kinds of creatures are ethical to create. I only mentioned as an aside that until something like that happens and we fully understand the basis of psychology, until then we cannot decide for someone else what to be. Maybe not even then, but at this time I don't know what the future holds.

The church has already decided, humans are the only Catholics. Humanity and gender are not the result of someone's feelings. To suggest a person is in fact a woman because they "feel" like a woman is disordered thinking. It would be no different than a human deciding they are a cow.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The church has already decided, humans are the only Catholics. Humanity and gender are not the result of someone's feelings. To suggest a person is in fact a woman because they "feel" like a woman is disordered thinking. It would be no different than a human deciding they are a cow.

This is taking my statement in a different frame than what I provided which is futurism and is not about gender reassignments, and I don't think you're addressing my comment, which is fine. Its fine not to address it, if you don't understand the technical side of it. Its also fine not to address it when its not the topic. The church will be seeing souls that are not born from mothers: people who are made and whose humanity is questionable. Golums sort of. This will likely happen (since it has become possible), however it does not relate to questions about gender reassignment. Its more like questions about whether humans must have blood and other questions that have really not been asked before. The church will have to revisit questions about who can be baptized and how that determination is made. This was not meant to become a huge discussion and was a side comment made to someone else.

 

[Ignatius A]

I decided to go back to this thread out of boredom and take you off ignore for a bit. You do know many Blind folk can read and that on a phone there's read out loud software right? In fact Steven Wonders went to school for Blind folk im sure he learned reading.

Edit: I've even taught Braille to a Blind kid. Like its weird you dont realize that Blind folk can read. If you want i can show you how Blind folk write I'll video it.

LOL in which # post did I use the word read?

 

[Ignatius A]

This is taking my statement in a different frame than what I provided which is futurism and is not about gender reassignments, and I don't think you're addressing my comment, which is fine. Its fine not to address it, if you don't understand the technical side of it. Its also fine not to address it when its not the topic. The church will be seeing souls that are not born from mothers: people who are made and whose humanity is questionable. Golums sort of. This will likely happen (since it has become possible), however it does not relate to questions about gender reassignment. Its more like questions about whether humans must have blood and other questions that have really not been asked before. The church will have to revisit questions about who can be baptized and how that determination is made. This was not meant to become a huge discussion and was a side comment made to someone else.

When people start saying you don't "understand the technical side of it" that's how i know that what what follows is ideological mumbo jumbo. They say how "complicated" everything is, and it usually is because they make it that way. Everything is suddenly a Rube Goldberg device. It's akin to people saying, if I have to explain it to you then you won't understand, that's how you know they do t know the first thing about it.

 

[Brickjectivity]

When people start saying you don't "understand the technical side of it" that's how i know that what what follows is ideological mumbo jumbo. They say how "complicated" everything is, and it usually is because they make it that way. Everything is suddenly a Rube Goldberg device. It's akin to people saying, if I have to explain it to you then you won't understand, that's how you know they do t know the first thing about it.

There is a technical side. Currently the most advanced AI architectures incorporate Reimannian manifolds in their design, and this is the beginning of something really crazy. Its exciting but 10x as dangerous as what CS Lewis feared. We can lock the door, but its already outside knocking.