So going with the science is a subjective norm?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How the Law (doesn't really), define "gender identity"
- Thread starter icehorse
- Start date
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, science is not to use a defintion as you claimed it: I define...
If you had used objective observation and explained the actual objective observation it would be science.
If "I define" in accordance to science, it is.
Did I really need to explain the objective observation? Notice I used the biological term "male". Since biology is one of the natural sciences, by me going with biology, I am going with the science.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, but a defnition is not a fact.
If that was the case, then this defintion is a fact, the defintion of God is the creator of the universe. It is now a fact that God is the creator of the universe.
You have to learn the limit of a defintion and a defintion is not an observation. You can't observe what a man is. You can state what you think a man is.
You can't observe a man is a human with XY. You can observe that some people say that is what a man is, but that is not obejctive what they say.
You are of the opinion that a man is XY, but you won't respect other humans' opinion on that, because we have to respect your opinion, because of that makes sense to you. That is how you do it.
I never said anything about definitions being facts.
Some definitions are based upon observation
When you align gender with biology, you can state what a man is based on his biology
Yes you can! XX vs XY sex chromosomes are observable
That’s only the case if you insist on divorcing sex from gender; which I do not. If you continue to align sex with gender, the differences between man and woman remain empirical observations. That's why someone could be dead for a hundred years, with nothing but bones left and they can still tell if that person were male or female.
What you talking about??? You refused to give a definition! I asked over and over what traits make a person a man, and you kept with those circular responses of a man being a person who thinks they are a man. Tell ya what; try giving an actual answer, then see how I respond before accusing me of disrespecting your opinions; fair enough?
Last edited:
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
"That’s only the case if you insist on divorcing sex from gender; which I do not." And that choice you do there, is not science. You can I choose subjective different choices and they are not science.
You don't understand that "which I do not" is not science, empirical or objective. It is a subjective choice in you, that you do.
So you make a choice where you think that what makes a man a man is based on science and empirical observation, but that you make that choice is subjective, not science and not empirical observation.
That is what you don't understand, that you are subjective for what you choose to claim a man and gender are, just like everybody else.
Obviously my decision to continue to align gender with biology is a subjective choice, I never claimed otherwise; my claim is that when I do this my definition of gender is based on science. Your choice to divorce gender from science makes gender meaningless; which is why people with your view who claim to identify as a man or woman are unable to articulate what a man or woman actually is, even though they claim to be one.
Sorry to jump in here, but this does seem to relate directly to my OP:
Can you define "gender" for us, because it seems so far in his thread to be a slippery concept at best.
thanks
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, there is no objective evidence with science that my choice makes gender meaningless.
That is your problem, your position as for how you choose are as subjective as mine.
I am a man, because I feel and think that.
You are a man, because you think and feel that science is the correct way to claim it. But that is correct, is how you feel and think.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
I already have given you the Dansh legal and medical one.
Right, so I went back and found the Danish definition you provided earlier:
As I said, that's slippery and circular.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, and the bold one is strongly objective as the best form of objective, because you don't use subjective standard and if you do, yours are objectively better, because of what?
If you can explain how you actually do it objectively better as closer to objective in actual practical terms and not just some vauge phraser I will listen.
But e.g. to say we must avoid harm is so vauge in more than one sense.
You and I and all of this on this forum rely heavily on the rules of logic. The internet would not be possible without the rules of logic.
Circular definitions are not logically valid.
Good luck with that! (LOL)
Natural sciences don’t determine what has meaning or not, that’s psychology. And the fact that you make a choice is not the problem, it’s your choice that is the cause of your problem
No; science is not subjective.
Yeah; and the problem with you saying that, is the next question becomes; what does it mean to feel or think like a man? IOW what feeling do men have that women don’t, and what thoughts do men have that women don’t? You don’t have an answer to that, I do.
No; I am a man because my sex chromosomes are the type that men have. This has nothing to do with how I feel or think.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yes, but to say that they are not allowed is a subjective norm. And further you run nito the problem if it is possible to do a human life as such for all of a human life following the rules of logic. Not that logic works in some cases, but that it works in all.
So for your rule to be objective you must show that it is possible to follow the rules of logic for all of a human life. Otherwise it is a free floating subjective norm without evidence.
You must remember that this is over 2000 years old for the attempt to do what you want to make a rule. And in fact nobody has so far been able to do that in all of recorded history.
So that you claim an universal fact, namely that the rules of logic govern all of human life only matter if it is possible to do so for morality in the end. And that connects to truth, knowledge and logic, and not just logic.
So try more than you just saying it is so. Show that it is so.
And that is philosophy in the end. It is not science, but the oldest form of knowledge we have and that is not that easy to do, because a lot of people can't catch when they are subjective and not objectively rational and with objective truth.
I'm not making any such claims.
This thread is about legal definitions, full stop.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, but that you choose science as a standard is subjective. That is what you don't get. You don't get when you are subjective.
Your problem is that you lack the skill to do the relevant intrapsychological understanding of when you are subjective. There, I said it aloud.
Not that you are wrong or any such jazz, Or that it is a disorder, abnormal or what not. You just don't relevant for this, know when you yourself are subjective.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yes and I gave you one. You then declared as if you have objective authority that it was against your subjective rule for what a legal defintion must be, because you say so.
We depend on logic, our society would literally fall apart without it.
Our society would also fall apart if we all viewed the world thru the relativist lens you're using in this thread.