Response to a post (About myself being Gender Fluid)

[crossfire]

No, the cause are the people providing the peer pressure.

Either way, peer pressure is part of the causal chain that provides observable effects.

 

[Kfox]

Either way, peer pressure is part of the causal chain that provides observable effects.

True! But it's a verb; an action preformed by people. Like walking, thinking, or sitting, it doesn't have an actual existence, it's just a description of something people do.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I never suggested such people were not human.

Your entire argument is based around the idea that certain people can be precluded from certain biological categories because of certain features they don't possess that are necessary to being required in that category, but every feature you previously listed as being necessary has since been admitted to have notable exceptions that do not prevent people from belonging in those categories. So your argument that classifying people socially by their biological category is simple and unambiguous is simply false.

As I said before, just because there are exceptions to the rules does not mean there are no rules.

That's not been the point. The point has been that the categorisation is arbitrary and not clear-cut.

The fact that I can come up with a scenario where killing puppies might be the right thing to do does not mean killing puppies is the right thing to do.

So, to use your analogy, the fact that some people are born with less than five fingers does not mean that calling those people "human" is the right thing to do?

You seem to believe that because there are exceptions to the rules, that there are no rules.

No. I am saying that categorisation isn't a rule. If you're saying "The rule is, biological women must have XX chromosomes", but then acknowledge "There are biological women with XY chromosomes", then obviously what you stated is not a rule.

That does not make any sense. Why would I need to sexually assault you in order to presume your sex hasn’t changed over night?

Because you would need to examine my biological sex both before and after in order to verify it.

Again; just because there are exceptions to the rule (swyer syndrome) does not take away from the fact that XX = female, XY = male.

It means that it ISN'T a rule, it's just a generalised form of categorisation based on variable traits. Kind of like gender.

Not all women wear dress and makeup; many dress like men.

Which is a good argument against the idea that there should be distinct and specific rules that govern the relationship between sex and gender, but it is not an argument against the idea that social prescriptions relating to those things do exist.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That makes no sense. Just because you deep fry something does not mean it will taste good.

Right. Just as applying the same logic as X as you would on Y makes no sense. That's your argument: That if we use my logic for X then we MUST use it for Y. If you can fry an onion, you MUST fry a doorknob.

My point is; just because you identify as something, does not mean you are that which you identify as,

I disagree. That's obviously the only remotely objective metric by which people can be said to identify as anything. That's literally what identification means.

No it's not.

Yes, it is. You are dictating social prescriptions.

No; the idea of identifying as a woman makes you a woman. That idea has never existed before

Yes, it has. Trans people have existed for thousands of years.

Not when I am talking to them

Yes you have.

Give an example of using a masculine or feminine pronoun when speaking to the person

Literally all gendered pronouns. I guarantee you you have used gendered pronouns and nouns relating to a person you are speaking to at some point in your life, and especially in any situation where you were talking with multiple people.

 

[Kfox]

Your entire argument is based around the idea that certain people can be precluded from certain biological categories because of certain features they don't possess that are necessary to being required in that category, but every feature you previously listed as being necessary has since been admitted to have notable exceptions that do not prevent people from belonging in those categories.

That's why I said except for the case of birth defects and anomality's.

That's not been the point. The point has been that the categorisation is arbitrary and not clear-cut.

I think making the exception of birth defects and anomality's to the rule is pretty clear-cut; especially when the birth defect/anomality is given a name.

So, to use your analogy, the fact that some people are born with less than five fingers does not mean that calling those people "human" is the right thing to do?

No, the right thing to do would be to say people born with less than 5 fingers were born with a birth defect/anomality. I never questioned their humanity; that's just something you keep bringing up for some strange reason

No. I am saying that categorisation isn't a rule. If you're saying "The rule is, biological women must have XX chromosomes", but then acknowledge "There are biological women with XY chromosomes", then obviously what you stated is not a rule.

Those women are born with a birth defect/anomality. I've been clear about this birth defect being an exception to the rule; if you don't have that particular birth defect, you won't have the Y chromosome. What's so hard to understand about that?

Because you would need to examine my biological sex both before and after in order to verify it.

Why would I need to verify it? All I have to do is address you according to your appearance, and if I get it wrong, you can tell me! Why do you insist on doing things the hard way?

It means that it ISN'T a rule, it's just a generalised form of categorisation based on variable traits. Kind of like gender.

No; gender is based on what goes on inside of your head/imagination; biology is based on what is real. Birth defects are real; sex chromosomes are real. you can't compare the two.

 

[Kfox]

I disagree. That's obviously the only remotely objective metric by which people can be said to identify as anything. That's literally what identification means.

Then explain why thinking you are something, makes you the subject of your thoughts when it comes to gender but not race. Explain why this make sense.

Yes, it has. Trans people have existed for thousands of years.

Point to a time and place in history when a woman was defined by society as any person who imagines they are a woman.

 

[crossfire]

True! But it's a verb; an action preformed by people. Like walking, thinking, or sitting, it doesn't have an actual existence, it's just a description of something people do.

Indeed!

So, this discussion being about peer pressure and gender fluidity and how people act, Here's a word from Freddy Mercury and David Bowie:

 

[Kfox]

@VoidCat said in a thread I probably wasn't allowed to post on, and I didn't out of courtesy:



I wanted to thank @VoidCat for the insights, but answer that I identifed as trans at one point, but now identify as Gender Fluid because:

1. I couldn't take all the debate in real life when I identified as trans. Especially when I considered it just a label.

2. As trans, I felt there was an expectation for me to "pass", ie look like the other gender. That's not to say I couldn't. However, I also consider gender to be a bit of a fluid thing, and in a general sense, while it's often treated a bit more binary by people than I feel it actually truly is. Perhaps it's binary for some, though - I'm not really debating that. And yes, there are some who treat their gender in a straight up, binary fashion, while some, like myself, are a bit more fluid with it - it's even that way among some cis people (especially cis women).

My other thoughts:

3. If you ask me which restroom I'd use, I'd say: "Whatever one it seems the most appropriate for myself, a Gender Fluid person, to use, and in a social sense, rather than what my own personal opinion is."

4. Since we're in the debate section, I admit that conservatives can try to make the argument that "Gender has gone too far", and point to "Gender Fluid" labels as being another symptom of that. However, despite myself not agreeing with conservatives completely on much of anything regarding this matter, I'd like to suggest that myself identifying as Gender Fluid may be quite logical because it's like I'm saying "Look, I realize that there's a bit of a culture war going on. And I've chosen to be somewhat pacifist, in this instance, and try to look outside of it", and I'm awaiting better questions and better ideas and better solutions in regards to the subject of the trans debate.

That's not to say I don't both sympathize with trans people, and support them from afar in a fairly large sense, as well.

It's also not to say that all conservative opinions voiced at me are falling on deaf ears.

Personally, I think it's time for new labels altogether. The old ones have too much pain and hurt and controversy and heartache and confusion. And I think this time, when deciding these labels, conservatives and liberals both should be consulted. It shouldn't be a push from just one side. And I also feel that we need crystal clear labels. Labels so clear, that when a person uses them, the other person knows immediately whether they are trans or cis or exactly what or who they are.

I think if we can get conservatives to agree that trans people are here to stay, and that they do agree with it, we too should make a compromise (on my side) and make sure these matters are clear to other people, including conservatives (at least the ones who are more reasonable about the subject).

Honestly, this is probably one of the more hot button threads I've made. It may go well. It may not. Sometimes, emotions run high in these kinds of threads. But still, I feel it's an important subject, so I'm crossing my fingers for the best, and sending this thread off with a song:

What does it mean to be gender fluid?