Response to a post (About myself being Gender Fluid)

[SomeRandom]

Yes! What you're saying does make sense. I think the problem is that some people seem to think that because there are exceptions to the rule, that means there are no rules. let’s say the rule says mammals procreate by the male supplying the sperm and the female giving birth. However if a male has the inability to provide sperm due to a medical reason, or a female mammal is unable to give birth due to medical reasons, this does not negate the rule that mammals procreate by the male supplying the sperm and the female giving birth. You made an excellent point about left handed people, but I don't think that is the result of a medical condition. Does that make sense?

I mean yeah that makes sense.

Though I think the way the so called “rules” are interpreted are again very different for scientists vs laymen.
Laymen seem to put a hell of a lot of stock into them (on both sides of this particular argument)
But scientists in general don’t really seem to care as much. The “rules” in a scientific sense only really explain a frequent phenomenon. Exceptions of said “rules” are merely an infrequent phenomenon. However they still exist and are treated the same way. They all exist and that’s just how it is in reality.

Value judgments are where laymen come into the mix. Some people want to dismantle the rules, others want them preserved and some may just not care either way.

Though I can understand being frustrated by arguments that seemingly ignore the existence of the “rules” by pointing to the exceptions. I can agree with you that that is perhaps not exactly the most logical view.
And to be upfront, I say that as someone who largely couldn’t care less about said “rules.”

 

[Kfox]

I mean yeah that makes sense.

Though I think the way the so called “rules” are interpreted are again very different for scientists vs laymen.
Laymen seem to put a hell of a lot of stock into them (on both sides of this particular argument)
But scientists in general don’t really seem to care as much. The “rules” in a scientific sense only really explain a frequent phenomenon.

So in your view; if a person is unable to have children due to being born with Swyer syndrome, is this an actual disorder in need or correction? Or just another infrequent phenomena like being born left handed

 

[SomeRandom]

So in your view; if a person is unable to have children due to being born with Swyer syndrome, is this an actual disorder in need or correction? Or just another infrequent phenomena like being born left handed

Infrequent phenomenon.
I mean I freely acknowledge that in this specific instance infertility is often the direct result of the syndrome. Because well hard to have a kid without ovaries. Installed or born with lol.

But in need of fixing? I don’t actually consider being infertile an inherent issue in need of repair. It can stop a person from achieving their goals in life, so in that sense it’s a detriment. If having children is your goal, certainly.

So I can understand if a person wishes to do that for themselves, and that’s entirely their business. I wish them nothing but success.
But I don’t consider infertile people in need of repair. That’s more of a value judgment, I think

Though interestingly Swyer Syndrome is one of the very few intersex conditions that allow for pregnancy to occur with some medical intervention. Since it’s one of the few to include the necessary internal functioning sex organs. That doesn’t always happen in intersex conditions. As is my understanding

Perhaps medicine in the future will render that moot though. We’re going to have test tube generations, mark my words lol

 

[Kfox]

Infrequent phenomenon.
I mean I freely acknowledge that in this specific instance infertility is often the direct result of the syndrome. Because well hard to have a kid without ovaries. Installed or born with lol.

But in need of fixing? I don’t actually consider being infertile an inherent issue in need of repair. It can stop a person from achieving their goals in life, so in that sense it’s a detriment. If having children is your goal, certainly.

So I can understand if a person wishes to do that for themselves, and that’s entirely their business. I wish them nothing but success.
But I don’t consider infertile people in need of repair. That’s more of a value judgment, I think

Though interestingly Swyer Syndrome is one of the very few intersex conditions that allow for pregnancy to occur with some medical intervention. Since it’s one of the few to include the necessary internal functioning sex organs. That doesn’t always happen in intersex conditions. As is my understanding

Perhaps medicine in the future will render that moot though. We’re going to have test tube generations, mark my words lol

Thanks for your perspective.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Are you kidding me??? How many genders are there? 100? 200? How many biological sexes are there? 2 (some say 3 because they include intersex).

Why does the number of categories matter? Doesn't having more categories mean those individual categories have greater accuracy and specificity?

There is no comparison. Biology is real, gender is make-believe;

Both are real. Or, as real as categorisation can be. You've already acknowledge that biology is extremely variable, so the categories you use to define it are arbitrary and just as real as any gender categorisation.

the result of whatever might be going on inside of somebody’s head. With biology, if I mistake a he for a she based on appearance, that is an easy correction. But when it comes to gender…. What does an Xi look like and how is that look different than a Ze?

Why does it matter? Why not just allow people to be what they are rather than trying to fit them into a category that suits you?

Gender used to be tied to biology,

Not really. Gender was always used to refer to the social construct.

but now for some people it no longer is.

For most people it isn't.

For those people it is much easier to address them according to their biology than the craziness and confusion associated with gender.

Why? You've already admitted that biology is variable. And why should people want to have themselves defined by something that their own individual choice and experience has no relevance to? And how can you possibly reliably categorise people if the category is dependent on thins you admittedly cannot verify and are extremely variable?

Why not just let people be who they are?

I have no problem letting people be what they want to be; the problem is when they insist I be what they want me to be.

So, I can call you a woman, if I like? You'd have no issue with that and think I was just exercising my right?

So if you identify as a woman, that makes you a woman?

Yes.

See how crazy that sounds? (actually you probably think it makes perfect sense)

Yes, because it does. There's literally no other metric which is as reliable.

Shall we take this line of thinking to it’s logical conclusion? How about if I am white but identify as black?

That's not the logical conclusion. Gender is a label you can self-identify as. Race is more complex. You can't equate the two.

Does that make me black? (Rachael Dolezal found out the hard way that it does not)

I agree, it doesn't. Because gender and race are different. Obviously.

How about if I identify as a 6 year old even though I’ve lived for 30 years?

See above. Age and gender are different categories that refer to different things.

How about if I am a biological human but identify as a horse?

See above. Species and gender are not the same.

 

[Kfox]

Why does the number of categories matter? Doesn't having more categories mean those individual categories have greater accuracy and specificity?

Going by that logic, perhaps we should have 7 billion categories; each person having their own gender complete with pronoun for greater accuracy and specificity. (I’m hoping you see the absurdity if this idea)

Both are real. Or, as real as categorisation can be. You've already acknowledge that biology is extremely variable, so the categories you use to define it are arbitrary and just as real as any gender categorisation.

Provide the post # I said this; because if you are gonna put words in my mouth, you should at least make sure they are my words rather than something you just made up.

Why does it matter? Why not just allow people to be what they are rather than trying to fit them into a category that suits you?

If being what they wanted to be didn’t affect others, nobody would care. Unfortunately it doesn’t seem to work out that way; now does it.

Not really. Gender was always used to refer to the social construct.

It was a social construct that was always tied to biology.

For most people it isn't.

How do you know this? Have you counted? I will respond to the rest later

 

[Kfox]

Why? You've already admitted that biology is variable. And why should people want to have themselves defined by something that their own individual choice and experience has no relevance to? And how can you possibly reliably categorise people if the category is dependent on thins you admittedly cannot verify and are extremely variable?

I didn’t say that. If you disagree, point to the post # I said it.

So, I can call you a woman, if I like? You'd have no issue with that and think I was just exercising my right?

That’s different. If you are a biological male but your gender is woman; and I refer to your biology in conversation instead of your gender; that is my choice and an accurate description of you. If My biology is male, and my gender is man; you have no legitimate reason to refer to me as a woman or female.

Yes.


Yes, because it does. There's literally no other metric which is as reliable.

I believe Biology to be a more reliable metric.

That's not the logical conclusion. Gender is a label you can self-identify as. Race is more complex. You can't equate the two.

Race is a label you can self-identify as also. And what makes race more complex than gender; and why does complexity even matter in this situation?

I agree, it doesn't. Because gender and race are different. Obviously.

In the context of this conversation, how are they different? They are both used to self-identify, they are both used in how we refer to each other; how are they different?

 

[crossfire]

<...>

I believe Biology to be a more reliable metric.

Race is a label you can self-identify as also. And what makes race more complex than gender; and why does complexity even matter in this situation?

In the context of this conversation, how are they different? They are both used to self-identify, they are both used in how we refer to each other; how are they different?

The genetic diversity in Africa is more vast than anywhere else on earth.

Exploring the Vast Diversity of African Genetics - Front Line Genomics

We discuss a study of the genetic diversity of sub-Saharan African participants from 50 different ethnic/linguistic groups.

frontlinegenomics.com

 

[Kfox]

The genetic diversity in Africa is more vast than anywhere else on earth.

Exploring the Vast Diversity of African Genetics - Front Line Genomics

We discuss a study of the genetic diversity of sub-Saharan African participants from 50 different ethnic/linguistic groups.

frontlinegenomics.com

Nice article. Care to answer my question?

 

[Orbit]

Nice article. Care to answer my question?

It's like you live in this fantasy world where everything is either this or that, and there is one precise factor that determines biological sex. Talk to any biology professor and they will tell you that in the human and animal world, biological sex occurs on a spectrum, and is defined by several mutually influential biological factors. If you want to talk about gender, they will correctly refer you to a sociology professor.

 

[crossfire]

Nice article. Care to answer my question?

If you use biology to make rules about race, you will see that biology will quickly break out of just about any racial rules we wish to construct.

 

[Kfox]

It's like you live in this fantasy world where everything is either this or that, and there is one precise factor that determines biological sex. Talk to any biology professor and they will tell you that in the human and animal world, biological sex occurs on a spectrum, and is defined by several mutually influential biological factors. If you want to talk about gender, they will correctly refer you to a sociology professor.

I have never claimed that all males or all females were the same. Now care to answer my question?

 

[Kfox]

If you use biology to make rules about race,

I'm not doing that. Now care to answer my question?

 

[Orbit]

I have never claimed that all males or all females were the same. Now care to answer my question?

What question? I scrolled up and the only thing I could find is that you apparently think race and gender are the same thing?

 

[crossfire]

I'm not doing that. Now care to answer my question?

Which question is that? That race is largely a social construct? If so, then yes, I agree with you.

 

[Kfox]

What question? I scrolled up and the only thing I could find is that you apparently think race and gender are the same thing?

Why is it wrong to define a black person as a any person who identifies as black, (regardless of features; like Rachael Dolezal) but perfectly fine to identify a woman as a person who identifies as a woman?

 

[Kfox]

Which question is that? That race is largely a social construct? If so, then yes, I agree with you.

Why is it wrong to define a black person as a any person who identifies as black, (regardless of features; like Rachael Dolezal) but perfectly fine to identify a woman as a person who identifies as a woman?

 

[Orbit]

Why is it wrong to define a black person as a any person who identifies as black, (regardless of features; like Rachael Dolezal) but perfectly fine to identify a woman as a person who identifies as a woman?

Dude, if you're that confused, if that truly puzzles you, I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to help.

 

[Kfox]

Dude, if you're that confused, if that truly puzzles you, I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to help.

Not confused nor puzzled; only exposing the inconsistency of your line of thinking.

 

[Orbit]

Not confused nor puzzled; only exposing the inconsistency of your line of thinking.

What is my line of thinking? I don't recall providing one.