Students Are Pushing Back Against Gender Ideology In Their Schools

[Copernicus]

I wrote "a" scientific definition. So you don't have a point. You also haven't provided a scientific definition for male yourself. Again, all you are after is to avoid a strict unambiguous definition. You don't seek clarity. You seek relativism.

Yes, and I was explaining to you why your attempt at a "scientific definition" was irrelevant to the case at hand, which involves ordinary English usage. Such a definition would only be relevant within a technical community of scientists, and your opinion on the merits of the definition would not be useful.

Furthermore, there is no such thing as an unambiguous word in any language, and especially not for common terms like "man" and "woman". That's why dictionary entries can come with long lists of different sense definitions. Lexicographers argue with each other all the time over the quantity and quality of various sense definitions within an entry. Homonomy and polysemy are rampant phenomena in every language on Earth.

 

[Shaul]

Yes, and I was explaining to you why your attempt at a "scientific definition" was irrelevant to the case at hand, which involves ordinary English usage. Such a definition would only be relevant within a technical community of scientists, and your opinion on the merits of the definition would not be useful.

Furthermore, there is no such thing as an unambiguous word in any language, and especially not for common terms like "man" and "woman". That's why dictionary entries can come with long lists of different sense definitions. Lexicographers argue with each other all the time over the quantity and quality of various sense definitions within an entry. Homony and polysemy are rampant phenomena in every language on Earth.

A vernacular definition that is contrary to science is a mortally wounded one. Science trumps the "gay lobby".

 

[Copernicus]

A vernacular definition that is contrary to science is a mortally wounded one. Science trumps the "gay lobby".

You were talking about it, and I was explaining why you should not be. Repetitious logic chopping and scientism won't make it more relevant. You have no expertise in the subject of definitions, but a healthy dose of Dunning-Kruger mindset on what makes a good definition. The less you know, the more you think you know.

 

[Shaul]

You were talking about it, and I was explaining why you should not be. Repetitious logic chopping and scientism won't make it more relevant. You have no expertise in the subject of definitions, but a healthy dose of Dunning-Kruger mindset on what makes a good definition. The less you know, the more you think you know.

The "politically correct" crowd:
"We have to use science-based definitions for COVID." and,
"We have to use science-based definitions for anthropomorphic climate change." and also
"We must not use science-based definitions for determining gender!!!"

Duplicitous and inconsistent.

Oh, and I note that you still haven't produced a science-based definition for male.

 

[Copernicus]

The "politically correct" crowd:
"We have to use science-based definitions for COVID." and,
"We have to use science-based definitions for anthropomorphic climate change." and also
"We must not use science-based definitions for determining gender!!!"

Duplicitous and inconsistent.

Where do your quotes come from? They are unsourced, but perhaps mentioning the source would get converted into asterisks by the forum bots. Please stop with the straw man nonsense. I never supported any such claims, and they prove nothing.

Oh, and I note that you still haven't produced a science-based definition for male.

Why would I? You haven't established that it is even relevant to the discussion, but people have listed technical definitions that show usage of gender terms is far from being binary. Of course, you can dismiss definitions from psychologists and sociologists to fit your political agenda, but why even go down that rabbit hole? You are just spouting scientism here that only takes into account a type of description that serves your rhetorical needs.

 

[Shaul]

Where do your quotes come from? They are unsourced, but perhaps mentioning the source would get converted into asterisks by the forum bots. Please stop with the straw man nonsense. I never supported any such claims, and they prove nothing.

Wow, just wow. Quotation marks aren't only used for identification of a specific spoken text but also for identification of sarcasm. I'm sorry you are ignorant of English grammar.

Why would I? You haven't established that it is even relevant to the discussion, but people have listed technical definitions that show usage of gender terms is far from being binary. Of course, you can dismiss definitions from psychologists and sociologists to fit your political agenda, but why even go down that rabbit hole? You are just spouting scientism here that only takes into account a type of description that serves your rhetorical needs.

Ok, you're done. You are admitting that you are not using science based definitions for your definitions. Now we can all see that your arguments are based on foundations of sand.

 

[Kfox]

Oh, and I note that you still haven't produced a science-based definition for male.

If you have a prostate instead of a uterus, if you have xy chromosomes instead of xx, if you have a natural testosterone level of 1000 instead of 25, if you have testes instead of ovaries, you are a biological human male.

 

[Copernicus]

Wow, just wow. Quotation marks aren't only used for identification of a specific spoken text but also for identification of sarcasm. I'm sorry you are ignorant of English grammar.

It was obvious to me and anyone else reading your post that you made those quotes up, but what bothered me was the way that you used it to try to prove a point in a discussion. Although quotation marks can be used around individual words and expressions to convey sarcastic usage, your use of them around full sentences with the remark "duplicitous and inconsistent" suggested that you wanted them taken more seriously. Anyway, I'm glad that you are admitting that you just make stuff up when you lack a serious response.

As for English grammar, I can assure you that you know far less about it than you think you do.

Ok, you're done. You are admitting that you are not using science based definitions for your definitions. Now we can all see that your arguments are based on foundations of sand.

And there you are just repeating your debunked assumption about definitions, as if repetition would make it something reasonable to say. I think you are right that we are done here. Ad nauseam arguments aren't worth the heartbeats.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

If I am conversation with multiple people, when referring to a specific person in that conversation, you usually refer to them by name.

Bob, Linda, and Maggie are talking together.

"Hey, Maggie!" says Linda. "Did you hear Bob has a new electric car. Bob says that despite Bob's inexperience with it, it's easy to drive. Right, Bob?"

"Indeed Linda!" Bob replies. "You see, Maggie, Linda was concerned that new technology might make it harder for Linda to operate. Linda was encouraged by my experience, and Linda says Linda may buy Linda's own electric automobile."

 

[SomeRandom]

If you have a prostate instead of a uterus, if you have xy chromosomes instead of xx, if you have a natural testosterone level of 1000 instead of 25, if you have testes instead of ovaries, you are a biological human male.

Whilst I agree

I mean, that is typical but it doesn’t always occur in that specific way, right.

Like for example a person can be born with XX Male syndrome. Which may even be underreported
Does that make the individual less of a male?
Biologically speaking?
(Idk, I’m not a geneticist lol)

And there are various hormonal conditions that causes an otherwise biological woman to have high levels of testosterone.

I mean we are essentially simplifying biology when we define male and female. We always have, as a society. Since we are, at the end of the day, laymen and our usage of science isn’t actually completely accurate.
Right?

 

[wellwisher]

Why are you bringing in any racial group? This topic is about LGTBQ people being prejudiced against in the USA in a new wave of political hate.

What are you talking about? The South? Do you mean the Confederate States of America that fought to keep black people in slavery? How is knowing this history "tearing down American history"?

I am aware that some conservatives are trying to limit the history of the Civil War because they find it embarrassing, is this what you mean?

The Confederate states were also led by the Democrat party, which apparently is the still the party of racism. All they have done has been to change the color from black to white. The Conservatives, like the did at the time of Lincoln, to fighting against the divisive Democrat propaganda, which now now not only sells racism but also sexism and now genderism.

U.S. Senate: Confederate General Becomes Secretary of the Senate

August 7, 1893
In the several decades that followed the Civil War, the Democratic Party—long associated with the states of the former Confederacy—struggled to restore its standing as a national political organization. After the 1892 elections, many Democrats believed they had finally succeeded. In those contests, for the first time since the war, they captured the presidency and gained control of both houses of Congress. Symbolizing their return to national power, Senate Democrats replaced the incumbent secretary of the Senate—a former Union army general—with a former Confederate general.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

It is precisely that simple. A male person is defined as having a Y chromosome.

In a lab. Discussing science is different than engaging socially. In science, removing subjectivity is important. Socially, treating someone as an individual with unique experiences is important.

For instance, it is important when discussing climate change to use scientifically accurate language because the purpose is to understand the subject is the best objective way possible.

However, discussing someone's appearance may require nuance so as not to offend or confuse someone. For instance, I know several people who had brown eyes when they were young, but now appear to have blue eyes as elderly people. This is due to arcus senilis. I am unlikely to discuss that around the person in question since it calls attention to age and a physical change they may not be comfortable with.

(Note: their genotype in this case does not match their phenotype. Appearance is often tricky and intimately tied to a person's emotions.)

Science recognizes the need to change terminology based on the personal nature of definitions where this does not interfere with the objectivity of the science. For instance, what was once mental retardation is now intellectual disability, and even that used to be termed using words like "imbecile" and "moron." Due to the vernacular use of these as insults, psychologists changed the words.

Consider then, how it makes sense to distinguish between one's social identity (gender) and one's biological characteristics (sex). Also consider that the differences between the different elements of biology (genetic, physiological, chemical, psychological) can further complicate the line between the social and biological aspects.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

The Confederate states were also led by the Democrat party, which apparently is the still the party of racism.

Yup! Not much has changed, since the Democratic party of the Confederate states was all about state's rights and less federal regulation.

 

[Kfox]

Bob, Linda, and Maggie are talking together.

"Hey, Maggie!" says Linda. "Did you hear Bob has a new electric car. Bob says that despite Bob's inexperience with it, it's easy to drive. Right, Bob?"

"Indeed Linda!" Bob replies. "You see, Maggie, Linda was concerned that new technology might make it harder for Linda to operate. Linda was encouraged by my experience, and Linda says Linda may buy Linda's own electric automobile."

Good point. In that case, rather than trying to figure out if Linda's gender pronouns are she, he, xi, ze, ci or the countless other pronouns people use; I would use Linda's biological pronoun which is according to her biology, not gender. IOW if Linda is a biological female I will use the pronoun she, if a biological male; the pronoun he.

 

[Kfox]

Whilst I agree

I mean, that is typical but it doesn’t always occur in that specific way, right.

Like for example a person can be born with XX Male syndrome. Which may even be underreported
Does that make the individual less of a male?
Biologically speaking?
(Idk, I’m not a geneticist lol)

And there are various hormonal conditions that causes an otherwise biological woman to have high levels of testosterone.

I think using people born intersex to justify transgender is misguided. It's not like we have an influx of intersex people with male and female parts claiming to be transgender, What we have are perfectly normal biological males claiming to be women, and perfectly normal biological females claiming to be men.

I mean we are essentially simplifying biology when we define male and female. We always have, as a society

I don't understand this. How is defining male and female simplifying biology?

.Since we are, at the end of the day, laymen and our usage of science isn’t actually completely accurate.
Right?

What makes our usage of science inaccurate?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Good point. In that case, rather than trying to figure out if Linda's gender pronouns are she, he, xi, ze, ci or the countless other pronouns people use;

"Figure out"?

You can just ask them. It's not a puzzle.

Or, if asking them is too awkward for you, just go by your best judgement. And, in the rare event you get them wrong, just be gracious and correct yourself. It's really not that hard.

I would use Linda's biological pronoun which is according to her biology, not gender.

Do you understand why gender exists as a social concept? It's because defining people into social classifications by innate, biological traits leads to the exact same problems that lead to the need to create a social distinction in the first place. What you're essentially saying here is "why can't we just GO BACK to defining people's social category by their biological classification"?

And I would have thought the answer to that is simple. Because we now understand these things are distinct, and trying to define them as biological - rather than distinctly social - categories just goes back to the issues we had before, where people are being DEFINED by something that they have no control over. You can't put the cat back in the bag on this one. You cannot just go back to defining social categories as intrinsically related to biology. It's not going to happen.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I think using people born intersex to justify transgender is misguided. It's not like we have an influx of intersex people with male and female parts claiming to be transgender, What we have are perfectly normal biological males claiming to be women, and perfectly normal biological females claiming to be men.

The point is that even biological sex is not a binary, as many people are alleging it is. To say that biological sex is a very easily distinguishable, either/or proposition, or defined by a single biological characteristic, is just anti-biology. Biologists have defined sex as bimodal for decades.

I don't understand this. How is defining male and female simplifying biology?

Because it is. Biological sex isn't binary, it's bimodal.

What makes our usage of science inaccurate?

Because you're claiming sex is binary, but it's actually bimodal.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There are grey areas in life, but some things are simply "black or white". Whether a person has a Y chromosome is either true or false. It has no grey area. A person with a Y chromosome is a male.

Biology is definitely not "black and white." It's incredibly fuzzy, which seems pretty obvious from these ongoing discussions, wouldn't you say?

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is rude is for someone to have a personal preference to which they insist everyone else must conform.

Okey dokey, Shirley!

 

[ADigitalArtist]

As I have written, you can disguise a person of one gender as being of the other. That doesn't change their innate genetic phenotype.

It's a good thing that gender has little to do with genetic phenotype then. And that no biologist of any salt conflate sex and gender.

But that wasn't the purpose of my post. I'm showing that even your basic *** high-school biology idea of the sexes aren't as binary as you think. Women can have beards and men can lactate. Intersex is a spectrum of sex presentation, not to be discounted.