Students Are Pushing Back Against Gender Ideology In Their Schools

[Kfox]

Try wearing a dress is the men's bathroom and you'll see how objective it is.

The reason you are playing the fools game is because I could simply claim to do that stuff, lie in order to shut you up, and you would have no way to prove me wrong.

 

[Kfox]

Unless we're talking about spotted hyenas, colobus monkeys, lions, or any other number of mammals that have been observed displaying traits of both sexes. Or humans. It's almost like biology is messy, as I have been saying all along.

Just because it may be messy does not mean it is not objective.

 

[Kfox]

You have been very clear, and in doing so you have repeatedly demonstrated that you are referring to people based upon their gender, as you are not inspecting genitals, DNA, chromosomes, etc. upon meeting people.

What makes you think all of that is necessary to refer to someone's biology? Do you quiz someone about gender before refering to them according to their gender? Where are you getting this stuff?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Just because it may be messy does not mean it is not objective.

This was in response to, "Unless we're talking about spotted hyenas, colobus monkeys, lions, or any other number of mammals that have been observed displaying traits of both sexes. Or humans. It's almost like biology is messy, as I have been saying all along."

So, your response is .... "nuh uh" ..... ?

 

[SkepticThinker]

What makes you think all of that is necessary to refer to someone's biology? Do you quiz someone about gender before refering to them according to their gender? Where are you getting this stuff?

Because that's what biological makeup is all about. You seem to think that's what you're judging people on, when you look at them when in actuality you're judging them according to their gender expression.
If you'd learn the difference between sex and gender, we might be able to actually get somewhere. This is an extremely difficult conversation to have because you refuse to do so.

 

[Orbit]

The reason you are playing the fools game is because I could simply claim to do that stuff, lie in order to shut you up, and you would have no way to prove me wrong.

This shows where your head is at: you just want to argue in bad faith.

 

[Whateverist]

Thats a very shallow and otherwise limited pov.

Very.

That shoe is entirely in the other foot.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But it's all subjective. All of these rules, norms, and taboos you mention are based on what goes on inside of your head; none of it objective.

I've violated many norms and mores and brokens many taboos. Things still happen because they exist in the heads of others.
Don't believe me? Tell peoole you had sex with your cousin. Sure, it wasn't always frowned upon but today it is ridiculed.

 

[Kfox]

Because that's what biological makeup is all about.

that might be what biology is a about, but that doesn't mean I have to do a complete inspection of a person before making an assumption of their biology, to suggest I do is as absurd as suggesting you have to do a complete inspection of a person in order to make an assumption on which of the 100 different genders a person might be a part of.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

that might be what biology is a about, but that doesn't mean I have to do a complete inspection of a person before making an assumption of their biology, to suggest I do is as absurd as suggesting you have to do a complete inspection of a person in order to make an assumption on which of the 100 different genders a person might be a part of.

Ya know what? I'll just let you keep running in circles amd tripping up over your arguements. You really just have no idea anyways, even though you do but keep circling back to try to say you do one thing but then say something that shows you do something entirely different, just to trip up and find yourself back at step 1 just to get to step 2, and the illogical nature of your position swells up and you get bounced back to where you started.

 

[SkepticThinker]

that might be what biology is a about, but that doesn't mean I have to do a complete inspection of a person before making an assumption of their biology, to suggest I do is as absurd as suggesting you have to do a complete inspection of a person in order to make an assumption on which of the 100 different genders a person might be a part of.

Of course you don't. Because you're judging/addressing people according to their gender expression.
And please stop pretending that we're talking about "100 different genders" here. That's just an obfuscation.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Ya know what? I'll just let you keep running in circles amd tripping up over your arguements. You really just have no idea anyways, even though you do but keep circling back to try to say you do one thing but then say something that shows you do something entirely different, just to trip up and find yourself back at step 1 just to get to step 2, and the illogical nature of your position swells up and you get bounced back to where you started.

I was just about to point this out but I couldn't quite figure out how to articulate it.
This is it.

 

[Kfox]

It's not a matter of what is going on inside your head. And let's face it, you've told us what is going on inside your head. And what you describe is a judgment based on GENDER.

When I refer to my dog as he/she, am I refering to my dog's gender? Or biology. Obviously biology because dogs don't have gender. If I can refer to my dog's biology this way, why can't I refer to a human's biology this way

 

[Kfox]

This was in response to, "Unless we're talking about spotted hyenas, colobus monkeys, lions, or any other number of mammals that have been observed displaying traits of both sexes. Or humans. It's almost like biology is messy, as I have been saying all along."

So, your response is .... "nuh uh" ..... ?

No, I made the claim that he/she is a reference to the biology of all mammals; humans included. You responded that biology is messy. This has nothing to do what the fact that he/she is used in reference to all mammals!

I will admit when I responded initially, I was in a hurry on a break at work and I missed the part where you claimed mammals that were observed displaying traits of both sexes are exempt from the he/she reference. What did you mean by this?

 

[Orbit]

No, I made the claim that he/she is a reference to the biology of all mammals; humans included. You responded that biology is messy. This has nothing to do what the fact that he/she is used in reference to all mammals!

I will admit when I responded initially, I was in a hurry on a break at work and I missed the part where you claimed mammals that were observed displaying traits of both sexes are exempt from the he/she reference. What did you mean by this?

Culture is a human thing, not an animal thing. You continue to argue in bad faith.

 

[Kfox]

Because that's what biological makeup is all about. You seem to think that's what you're judging people on, when you look at them when in actuality you're judging them according to their gender expression.
If you'd learn the difference between sex and gender, we might be able to actually get somewhere. This is an extremely difficult conversation to have because you refuse to do so.

You need to realize, I do not recognize the countless different genders people claim, because I equate gender with biology. However for people like you who believe in the countless numbers of gender, if someone is expressing gender in the way they present themselves, I perceive that expression as an indication of their biology, so when I refer to them, I am referring to their biology which is limited to male/female; and does not include aproagender, bigender, and the countless others that I am unable to distinguish one from the other.

 

[Kfox]

Just like economics, family, ethnicity, education, intelligence and a ton of other things. Are you willing to say those things don't exist because they are a "result of our thoughts?"

Okay; just to be clear, when I say “don’t exist” I mean they don’t have an existence by themselves, they do not exist outside of human thought. To answer your question; economics, ethnicity, education and intelligence do not exist outside of human thought; family does because it is a description of real people with an objective existence.

The point there was "the idea of what is appropriate appearance and behavior for a man or women is "gender".

Fine; so you call it gender. But the fact that it changes from person to person, culture to culture an indication that gender is a social construct IOW subjective?

 

[Kfox]

No, the things telling you it is inappropriate for men to wear skirts and dresses don't just exist "inside your head." These things are called social\cultural norms. The same social/cultural norms that told women that they had to cover up their ankles or face social consequences for exposing them. That doesn't just exist inside someone's head.

Then where does it exist then? If social/cultural norms are not just the result of human thought/ideas, what else is it the result of?

 

[Kfox]

This shows where your head is at: you just want to argue in bad faith.

No; I just refuse to play your little game. I already told you my experiences, if you don't want to accept them as my experiences that is your choice.

 

[Kfox]

I've violated many norms and mores and brokens many taboos. Things still happen because they exist in the heads of others.
Don't believe me?

No; I do believe you. I've never doubted that which is a figment of someone's imagination can result in real live actions from people who are very real.