The witchhunt continues...

[SomeRandom]

I find it remarkable people still haven't realized nature is messy and sloppy, and black and white only exists to what can see them. And for all we know, it still laughs at us when we realize we know less than we did we tried to figure it out. It laughed at so hard that it dwarves anything we used to think as the totality of Creation. We're wrong and wrong again and wrong some more.
And it every way possible, it doesn't give a damn what we think about it.

I won’t pretend to know anything intricate about biology.
But there seems to be a disconnect between the acknowledgement of the nuances existing in the human species and humans being either male or female
Which may be due to the religious aspect in society, I sincerely don’t know. Not American. Just an observation.

Either way, I’m forcibly reminded of literally the first thing I had to copy from my high school biology text book
And I quote
“It is scientifically impossible for a population of humans to be comprised of males which are all 100% male and females which are all 100% female.”
Basically acknowledging that intersex conditions exist, among other “anomalies.”

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Not the point.

Nope, it is very much the point. If it were a hundred years ago or so and your were born to Irish or Italian immigrants, you would not be considered white. Barack Obama is considered black, despite the fact that one of his parents is white and the other is black, which means that - if we want to address white as a measurable, biological category - it is just as correct to call Obama white as it is black. During the early days of slavery, before black people had any kind of legal rights, the "one drop" rule meant that if you had ANY white parentage or ancestry you would be considered legally white; this was later reversed, so that the law would not grant rights to mixed-race children, so if either of your parents were black you were legally considered black. Long before even this there was no "white": your race was considered your nationality, not your skin tones. British and French people in the middle ages, even though most today would be largely be considered white, did not treat each other as the same race, and defined their races as distinctly British and distinctly French.

The point is that racial categories have always been subjective, including your being white. Whether your are "white" or not doesn't have as much to do with your skin colour as it has to do with the social context you find yourself in, because the range of what is considered to belong in which racial category is always changing.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Two X chromosomes = female, XY = male. Even if I don't know what a person is they are still one or the other (special cases aside).

Why would you put special cases aside? If your argument is "if you ignore the exceptions, all people fall into one of two categories" it's kind of self-defeating, no?

In any case, this is irrelevant. Since you use gender as a social category and identify people as being within gendered categories every day - despite the fact that you are completely incapable of assessing their chromosomal makeup - that means you clearly do not use this definition in any practical way in every day life.

 

[crossfire]

Is using the term man to refer to all of mankind {aka humans} a lie?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

No. Quite the opposite. Words have different meanings at different times. Like it or not it is not a lie to call a transwoman a woman. As to how does one use it? Correctly hopefully.

Can you see how silly this is? All you have done is state that transwomen are women but you cannot define what a woman is. What makes a transwoman a woman?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Nope, it is very much the point. If it were a hundred years ago or so and your were born to Irish or Italian immigrants, you would not be considered white. Barack Obama is considered black, despite the fact that one of his parents is white and the other is black, which means that - if we want to address white as a measurable, biological category - it is just as correct to call Obama white as it is black. During the early days of slavery, before black people had any kind of legal rights, the "one drop" rule meant that if you had ANY white parentage or ancestry you would be considered legally white; this was later reversed, so that the law would not grant rights to mixed-race children, so if either of your parents were black you were legally considered black. Long before even this there was no "white": your race was considered your nationality, not your skin tones. British and French people in the middle ages, even though most today would be largely be considered white, did not treat each other as the same race, and defined their races as distinctly British and distinctly French.

The point is that racial categories have always been subjective, including your being white. Whether your are "white" or not doesn't have as much to do with your skin colour as it has to do with the social context you find yourself in, because the range of what is considered to belong in which racial category is always changing.

Still not the point. This is an example of the gymnastics the left has to go through to keep their ideology in tact.

What if I said I feel like a cat and want to be referred to as a cat. Would you think that is ok?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Why would you put special cases aside? If your argument is "if you ignore the exceptions, all people fall into one of two categories" it's kind of self-defeating, no?

Because abnormalities do exist. Nature is not perfect. That does not mean that people with two X are not female and people with XY are not male.

In any case, this is irrelevant. Since you use gender as a social category and identify people as being within gendered categories every day - despite the fact that you are completely incapable of assessing their chromosomal makeup - that means you clearly do not use this definition in any practical way in every day life.

Of course I cannot know what a persons chromosomal makeup is, but the fact is they have chromosomes that make them male or female.

Define woman and man please.

 

[crossfire]

Can you see how silly this is? All you have done is state that transwomen are women but you cannot define what a woman is. What makes a transwoman a woman?

If you take the story of Eve literally, then Eve is obviously a transgender clone, yet Adam called her woman. Was this a lie? Did god give the power of naming creatures only to Adam, or to all of mankind?

Are rites of passage when boys become man and girls become women lies? Was the young person magically transformed in a blink of an eye from juvenile to adult simply because the people started calling them adult? Are those who do not go through a rite of passage relegated to perpetual juvenile status?

Are the old customs of calling ones community "the people" or "the humans" while calling all others "non-humans" ( or barbarians) lies?

What's in a name, and where does the power behind a name come from? Is taking up a name an obligation? Can one reject or change a name, or would that be a lie? Who decides?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Still not the point. This is an example of the gymnastics the left has to go through to keep their ideology in tact.

There's no mental gymnastics involved. Everything I said was factually true. All I did was point it out.

If facts, to you, are "mental gymnastics" then perhaps you need to learn more before coming in to this subject. I understand that facts - such as the fact that racial labels have not (and broadly still are not) determined by any objective criteria - may make you uncomfortable, but that's how we grow. We learn and change.

You learned something new, and that new knowledge now feeds into a greater understanding of the world around you. Revel in this fact.

What if I said I feel like a cat and want to be referred to as a cat. Would you think that is ok?

Firstly, there's a difference between a social category that humans use and a biological species designation.

But, would I have a problem with you wishing to be REFERRED TO as a cat? Nope. It doesn't affect me in the slightest. More freedom to you, I guess.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Because abnormalities do exist. Nature is not perfect. That does not mean that people with two X are not female and people with XY are not male.

But it DOES mean that biological variation exists within those categorisations, and there are ARE categorisations outside of them. They do exist. That's point.

Of course I cannot know what a persons chromosomal makeup is, but the fact is they have chromosomes that make them male or female.

But you can't know what their chromosomes are, so how can you possibly assign a gender to anyone?

Define woman and man please.

I have done this multiple times, now. Why do you keep asking questions people have answered?

A woman is a person who identifies as a woman, a man is a person who identifies as a man. Broadly, they are designations determined by broad social labels that we self-identify as or with.

Are you going to remember the answer now?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

If you take the story of Eve literally, then Eve is obviously a transgender clone, yet Adam called her woman. Was this a lie? Did god give the power of naming creatures only to Adam, or to all of mankind?

I don't believe the bible is true.

Are rites of passage when boys become man and girls become women lies? Was the young person magically transformed in a blink of an eye from juvenile to adult simply because the people started calling them adult? Are those who do not go through a rite of passage relegated to perpetual juvenile status?

Are the old customs of calling ones community "the people" or "the humans" while calling all others "non-humans" ( or barbarians) lies?

What's in a name, and where does the power behind a name come from? Is taking up a name an obligation? Can one reject or change a name, or would that be a lie? Who decides?

I fail to see the relevance. If there is no definition of a woman or man then what does transgender even mean? What makes a transgender man a man?

 

[Kenny]

Well for every so called “rule” there is an exception. Biology is no different.
Anomalies are treated as strictly neutral in scientific speech in most scenarios. Since with a little “medical science” the individual can live a healthy and prosperous life.
We should be careful not to conflate the term with something negative though.
Sadly in regular speech that is typically the case.
I mean said “anomalies” are still thinking feeling human beings at the end of the day. It’s important to always remember that

If anomalies are treated medically, psychologist can help those who deny their biology.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

There's no mental gymnastics involved. Everything I said was factually true. All I did was point it out.

If facts, to you, are "mental gymnastics" then perhaps you need to learn more before coming in to this subject. I understand that facts - such as the fact that racial labels have not (and broadly still are not) determined by any objective criteria - may make you uncomfortable, but that's how we grow. We learn and change.

You have refused to define the words woman and man. Why?

But, would I have a problem with you wishing to be REFERRED TO as a cat? Nope. It doesn't affect me in the slightest. More freedom to you, I guess.

Would you believe I was a cat if I said I feel like a cat?

 

[icehorse]

You do not seem to realize that the meaning of words can change over the years. The definition of man and woman has changed over the years. No one can force you to use the new definitions, but that does not make them lies

The problem is that activists are indeed trying to force us to use new definitions. That's very different than the natural, slow moving evolution you're talking about.

 

[metis]

If anomalies are treated medically, psychologist can help those who deny their biology.

But then the leads to the question what determines their biology along these lines?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You have refused to define the words woman and man. Why?

That's a lie. I have given my definition multiple times, and I have NEVER ONCE "refused" to define the words woman or man.

If you think you are right, why do you feel the need to lie? Is it because your arguments can't stand on their own?

Would you believe I was a cat if I said I feel like a cat?

No, because species is a biological category humans apply to animals. It is not a social label that we can identify with or as. But if you personally wish to be CALLED a cat, I don't really care.

I have also answered this question, multiple times. You even EDITED OUT the part my post that explicitly differentiated between identifying as a gender and identifying as a species. Again, why do you have to lie?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Change of subjects. I'm not surprised at all. But you set the record straight below... thank you.


So, you are saying that an XX is a female and an XY is a male. GREAT!

It's the same subject, as explained.
You didn't answer any of my questions, nor did you respond to anything I said. Instead, you repeated yourself.
Sad to say, unfortunately this seems to be how every conversation goes with you - no where. It's impossible to have a proper conversation with someone who interacts in this manner.

Bottom line: You don't know it's a "lie." You've said nothing to refute anything I've pointed out about how you would know it's a "lie."

 

[Kenny]

But then the leads to the question what determines their biology along these lines?

What is really being promoted is that we have no will, IMV

 

[Kenny]

It's the same subject, as explained.
You didn't answer any of my questions, nor did you respond to anything I said. Instead, you repeated yourself.
Sad to say, unfortunately this seems to be how every conversation goes with you - no where. It's impossible to have a proper conversation with someone who interacts in this manner.

Bottom line: You don't know it's a "lie." You've said nothing to refute anything I've pointed out about how you would know it's a "lie."

XX is XX. Any attempt to make XX an XY, or visa versa, is a lie.

I don't need to answer questions beyond answering this one first. All other positions are mute until you can prove me wrong. The other questions are more of a distraction.

 

[SkepticThinker]

As I've said to others earlier in this thread, the variation that I'm concerned with is relatively new. Yes, I understand what's been going on for decades, no debate from me there.

What's new-ish however is trans women who make no attempt to look like women using these facilities. It's no longer uncommon to see trans women sporting full, thick beards.

It's this new situation that's different than the past. And I'm NOT concerned that the trans women are any more violent than any other segment of the population. The concern is that if it becomes "normal" to see people who look like men entering women's restrooms, then all women will be put at greater risk. Because violent men will - in practice - have a much easier time entering women's restrooms without anyone raising an eyebrow.

Okay, you say this is a "new" fad. Did you post something indicating this somewhere in this thread that I missed? If not, where did you come up with it?