What Age Is Acceptable To Identify As The Opposite Sex?

[Kfox]

A man feels like a man and a women feels like a women. You can then ask them individually what that means to them.

The fact that you use a circular argument to make your point makes MY point.

 

[Argentbear]

If you define gender in a way that there is no distinction between man vs woman, yet you insist you are one but not the other...... what else do you call this?

Ask people is they are happy the response you get will be a report on how they feel. Using your logic there is no difference between being happy and being sad. Yet we all know there is a difference.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Biology is real, gender is make believe.

Yeah, so is respect too. It has no objective evidence. It is make believe.
BTW real has no objective referent and is also make believe.

 

[Argentbear]

There are plenty of ways to disrespect schizophrentics;

and you keep doing so. Why?

 

[Kfox]

Every society, ethnic group, and culture has gender role expectations, but they can be very different from group to group. Women in western society are generally expected to dress in typically feminine ways and be polite, accommodating, and nurturing. Men are generally expected to be strong, aggressive, and bold. Gender

Oh stop it! Nobody respects those sexist gender roles anymore, we got away from that 50 years ago!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The fact that you use a circular argument to make your point makes MY point.

You are no the objective authority of how humans ought to think, feel and have a life. That you make believe that real is important is without objective evidence.

 

[Argentbear]

Oh stop it! Nobody respects those sexist gender roles anymore, we got away from that 50 years ago!

they still exist and are societally reinforced. Just try spending a week embracing the gender rolls to your biological presentation and see how much respect you get.

 

[Quintessence]

But if the labels they put upon you are factually correct, why can't you just accept people are gonna see you for who you truly are?

What some believe to be factually correct and what is factually correct are often not the same thing. And this is no excuse for abuse and harm of others in any case.

Obviously, a socially well-adjusted individual accepts they cannot control the perspectives of others. That was kind of my entire point, as was remarking that it would be nice if we didn't have to deal with abusive perspectives in the first place. Be listened to instead of put upon in ways that hurt us. That really shouldn't be a big ask for this topic, but intolerance and prejudice is a strange thing.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But if the labels they put upon you are factually correct, why can't you just accept people are gonna see you for who you truly are?

Now just for the fun of it. Justify what you consider factually correct and not just claim it, but actually justifiy it. Can you do that or it is just make believe?

 

[icehorse]

Define "tomboy" without referencing to biological sex or gender norms

Where did those rules come from? And what is a "gender norm"? And of course you'll need to define "gender" before you can define gender norm...

 

[icehorse]

My point is what my gender is my first person experince of what it feels like to be a gender. And that is true and real, but it has no objective evidence, because it is how I feel.

I've heard it said that gender is sort of like a "soul", and that's how you're making it sound, is that your intention?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Where did those rules come from? And what is a "gender norm"? And of course you'll need to define "gender" before you can define gender norm...

Explain with objective evidence how only your rules and norms are relevant for how to debate?
And how you with objective evidence decide how humans ought to behave?

Your problem is that you believe in a set of norms for behaviour that appears to be subjective, yet you demand of the rest of us, that we must live up to something you don't live up to.
You have to stop doing this double standard.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I've heard it said that gender is sort of like a "soul", and that's how you're making it sound, is that your intention?

Well, if you can just give objective evidence that all of human life can be lived with that, then we are fine.

 

[icehorse]

Explain with objective evidence how only your rules and norms are relevant for how to debate?
And how you with objective evidence decide how humans ought to behave?

Your problem is that you believe in a set of norms for behaviour that appears to be subjective, yet you demand of the rest of us, that we must live up to something you don't live up to.
You have to stop doing this double standard.

I disagree.

You and I are having a dialog here. We have tacitly agreed to use the English language, and standard grammar, and standard uses of logic, and the standard definitions of words, in order to exchange ideas. And for the most part we are agreed and so we can understand each other. I'm not imposing these things on you, these things are what we all tacitly agree to do whenever we talk to each other.

So it's logically true to say the following two sentences:

Cats are felines.
Felines are cats.

But if those are the only definitions we have for "cat" and "feline" we know virtually nothing about what those words mean. Those two sentences are a type of circular definition.

So when a person says something like:

Gender is what a person feels their gender identity is.
Gender identity is what gender a person feels they are.

That person has given another circular definition.

As a side note, in the past we've discussed your habit of using relativism in these discussions. Such tactics conform to the dialog rules I described above, but I find the excessive use of relativism to be a waste of time to pursue. So once again, my request is that you avoid using excessive relativism when we're having a dialog. It's simply boring.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I disagree.

You and I are having a dialog here. We have tacitly agreed to use the English language, and standard grammar, and standard uses of logic, and the standard definitions of words, in order to exchange ideas. And for the most part we are agreed and so we can understand each other. I'm not imposing these things on you, these things are what we all tacitly agree to do whenever we talk to each other.

So it's logically true to say the following two sentences:

Cats are felines.
Felines are cats.

But if those are the only definitions we have for "cat" and "feline" we know virtually nothing about what those words mean. Those two sentences are a type of circular definition.

So when a person says something like:

Gender is what a person feels their gender identity is.
Gender identity is what gender a person feels they are.

That person has given another circular definition.

As a side note, in the past we've discussed your habit of using relativism in these discussions. Such tactics conform to the dialog rules I described above, but I find the excessive use of relativism to be a waste of time to pursue. So once again, my request is that you avoid using excessive relativism when we're having a dialog. It's simply boring.

If you only debate for the sake of debate, then say so.
On the other hand if you have made a rule that no circular definitions are alowed for life as such, then state your authority to do so.

We end in philosophy, because you also have to justify your thinking and norms and you just can't demand that other humans must be like you.

So what is your justification that you decide the norms???

 

[icehorse]

If you only debate for the sake of debate, then say so.
On the other hand if you have made a rule that no circular definitions are alowed for life as such, then state your authority to do so.

We end in philosophy, because you also have to justify your thinking and norms and you just can't demand that other humans must be like you.

So what is your justification that you decide the norms???

I'm on this forum to debate and discuss topics for the purpose of people understanding each other and the world better.

As I just said, everyone on this forum makes a tacit commitment to follow the rules of language, debate and discussion. You follow them yourself most of the time until it doesn't suit you. sigh.

I did not make these rules up.

So, of course you can use circular definitions if you want to, but according to universal rules, they just don't mean much of anything. Since we're on a debate / discussion forum, why would anyone choose to waste time with definitions that don't mean anything?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm on this forum to debate and discuss topics for the purpose of people understanding each other and the world better.

...

Okay, please using science and all what you believe in to give evidence for better. I mean it. That is your double standard if you can't live up to it.
You deman logic, evidence and so on. Then live up to it yourself.

 

[icehorse]

Okay, please using science and all what you believe in to give evidence for better. I mean it. That is your double standard if you can't live up to it.
You deman logic, evidence and so on. Then live up to it yourself.

Im sorry, I don't understand that, can you rephrase your request? What evidence do you want me to provide?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Im sorry, I don't understand that, can you rephrase your request? What evidence do you want me to provide?

What is the objective standard for better for understanding each other and the world better?

 

[McBell]

Okay THAT was one of the most illogical things I've heard in a long time!

In your world is it only useful to criticize an idea when you have a solution? If that was how the world worked science would be positively hobbled.

i told you, I'm open to hearing a solid, useful definition. Many people in this thread have used the term, why won't anyone define what they mean when they choose to use it? No one is forcing them to use it, correct?

You keep whining about the definitions but offer up nothing but criticism at any definition presented.

At this point, you are merely picking at nits pretending they are mountains.