Who determines the number of genders- and how?

[qayak]

First of all, no, that doesn't follow at all.

Thanks for the contrarian view.

Second, I wasn't debunking an expert, I said very specifically that from what you posted I didn't get the argument, since having breasts is not evidence, in any way, for YOUR claim.

Well, that is one of the experts who ststes men are essentially modified women which is the point I was making. You disagree with that so you are disagreeing with the expert. But thanks, once again, for the contrarian viewpoint.

Who's "we"?

Friends, relatives, fellow employees. The people I was discussing this with.

Yeah but my point is that it's very vague. How do you associate those who can't produce sperm with those who can, and why isn't that part of your definition?

I addressed that. They don't have to produce sperm, they only need appear like those members of the human race who normally can.

That seems to agree with something I believe I said earlier on, which is that "male" is defined loosely as "we know it when we see it", though how the brain makes the calculation is a bit murky, and it sure beats "the person knows what they are" as a definition. However, it's far from being very useful except in a general, layman fashion.

This entire recent gender hoopla is a general layman thing. Trying to come up with a scientific definition for it is impossible. It's why advocates argue about definitions of words and not All the science says there are two genders and everyone falls within the two.

For everyday life I use the vague, inclusive definition because it matters little to me. Should I ever become a healthcare professional I am sure I will use a more stringent definition.

The more interesting thing about all this is the actual science of gender. You can't make that **** up!

 

[Belz...]

Thanks for the contrarian view.

Wow, so I either agree with you or I'm being contrarian? Is there no evil your opponents won't stoop to?

What you wrote doesn't follow from its premise.

Well, that is one of the experts who ststes men are essentially modified women which is the point I was making.

I'm not discounting that. I want to know why he says it.

They don't have to produce sperm, they only need appear like those members of the human race who normally can.

You're missing the point again. "Appear like" adds criteria to your definition of 'man' that you're oddly ignoring.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I addressed that. They don't have to produce sperm, they only need appear like those members of the human race who normally can.

And as we've addressed to you for that to make any sense we have to accept and agree as valid that the "sperm producing" members of the species have to "appear" a certain way.

We're talking in circles and getting nowhere so one side can maintain a windmill to tip at.

The personal identity argument is that someone is an X if they assign themselves the societal role of X.

The gender neutrality argument is that the societal role of X is mostly arbitrary and pointless.

The end results is the same, the person in question gets to act however they want without judgement, harassment or discrimination. But one conceptualization requires us to keep old, out moded, and harmful social structures in place for the sole purpose of maintain a framework for people to rebel against.

 

[kellyb]

But one conceptualization requires us to keep old, old moded, and harmful social structures in place for the sole purpose of maintain a framework for people to rebel against.

The whole idea that it really is kind of "counter-revolutionary" does make a at least little sense when you put it like that.

 

[shuttlt]

Personally if I see a woman in the men's restroom, I might bat an eye or two, but I'll assume, even if she doesn't say anything, that she really needs to pee and there are no free stalls in the female room, so I'll just shrug it off. Who cares, anyway?

We aren't talking about one though, are we? We are talking about half the people in there being women in the gender neutral utopia.

 

[JoeMorgue]

We aren't talking about one though, are we? We are talking about half the people in there being women in the gender neutral utopia.

Errr... okay. And?

Half the people in the bathroom are women.

 

[Belz...]

We aren't talking about one though, are we? We are talking about half the people in there being women in the gender neutral utopia.

Personally I wouldn't mind unisex restrooms. I don't see what the fuss is about, though I guess it'd take a while for women to get used to it more than men.

 

[GlennB]

Personally if I see a woman in the men's restroom, I might bat an eye or two, but I'll assume, even if she doesn't say anything, that she really needs to pee and there are no free stalls in the female room, so I'll just shrug it off. Who cares, anyway?

If she wandered over near the urinals and eyed-up your junk would that be a bother? But, yes, public toilets aren's such a hassle, whereas changing rooms are a different matter. Places where people get naked ...

But here's a thought - can self-identification be a fluid thing, changing from day to day? If so, then the pervy male has carte blanche to go into the women's changing room today while using the men's facilities when it suits him.

Self-identification isn't sufficient alone, imo. Otherwise the male athlete who isn't quite good enough to win the big money shifts to the women's competition and scores a quick $100k. If pro tennis or golf have stricter rules then why would public changing facilities have looser rules?

 

[Crawtator]

Another question to consider: why would the NCAA threaten to pull all championship level events out of North Carolina for its public bathroom laws when it has separate categories for women's and men's athletics? These aren't simple questions with simple answers and it seems to me that both sides are ignoring this salient fact.

 

[JoeMorgue]

But here's a thought - can self-identification be a fluid thing, changing from day to day? If so, then the pervy male has carte blanche to go into the women's changing room today while using the men's facilities when it suits him.

Eh the whole "Stealth Perv pretending to be a Transgender" thing is too much of a boogeyman at this point, being literally the only talking point from the transphobic side, to be introduced into this discussion.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Another question to consider: why would the NCAA threaten to pull all championship level events out of North Carolina for its public bathroom laws when it has separate categories for women's and men's athletics? These aren't simple questions with simple answers and it seems to me that both sides are ignoring this salient fact.

Because going to the bathroom isn't a competitive sport.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Because going to the bathroom isn't a competitive sport.

But it could be!

 

[CaptainHowdy]

Another question to consider: why would the NCAA threaten to pull all championship level events out of North Carolina for its public bathroom laws when it has separate categories for women's and men's athletics? These aren't simple questions with simple answers and it seems to me that both sides are ignoring this salient fact.

The barrier between the sexes is sports is probably going to be the next battlefield. It's already started. It may be here that transphiles will be forced to recognize that no matter how many surgeries you have or hormones you block or consume, it's not possible to change your biological sex from one to the other.

 

[qayak]

I'm not discounting that. I want to know why he says it.

I call B.S. on that. My citation gave you the name of an expert, his qualifications, and a blurb from his book where he says exactly what I said he said. I also gave you the name of his book where he lays out the entire argument and so much more including rrferences to other experts and evidence. But you ignoref all that because it didn't fit your narrative. If you want to know, go do your own research. Your laziness/disingenuousness doesn't make the expert, or me, wrong.

What you did was take one tiny statement ,out of an entire book, out of context and use it to claim the expert was wrong. Sorry, I'll take the expert's research and evidence over your contrarianism every time.

You're missing the point again. "Appear like" adds criteria to your definition of 'man' that you're oddly ignoring.

I do not miss the point, I am fully aware that there are issue, I even explained why they exist.

 

[GlennB]

Eh the whole "Stealth Perv pretending to be a Transgender" thing is too much of a boogeyman at this point, being literally the only talking point from the transphobic side, to be introduced into this discussion.

That makes no sense. Please explain your point in actual English.

 

[Belz...]

If she wandered over near the urinals and eyed-up your junk would that be a bother?

What the hell does that have to do with anything? Another man could do that right now. What the hell?

But here's a thought - can self-identification be a fluid thing, changing from day to day? If so, then the pervy male has carte blanche to go into the women's changing room today while using the men's facilities when it suits him.

He doesn't have carte blanche to do anything illegal, so again, what's your point?

 

[Belz...]

I call B.S. on that.

Ok at this point your ENTIRE line of argument is questioning other posters' motives. You are UTTERLY unable to even entertain the idea that someone who disagrees with you might do so honestly.

Not only is that a rule 12 violation, but it's entirely unproductive. There's as such no reason to engage with you on any topic, ever.

 

[JoeMorgue]

That makes no sense. Please explain your point in actual English.

*Very slowly* People... aren't... using... transgenderism... to... be... a... peeping... tom.

 

[Belz...]

Right. It's a right-wing boogeyman, just like the gay child-converter was in the 80s and 90s.

Don't worry, left-wingers have their boogeymen too.

 

[qayak]

Ok at this point your ENTIRE line of argument is questioning other posters' motives. You are UTTERLY unable to even entertain the idea that someone who disagrees with you might do so honestly.

Not only is that a rule 12 violation, but it's entirely unproductive. There's as such no reason to engage with you on any topic, ever.

You made a big deal out of an aside I posted regarding the words male and female. It wasn't about the meanings but about how the originators of the words got it backwards, probably based on their own societal biases. You demanded evidence, got it, ignored it, had it explained to you, and now you claim I am unable to entertain an idea.