Who determines the number of genders- and how?

[mumblethrax]

Not necessarily

This is like a computer's attempt to simulate argument.

Why?

Because no justification for limiting the definition to intersex people has been advanced. This is called "special pleading".

 

[cullennz]

Because no justification for limiting the definition to intersex people has been advanced.

And again you switch to trans people are the same as intersex

They aren't

 

[mumblethrax]

And again you switch to trans people are the same as intersex

The careful reader will note that I did not, as it happens, say that at all.

 

[cullennz]

The careful reader will note that I did not, as it happens, say that at all.

Actually you didn't

You are pleading to change the meaning of a word to include one group of special people against the evidence that they are totally different and no decent justification for it.

 

[mumblethrax]

You are pleading to change the meaning of a word to include one group of special people against the evidence that they are totally different and no decent justification for it.

No, I'm saying that our experience with intersex people suggests that the traditional definition of some words ("man" and "woman", for example) is inadequate, and that a better definition is needed. Once we arrive at a better definition, we would need some justification not to extend that definition to everyone. You can tell by the way that I keep saying that, and not the wholly unrelated thing you keep pulling out of your ass.

Using the words "special" and "pleading" independently in a sentence as if this were sufficient to show special pleading...well, what to say about that.

 

[cullennz]

No, I'm saying that our experience with intersex people suggests that the traditional definition of some words ("man" and "woman", for example) is inadequate, and that a better definition is needed. Once we arrive at a better definition, we would need some justification not to extend that definition to everyone. You can tell by the way that I keep saying that, and not the wholly unrelated thing you keep pulling out of your ass.

Using the words "special" and "pleading" independently in a sentence as if this were sufficient to show special pleading...well, what to say about that.

Inadequite to you

 

[mumblethrax]

Inadequite to you

I think this is the point where I got on this ride, and I didn't like it the first time.

 

[cullennz]

I think this is the point where I got on this ride, and I didn't like it the first time.

I get you think the meaning of the words man and woman and intersex need to be changed to fit trans people.

A lot of people dont

 

[Marcus]

No, I'm saying that our experience with intersex people suggests that the traditional definition of some words ("man" and "woman", for example) is inadequate, and that a better definition is needed. Once we arrive at a better definition, we would need some justification not to extend that definition to everyone. You can tell by the way that I keep saying that, and not the wholly unrelated thing you keep pulling out of your ass.

Using the words "special" and "pleading" independently in a sentence as if this were sufficient to show special pleading...well, what to say about that.

What is wrong with "transperson"? It seems more accurate than man, woman. or intersex. Not criticizing, just asking.

 

[Mycroft]

Ok, now, I'm really not sure what this even means. How are we defining "women" here, precisely?

There is nothing in what I said that requires further explanation. You want an easy black & white dichotomy because that's what you're comfortable with, but the controversy exists precisely because there are people who don't easily fit that binary.

I identify as women people who self-identify as women, and I can't think of any good reason to use any other criteria.

Genitalia? Chromosomes? Behavior? Sexual attraction? Choice of clothing? None of these things are perfect indicators unless you define them to be, and the only purpose of that would be to exclude some people from the gender they self-identify as.

So if you think a different definition of women is necessary, then you provide it and then you tell me what good is accomplished by excluding those people it excludes from the ranks of the gender of their self-identity.

 

[JoeMorgue]

You want an easy black & white dichotomy because that's what you're comfortable with, but the controversy exists precisely because there are people who don't easily fit that binary.

Our options are not limited only to perfectly black and white and pure randomness via self determination.

I identify as women people who self-identify as women, and I can't think of any good reason to use any other criteria.

That's... functionally useless. It literally removes any exterior context from the entire concept. This is gender solipsism at this point.

"I'm a woman because I self-define as one" still has to have some context for what that means.

This whole "I see the distinction but I don't have to explain it to you and you're wrong for even asking what it is" thing is getting old.

Genitalia? Chromosomes? Behavior? Sexual attraction? Choice of clothing? None of these things are perfect indicators unless you define them to be, and the only purpose of that would be to exclude some people from the gender they self-identify as.

Some of those are actual biological differences that don't give one toss about somebody's "self identity" and the others are meaningless social restrictions forced by the society.

So if you think a different definition of women is necessary, then you provide it and then you tell me what good is accomplished by excluding those people it excludes from the ranks of the gender of their self-identity.

Categories don't have to fit every single person to be useful. If 99% of the population fits into one of two categories... that's just how reality and language work. We don't have to make exceptions for everything.

 

[Mycroft]

What is wrong with "transperson"? It seems more accurate than man, woman. or intersex. Not criticizing, just asking.

Nothing wrong with it in and of itself if there is reason to identify someone as trans, but without such reason one should go with the broader term.

For example, "lesbian" is a sub-set of women, but it's usually not necessary to describe someone as lesbian unless their sexual orientation is being discussed. You should say "woman" instead.

 

[d4m10n]

I identify as women people who self-identify as women, and I can't think of any good reason to use any other criteria.

Language is needed to communicate meaning to other people. Aside from a relatively small group of activists for social justice, I don't expect most native speakers of English to mean what you mean by that term. You definition also seems to suffer from a sort of self-referential circularity, it only holds meaning for those already having some definition of woman in mind.

 

[Mycroft]

Our options are not limited only to perfectly black and white and pure randomness via self determination.

There is nothing random about self-determination. If I asked you to identify your gender, would you flip a coin? No? Neither would a trans-person.

That's... functionally useless. It literally removes any exterior context from the entire concept. This is gender solipsism at this point.

It's useless for discrimination against people who don't identify with the gender you would assign for them, but beyond that it's the only definition that's useful.

If you disagree, propose your own definition and tell us why using your definition is better.

"I'm a woman because I self-define as one" still has to have some context for what that means.

Why?

This whole "I see the distinction but I don't have to explain it to you and you're wrong for even asking what it is" thing is getting old.

That hasn't been said anywhere. That's a straw-man.

Some of those are actual biological differences that don't give one toss about somebody's "self identity" and the others are meaningless social restrictions forced by the society.

And none of them are accurate 100% of the time.

Categories don't have to fit every single person to be useful. If 99% of the population fits into one of two categories... that's just how reality and language work. We don't have to make exceptions for everything.

Agreed that catagories don't have to fit everyone to be useful, but we're discussing that other 1%. I don't agree that excluding them from the catagory of their choice serves any useful purpose, but if you can identify one I'd love to hear what it is.

 

[Mycroft]

Language is needed to communicate meaning to other people. Aside from a relatively small group of activists for social justice, I don't expect most native speakers of English to mean what you mean by that term. You definition also seems to suffer from a sort of self-referential circularity, it only holds meaning for those already having some definition of woman in mind.

What do you expect most speakers of English to mean and why?

Who doesn't already have some definition of woman in mind? We're not aiming this discussion towards genderless martians.

 

[Mycroft]

Trans women may look like women (not always), they may act like women (not always) and consider themselves to be women.

But they aren't women.

Exactly. Far from derailing the conversation as Delphic Oracle claimed, it identifies the very heart of what the disagreement is about.

BTW, many people born as women don't particularly look or act like we expect cis-women to look and act, so what of it?

This is the bit that is arguable.

You think they suddenly become women. A lot of people don't.

Suddenly? I've never heard a person describe it that way.

 

[JoeMorgue]

There is nothing random about self-determination. If I asked you to identify your gender, would you flip a coin? No? Neither would a trans-person.

And I'm sorry but here we just reach a base disagreement.

Totally internal labeling that doesn't relate to anything external is by definition meaningless and I don't think I'll ever understand the fascination bordering on fetishism that Progressivism has developed for it in the last few years. "I am because I say I am" is... just not meaningful absent some other criteria.

I don't "identify" as a gender, I just am one and that's based on actual objective criteria, not on some purely internal "sense of self." I'm male because I have a specific genital and chromosome structure, not because I "feel" something or "identify" as something. I no more "identify" as male then I identify as 5"10, blue eyed, or O Positive blood type. I just "am" those things. I could tell you I "feel" like I'm or "identify as" 6"4, brown eyed, and AB Negative with the same degree of meaningfulness to me. I could say I want to be those things, but me just saying I am is... well like I said if you call a tail a leg a dog still has 4 legs, not 5.

"Otherkin" are as perfectly valid as Transgenderism if you're treating self identification with this degree of absoluteness. The language is identical and the language is the only thing you're pointing at as mattering.

Again since I don't recognize any purely non-biological distinction between the genders as valid "identifying" as another gender is absolutely meaningless to me.

And before the sole and universal retort of "Transphobia" gets trotted out none of this makes any practical difference in how people should be treated. A guy who wants to wear dresses and makeup and have sex with other men and take on zero of the roles traditionally associated with women and avoid roles traditionally associated with men should absolutely be able to do so absent legal restriction, discrimination, judgement or harassment.

Just being told essentially "Treating X and Y exactly the same, you have to see X as Y" is where I get lost. It's not even that I don't want to, I literally can't. You're demanding I recognize a distinction without difference who only criteria is someone else's purely internal conceptualization.

 

[d4m10n]

What do you expect most speakers of English to mean and why?

https://www.onelook.com/?w=woman

Who doesn't already have some definition of woman in mind?

Which particular one did you have in mind in the phrase "people who self-identify as women" invoked earlier?

We're not aiming this discussion towards genderless martians.

Too true. We're aiming it at literate English-speaking skeptics.

 

[mumblethrax]

What is wrong with "transperson"? It seems more accurate than man, woman. or intersex. Not criticizing, just asking.

Nothing wrong with it, but it has obvious deficiencies if you're trying to distinguish between genders, while failing to address the inadequacy of "man" and "woman".

There's also nothing wrong with cisman and ciswoman, but I'm not going to call men and women that most of the time.

 

[Mycroft]

And I'm sorry but here we just reach a base disagreement.

Yes. I'm going to attempt to change your opinion through reason.

Totally internal labeling that doesn't relate to anything external is by definition meaningless and I don't think I'll ever understand the fascination bordering on fetishism that Progressivism has developed for it in the last few years. "I am because I say I am" is... just not meaningful absent some other criteria.

If it were "by definition" meaningless then you would be able to point to a definition that renders it meaningless. You can't, and more importantly it has significant meaning to the people involved. Nobody opts for gender reassignment unless it's very important to them.

I don't "identify" as a gender, I just am one and that's based on actual objective criteria, not on some purely internal "sense of self."

You do identify as a gender, it's just that you have the privilege to never be challenged in your gender identity.

I'm male because I have a specific genital and chromosome structure, not because I "feel" something or "identify" as something.

And yet people agree with your gender identity without ever checking your genitals or chromosome structures. Instead they look at how you look, how you express yourself, and largely take your word for it.

Which works out pretty well, I would guess?

"Otherkin" are as perfectly valid as Transgenderism if you're treating self identification with this degree of absoluteness. The language is identical and the language is the only thing you're pointing at as mattering.

For the transgender person it is a great deal more complicated than that, going by how they self-identify is just an amazingly easy and accurate short-cut you and I can use.

And before the sole and universal retort of "Transphobia" gets trotted out none of this makes any practical difference in how people should be treated. A guy who wants to wear dresses and makeup and have sex with other men and take on zero of the roles traditionally associated with women and avoid roles traditionally associated with men should absolutely be able to do so absent legal restriction, discrimination, judgement or harassment.

But you object to calling her a woman. Why?

Should she be allowed to use the bathroom of her choice? Why or why not?

And why do you say she takes on "zero" of the roles traditionally associated with women?

Just being told essentially "Treating X and Y exactly the same, you have to see X as Y" is where I get lost. It's not even that I don't want to, I literally can't. You're demanding I recognize a distinction without difference who only criteria is someone else's purely internal conceptualization.

You claim there is no difference, but to me the person who is born with one set of genitalia but who identifies with a different gender is profoundly different from a cis-gendered person born with similar genitals. I don't understand why that isn't obvious or why you should get lost over it?