Cont: Trans Women are not Women II: The Bath Of Khan

[mumblethrax]

You could say "Subjective experience of one's own height" or "Subjective experience of one's own eye color" and it would be just as valid.

You could say that. There's nothing stopping you from defining "height identity" as "subjective experience of one's own height."

The question is why you would do that, given that there's no evidence that people have a height identity influenced by neuroanatomical differences.

 

[JoeMorgue]

No, because height and eye color are empirically observable whereas gender isn't. A better example would be "Subjective experience of one's own mysterious inner essence."

This is why I've been reduced to calling it a soul.

 

[mumblethrax]

It is, actually.

Try reading that again, but for subtext.

 

[caveman1917]

This is why I've been reduced to calling it a soul.

Yes, by mumblethrax's argument a soul is phenomenal because the same experiment that allows you to determine someone's gender identity (namely asking them "do you have a gender identity?") also allows you to determine someone's soul (namely asking them "do you have a soul?"). That is, unless mumblethrax comes up with a different experiment to determine someone's gender identity that is not based on merely asking the person in question.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The question is why you would do that, given that there's no evidence that people have a height identity influenced by neuroanatomical differences.

So we have a "Gender Soul" but not a "Height Soul."

Got it.

I am literally never going to get an answer to "gender" is, what it does, or how I'm supposed to react to it beyond "Shut up and just nod and agree with whatever the person says because it's there.... *pause for dramatic effect* IDENTITY!" am I?

 

[mumblethrax]

If gender identity is phenomenal then by which sense can I perceive it? What experiment would I perform to determine someone's gender identity?

You could try giving sex reassignment surgery to boys born with deformed genitalia and then look at the outcomes.

 

[mumblethrax]

So we have a "Gender Soul" but not a "Height Soul."

Got it.

No, that's another in that long line of straw men.

I am literally never going to get an answer to "gender" is, what it does, or how I'm supposed to react to it beyond "Shut up and just nod and agree with whatever the person says because it's there.... *pause for dramatic effect* IDENTITY!" am I?

You've been given that answer countless times. It's not anyone's problem but your own that it causes you to spit the dummy.

 

[JoeMorgue]

You could try giving sex reassignment surgery to boys born with deformed genitalia and then look at the outcomes.

That happened once. Didn't go well. Really, really horrible story.

The story of David (or Bruce or Brenda it got weird) Brenner.

 

[JoeMorgue]

No, that's another in that long line of straw men.

Until you give me something that isn't the same thing, no it's not.

"There this undetectable, completely internal, part of me that you have to take my word on."

It's a soul. Give me something other then that, or it's a soul.

At this point your fulfilling the same role in this discussion as Jabba.

 

[d4m10n]

No, because height and eye color are empirically observable whereas gender isn't.

Gender is relatively easy to observe if you take it to mean what I take it to mean. [emoji14]

 

[theprestige]

"Subjective experiences of one's own gender."

You could say "Subjective experience of one's own height" or "Subjective experience of one's own eye color" and it would be just as valid.

Just as valid, but not something society is having much of a problem with right now.

Again, human beings are not systems of formal logic. If you can't wrap your head around the intersection of social cues and self identity, and the feedback loops that arise there, you probably have no business participating in this discussion.

Likewise if you can't wrap your head around the idea that two superficially similar physical properties will often have very different weights in society, for reasons you will probably never know.

 

[JoeMorgue]

We can't use the gender/sex distinction as proof when the only difference between the two things is internal image of and external evidence for.

We could make up a gender equivalent to height and eye color, one that actually exists in the real world and one that exists in your... hearts of hearts we just don't.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Just as valid, but not something society is having much of a problem with right now.

Yeah and let me tell you adding "transgenderism" into the mix has really made the "we don't treat the sexes fairly/equally" problem go away.

Again, human beings are not systems of formal logic.

Again, this can't be your go-to excuse to wave away everything that doesn't make sense.

Person A: "X = Y, but X does not equal Y."
Me: "That doesn't make sense."
You: "Oh we're not systems of formal logic."

Fine. I'll settle for informal logic. Or any logic. Or even just someone explaining anything beyond "Because the person says so."

 

[mumblethrax]

That happened once. Didn't go well. Really, really horrible story.

The story of David (or Bruce or Brenda it got weird) Brenner.

It happened much more than once, which is why it's possible to look at studies, and not just cases.

But I suppose you think David Brenner's understanding of himself as a man, despite having been raised as a woman, was just him invoking some mysterious "gender soul".

Until you give me something that isn't the same thing, no it's not.

I already have. "Identity" does not mean "soul", and there's absolutely no controversy over the idea that identity exists.

You're trying to refute a claim by pretending it's a different claim, which is a fallacy.

 

[JoeMorgue]

You're trying to refute a claim by pretending it's a different claim, which is a fallacy.

Okay listen I'm very, very impressed by your ability to call arguments you don't want to deal with a bad name. Here's your cookie.

I'm done asking the same question over and over and get "Distinction without difference" repeated at me again and again.

Define the difference between a gender and sex in a way that is functionally different from "The sex you are" and "The sex you want to be."

 

[mumblethrax]

Okay listen I'm very, very impressed by your ability to call arguments you don't want to deal with a bad name. Here's your cookie.

I am not at all impressed by your ability to construct sound arguments. You're bad at it, resorting to childishness instead.

I'm done asking the same question over and over and get "Distinction without difference" repeated at me again and again.

It really doesn't seem that way to me. It seems to me like you're "teaching the controversy", and thus will raise the question over and over again, while acting exasperated that you "have to" do it again.

Define the difference between a gender and sex in a way that is functionally different from "The sex you are" and "The sex you want to be."

Gender encompasses all social, cultural, and psychological aspects of masculinity and femininity, and thus is broader than "The sex you want to be" (at the very least, it also includes "the behavior other people expect of you").

 

[JoeMorgue]

Gender encompasses all social, cultural, and psychological aspects of masculinity and femininity, and thus is broader than "The sex you want to be" (at the very least, it also includes "the behavior other people expect of you").

1. Actual sexual biological differences that you can't change (outside of actual medical sexual reassignment surgery).

2. Social roles placed on the sexes (Men have to do this, Women have to do this, Girls are expected to do this, boys are expected to do this) that we should be working to get rid of.

3. A magical third category I keep getting told exists that seems to consist of nothing but the parts of #2 that people want to keep for the sole purpose of subverting.

What am I missing? What variable am I not accounting for?

 

[mumblethrax]

3. A magical third category I keep getting told exists that seems to consist of nothing but the Parts of 2 that people want to keep for the sole purpose of subverting.

I don't even know what you're trying to do. You're not describing categories.

But I've already given a definition of gender identity, and some discussion of why it's different from a contrived "height identity", and yet here you are, talking about "magical" differences again. What to say? You are striving to remain ignorant.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I don't even know what you're trying to do. You're not describing categories.

But I've already given a definition of gender identity, and some discussion of why it's different from a contrived "height identity", and yet here you are, talking about "magical" differences again. What to say? You are striving to remain ignorant.

Yet they seem oddly willing to accept sexual orientation at peoples word with out any kind of strict medical proof of such a thing.

 

[JoeMorgue]

But I've already given a definition of gender identity, and some discussion of why it's different from a contrived "height identity", and yet here you are, talking about "magical" differences again. What to say? You are striving to remain ignorant.

This discussion is going to go nowhere even faster then it is if people can't understand that "Well I already told you" isn't an argument if I've already told I don't accept/agree with what you've said.

I don't accept completely internal criteria in the way you are asking me to do. "Identity" isn't a thing that I factor in how I view the world in the way you're telling me to.

We're disagreeing and having a discussion about that. I'm not just waiting to tell me what to think again because I didn't hear you the first time.