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

Status
Not open for further replies.
BobTheCoward said:
The conclusion that it is biological is the same as concluding that every thought a person has is chemistry or physics.
Click to expand...

No, it isn’t. First, your use of the term is too broad. Learned behavior is in a sense biological because learning is done with our brains, but calling it biological blurs an important distinction between learned and instinctual. Your use of the term is so broad as to be meaningless.

Second, you didn’t simply claim that being trans has a biological basis, but that being a transwoman was being biologically female in some manner. These are very different claims, and you have no evidence for the latter. In fact, given the lack of specificity in your claim, it isn’t even testable in principle.

My claim that they are women is absolutely falsifiable. If it fails to meet the criteria I ssrablished, then it is falsified.
Click to expand...

But you established no criteria. HOW are trans women biologically female? What about their biology matches “female” and not “male”? Hell, what do you even mean by “male” and “female” here?
 
Ziggurat said:
No, it isn’t. First, your use of the term is too broad. Learned behavior is in a sense biological because learning is done with our brains, but calling it biological blurs an important distinction between learned and instinctual. Your use of the term is so broad as to be meaningless.

Second, you didn’t simply claim that being trans has a biological basis, but that being a transwoman was being biologically female in some manner. These are very different claims, and you have no evidence for the latter. In fact, given the lack of specificity in your claim, it isn’t even testable in principle.



But you established no criteria. HOW are trans women biologically female? What about their biology matches “female” and not “male”? Hell, what do you even mean by “male” and “female” here?
Click to expand...

I'm saying asserting that you identify as female is a female. That is the criteria. Whether learned or instinctual is not relevant to the criteria.

See? Testable

And that isn't even my criteria (more like criterion), that is what the community seems to advocate and I'm fine with that.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
I'm saying asserting that you identify as female is a female. That is the criteria.
Click to expand...

Then "female" is meaningless.

And that isn't even my criteria (more like criterion), that is what the community seems to advocate and I'm fine with that.
Click to expand...

"The" community? Which community? There's more than one community in the world. And plenty of communities aren't fine with it, for reasons that have been detailed at length. That you personally are fine with it is of no consequence.
 
Ziggurat said:
Then "female" is meaningless.



"The" community? Which community? There's more than one community in the world. And plenty of communities aren't fine with it, for reasons that have been detailed at length. That you personally are fine with it is of no consequence.
Click to expand...

Not meaningless. If it was meaningless, as someone who loves meaningless things, I would do it. I do not feel like a woman, so I won't do it.


Nothing discussed on this forum is of any consequence. Because you are not fine with it is of no consequence. That isn't a position.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Not meaningless. If it was meaningless, as someone who loves meaningless things, I would do it. I do not feel like a woman, so I won't do it.
Click to expand...

But you CAN feel like a woman, because a woman can be anything. If you say you are a woman, then you will feel like a woman because you will be a woman. You don't even have to change how you feel, the label change suffices.

Nothing discussed on this forum is of any consequence. Because you are not fine with it is of no consequence. That isn't a position.
Click to expand...

Our discussions are themselves of no consequence. The subjects of our discussions frequently are. But not in this case.
 
Ziggurat said:
But you CAN feel like a woman, because a woman can be anything. If you say you are a woman, then you will feel like a woman because you will be a woman. You don't even have to change how you feel, the label change suffices.
Click to expand...

Sexist, misogynist bilge. A women can't be "anything".
 
Ziggurat said:
But you CAN feel like a woman, because a woman can be anything. If you say you are a woman, then you will feel like a woman because you will be a woman. You don't even have to change how you feel, the label change suffices.
Click to expand...

While true, I still won't do it.
 
BrooklynBaby said:
“No third type of sex cell exists in humans, and therefore there is no sex ‘spectrum’ or additional sexes beyond male and female. Sex is binary,” [Colin M. Wright and Emma N. Hilton] assert.
Click to expand...

Delphic Oracle said:
Uh, it kinda seems like, no matter how small that 0.2% might seem, uh, if those in the 0.2% are apparently neither male nor female, then more than 2 ******* possibilities exist!
Click to expand...

Since we're talking about sexual reproduction how many different possibilities are there in terms of viable gametes? I'm seeing exactly two: ova and sperm. Every single one of our primate ancestors produced only one of these two; that's about as binary as anything can get.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Since we're talking about sexual reproduction how many different possibilities are there in terms of viable gametes? I'm seeing exactly two: ova and sperm. Every single one of our primate ancestors produced only one of these two; that's about as binary as anything can get.
Click to expand...
That comment was responding to a statement about unambiguous sex traits at birth.

If you want to go for a different definition (do you produce sperm vs. ova) then thats fine. But don't take statements responding to a whole different premise and drag them out of context into this new issue you just switched to.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
The statement you quoted is my statement that I think the breadth of development that people attribute to some kind of "hard wiring" is far too broad.

If you want to discuss a specific aspect of biology you think is hard-wired, please describe what aspect you're talking about.

But, just as a general overview of where I'm coming from:

In a society where people don't have as easy access to automobiles or for whatever reason, steps per day are higher, will people's legs develop differently?

If, during my development, there's a lot of periods of hunger bordering on malnutrition, will that have effects on my physiology like relative ratios of organ sizes and BMI that persist long into adult life?

Am I really able to encourage development of my nephew's hippocampus with all these memory games?

Can a child surrounded by stress and fear develop a much larger and more cognitively involved amygdala, then? Or at least develop a "disorder" attributed to that structure?

A lot of what we "know" about social behaviors is because a developing human is surrounded by social behaviors to observe.

Much further back, recall we used to at least sometimes still use all 4 limbs for locomotion. A human body won't develop that way now because there's chairs to sit in and counters to do stuff on. Baby wants to just roam around on the floor. But no, we walk around them all day. We stand them up, bounce them on their chubby little legs, put them in the spring suspenders thing, encourage them to keep trying. We buy them miniature versions of chairs and tables to do stuff on. No matter how many times they fall out of the little chair, plop back they go with a kiss on the head.

The body develops like it is demanded and/or encouraged to.

A lot of this stuff unfolds over a couple of decades and not in any kind of strict order, either.
Click to expand...

No amount of "time" will make male genetalia into female genetalia, or male musculature into female musculature.

That is the only relevant thing a sports authority must concern itself with. Concrete, objective facts.
 
BobTheCoward said:
My claim that they are women is absolutely falsifiable. If it fails to meet the criteria I ssrablished, then it is falsified.
Click to expand...

Yep. Lift up their skirts and look. Male genetalia = male. Female = female. And before you bring up sugeries, I am talking about the OEM installed reproductive equipment.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I'm saying asserting that you identify as female is a female. That is the criteria. Whether learned or instinctual is not relevant to the criteria.

See? Testable

And that isn't even my criteria (more like criterion), that is what the community seems to advocate and I'm fine with that.
Click to expand...

Some people claim to be the historical figure Napoleon Bonaparte. Despite the fact he's been dead for centuries.
 
ChristianProgressive said:
It does not accept the absolute, objective reality that the body it is in is it's correct gender. Transgenderism is an organic mental condition like schizophrenia or other brain conditions that cause delusional thinking.
Click to expand...

Why would you defer to sex organs when you have a person's thoughts?
 
d4m10n said:
This is literally the approach taken by the authors of the WSJ op-ed.
Click to expand...

Ok, that's nice.

There's two sex cells in human DNA, I'll set aside a dozen or so caveats and say I understand the meaning of that for this illustration.

Does that mean only two sexual identities exist?

Two very predominant sexes exist, I'll grant you that.

We gave them labels and they are "The Two Sexes."

Then there's those with "ambiguous" sexual characteristics. Very few in number, granted. Still seeing only two types of sex cells, yes. Perhaps more than two present, though, odd. Also a number of outlier variations on those that are otherwise typical. So kind of a whole broad mixture of different ambiguous possibilities and each type being seen in vanishingly small amounts.

All of those people, they're "intersex."

They "don't have a sex."

Why not?

Because there are two sexes.

We came up with that. Ourselves. Classifying and conceptualizing of them that way.

Referring to that construct being predominantly held isn't really an argument to keep it that way.

The main tag line premise of the study says:

"No third type of sex cell exists in humans, and therefore there is no sex 'spectrum' or additional sexes beyond male and female. Sex is binary."

Observation seems to show that there is a spectrum of many different variations of physiology and biology that result in a person who does not fall into one of the two categories we have chosen to call "the two sexes." The authors refer to persons who do fall into those categories "unambiguous." What if we move the number of traits that do or don't line up around some? Be stricter or looser with what is and isn't one of "the two sexes" and "intersex." This study could say whatever it wants about the matter, I guess.

But "only 2 sex cells = only 2 sexes" fails on observation if their own definition of sexes still leaves 0.2% unaccounted for. That we call two largely typical outcomes "the sexes" and all other outcomes "flubitty-flarble" seems to be a distinction without a difference.

And so this "study" kinda means nothing to me.

Also kinda why I'm a bit irked about all the "but science says...!" around right now.

Science says try to falsify science. Science says "real close, buuuuut..." has an explanation. Science says learn how to phrase a problem without already embedding an outcome into it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom