Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Relax. My definition is completely compatible with your definition of “woman”, so long as the culture defining the gender does so based on the biological female sex.
Cont: [ED] Discussion: Trans Women are not Women (Part 5)
- Thread starter Archie Gemmill Goal
- Start date
- Status
Relax. My definition is completely compatible with your definition of “woman”, so long as the culture defining the gender does so based on the biological female sex.
Ron Obvious
Graduate Poster
I thought we didn't go for PoMo ("reality is whatever we want it to be") claptrap as sceptics? Sorry, this is utterly and literally delusional.
Butter!
Rough Around the Edges
I don't want to keep arguing about this. I don't understand the re-blending of the gender and sex concepts, but it's not worth fighting about to me. I'll be dead in 50 years, regardless, I don't need to understand.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,667
One of the stranger aspects of this idea of defining biological sex in terms of self-image is that many animals cannot even have a sex under this definition.
No. You just defined gender twice but called them different things.
You're trying to slip some totally internal, totally meaningless "gender/sex" distinction into the conversation because you have to have one to square a very round circle you've created.
Again I reject your argument and repeat my stance.
Concept 1: Biological differences that are unchangeable (outside of major surgery/hormone replacement / etc) are not "subjective" or on any meaningful "spectrum."
Concept 2: Societal roles put on the two sexes by society. I reject your attempt to split this into two things arbitrarily to create a gap to slide the "Gender Soul" back into.
You are still attempting to define some 3rd Concept into being by fiat, a third concept that is nothing beyond "What the transgender person says they are and the conversation must stop there."
I will not allow you to trap me in using a term you are dishonestly constantly refining.
Last edited:
I was totally the same as it has zero affect on me.
But unfortunately it has become an issue in health, female sports and vulnerable women's spaces.
So it is what it is.
Okay, so why has only biological sex created this separate distinct "personal image" concept in higher animal's minds?
Okay so I have a biological sex and some distinct internal idea of what my biological sex is/should be. Why only sex? Why not height? Hair color? Blood Type?
We've brought up things like "trans-disabled" people obliquely but why is that any less valid?
And "Because I find the comparison insulting" or "Because one is obviously silly" are not answers.
Okay so I have a biological sex and some distinct internal idea of what my biological sex is/should be. Why only sex? Why not height? Hair color? Blood Type?
We've brought up things like "trans-disabled" people obliquely but why is that any less valid?
And "Because I find the comparison insulting" or "Because one is obviously silly" are not answers.
They appear to be two separate things and while biological sex is unless in extremely rare cases binary, there is a thing called Gender identity disorder people can suffer from, which gender dysphoria can be a follow on.
Maybe other mammals suffer from it. Who knows.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
How is this not redundant with "gender" and "gender roles"? You're now up to four different categories you need to define and get agreement on: gender, gender roles, (wo)man, and sex.
This is beginning to look like Zeno's Argument, where you just keep slicing your progress thinner and thinner until you're not really getting anywhere at all.
Meanwhile the rest of us have gotten through five instalments of this thread just fine with two categories and some argument about whether one of them is real and actually matters. You could probably save yourself a lot of time and effort by just listing all the categories you believe in, and how you define them, up front.
Last edited:
angrysoba
Philosophile
Maybe pour yourself some coffee and read this thread about Sex and Gender on the Stanford Encylcopedia of Philosophy:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-gender/#SexDis
ETA: This is not to anyone in particular.
The thing is, having scrolled through it, and also noticed that there is another somewhat connected page on Feminism and Trans Issues, what seems to me clear is how disputed everything is in even among those who confidently predict that history will smile upon them.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-trans/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-gender/#SexDis
ETA: This is not to anyone in particular.
The thing is, having scrolled through it, and also noticed that there is another somewhat connected page on Feminism and Trans Issues, what seems to me clear is how disputed everything is in even among those who confidently predict that history will smile upon them.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-trans/
Last edited:
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
Do you mean your definition of "gender" is compatible with his definition of "woman"? You haven't offered a definition of "man" or of "woman". You offered a definition of "gender", and then said that "man" and "woman" are examples of gender. Ok. No problem so far, but you haven't defined either "man" or "woman".
Last edited:
I saw that a wee while ago. It is interesting, but at the end of the day just a heap of people giving their own opinions about something that you can't really quantify.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
I think he's trying to Socratically-dialogue you around to agreeing that gender* is a spectrum that encompasses more than just "man" and "woman".
Even though that's already been thoroughly discussed and stipulated by both sides.
And don't forget he's still got sex-as-a-spectrum waiting in the wings. Even though that's already been thoroughly discussed as well.
There's a reason I keep talking about a fringe reset.
---
*Gender roles? IDK LOL
Last edited:
angrysoba
Philosophile
I don't think any of this can be quantified. At some point, all we are left with is how we decide, as a society, to draw up the concepts.
Do we go 100% subjective? = You are who you feel.
Do we go 100% objective? = Boys have willies, girls have fannies, and there is nothing more to talk about. "Oh that one? I guess that one goes under miscellaneous. Oh, you used to have a willy, and now you have a fanny? Okay, you are now a girl."
Do we go intersubjective? = Well, France exists because we agree it does, and the People's Republic of China exists, because we agree it does. Tibet? Sorry, you are not really a country are you? Taiwan? Well, look, you can be in the Olympics, but not in the United Nations. Sorry, look, you're outvoted on that, now sorry, I know it's awkward but we can't please everyone.
We've let the transgender side pull us so far into the weeds the question of what the point is has become a dot on the horizon.
If none of it matters, "it's all a spectrum," and "But this is just a Western concept and the Mwoai people of Fiji have 375 genders..." then WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?
Boudicaa is a man, woman, both, neither. Problem solved who wants cake!
If none of it matters, "it's all a spectrum," and "But this is just a Western concept and the Mwoai people of Fiji have 375 genders..." then WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?
Boudicaa is a man, woman, both, neither. Problem solved who wants cake!
Yeah agree.
To me (which basically means zilch in the grand scheme of things) you kind of have to go with a bit of both.
But I realise that it just makes things too confusing and that is where these discussions always end up.
Personally again. Get the males can think they should have been women thing. Also get males are males and not females, which takes out the womens sport and womens spaces thing.
But then I also realise how this might make the trans women feel excluded and at the same time females threatened.
Can't really see a winner tbh, but tend to side with the females.
Last edited:
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
This is demonstrably not true. There are, as I have pointed out, societies that divide people into two or more genders that are not based solely on biological sex. Any definition of gender that does not take this into account is incomplete, perhaps to the point of willful ignorance.
If you reject my definitions, fine. Help me refine them, but you can’t simply ignore parts.
But are except in rare circumstances one of two biological sexes.
Gender in an individuals head is kind of irrelevant
- Status