• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Transwomen are not women part XII (also merged)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Darat said:
Then why would you have ticked the box? :confused:
Click to expand...


I would suspect a lot of people who would not describe themselves as gender-neutral (that is to say, content to consistently express the gender they're most accustomed to expressing) would nonetheless also consider themselves gender-unconcerned (that is to say, not having any very strong preference about which gender they express). For those people, an incentive of $1300 per year would be sufficient for them to change their descriptor to gender-neutral, especially if doing so does not compel any change in their actual gender expression whatsoever.

I've also begun to suspect that individuals exist who would be willing to tell an unfalsifiable consequence-free lie for money. Unimaginable as that might seem, and I'm certainly not accusing any forum member of having such a, what's the word I'm thinking of, human nature.
 
Myriad said:
I've also begun to suspect that individuals exist who would be willing to tell an unfalsifiable consequence-free lie for money.
Click to expand...
What exactly needs to be true for checking that box to be a lie? If it's unfalsifiable, how can we even know there is a truth to be known at a level deeper than public self-identification?
 
d4m10n said:
What exactly needs to be true for checking that box to be a lie? If it's unfalsifiable, how can we even know there is a truth to be known at a level deeper than public self-identification?
Click to expand...


Well, I can knowingly lie about something that's entirely subjective. "Naw, that didn't hurt at all!" "Oh, I had completely forgotten about that embarrassing incident you just brought up!" That's not quite unfalsifiability by epistemology standards (one could hypothesize tests using e.g. brain scans or truth serum) but my point is that for all practical purposes, it is.

ETA: It could also be one of those cases where it's definitionally impossible for it to be a lie, for instance if the belief behind it is "no truly cisgender person would ever be willing to claim any other gender for money, no matter the amount." Which makes the original checkbox equivalent to "I am willing to cast doubt on my gender identity for a cash reward" and one cannot possibly lie by checking it.
 
Last edited:
Which is why "Self identification" is a stupid thing to expect society to account for at all.

Even transgenderism has to pass falsifiability.
 
Myriad said:
Well, I can knowingly lie about something that's entirely subjective. "Naw, that didn't hurt at all!"
Click to expand...
We've all had the experience of pain, so we know what it means to exaggerate or downplay the level of pain we are experiencing. We haven't all had the experience of gender euphoria or dysphoria or what-have-you (at least not that I can tell) so it's hard to know what exactly is being mischaracterized when someone ticks the "gender neutral" box.

Myriad said:
Which makes the original checkbox equivalent to "I am willing to cast doubt on my gender identity for a cash reward" and one cannot possibly lie by checking it.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I'm willing to cast doubt on my gender identity just by trying to wrap my head around the idea. Now if you'll excuse me I need to wash the dishes and then exfoliate for a bit.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
Which is why "Self identification" is a stupid thing to expect society to account for at all.

Even transgenderism has to pass falsifiability.
Click to expand...

This is where it breaks down. You can't argue that gender is meaningless half the time- if that's true, then you're arguing for an end to sex or gender based discrimination, period. But, if gender does mean something, you have to define it somehow. It can't be "I feel it in my bones." You have to pick: no mens/ladies rooms at all, or define once and for all what that means.

At a certain point, the semantic games have to stop.
 
Am I the only one here who doesn't claim to have a gender identity? I think Emily the Cat has said something similar, but I may be mistaken.

I just don't see what it means. I feel more like I have a soul than like I have a gender identity and I don't believe in souls. Help me out here, I'm going through a bit of FOMO.
 
"Gender" has been rendered 100% meaningless by having a dozen definitions it drifts in and out of, half of which are wrong, half of which are meaningless, all of which are defined to the level of "mumble mumble it's complicated and personal and subjective mumble mumble" an no further.

And it's all wrong.

Gender was just a more polite and gentile way of saying sex in mixed company. The meant the same thing but had different tones; sex being slightly more clinical and carnal and related to the act, gender being slightly more social but this idea they ever had different core meanings just isn't true. The term "gender" only exists because your great-great Victorian grandma couldn't hear the word "sex" without dying from the vapors. It's no different then why it's a cow in the field but beef on the plate.

Everything beyond that is a retcon trying to shove a "My soul and my body have different genitals" take into the discourse as definitionally true by fiat.

Again I fruitlessly refer back to my "If you can't make your argument WITHOUT the terms being debated, it's a meaningless semantic argument" standard.
 
Last edited:
sir drinks-a-lot said:
Am I the only one here who doesn't claim to have a gender identity?
Click to expand...

I claim you have a gender identity whether you want it or not. And you don't get to decide it on your own.

The entire concept of self-determined identity is a farce. Nobody gets to determine their own identity, whether you're talking about sex, gender, or anything else. Identity is always socially negotiated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom