So sex is determined by biology, it's very simple. When it comes to the word gender I believe it's a just idea that's not based in fact. The idea is simply exists to try to neatly categories something so individual and unique it's impossible. Are minds are insanely complex and each individual so beautifully different. I think the concept gender is insulting. So I have come to the conclusion only biological sex sexists and the idea of gender labels, pronouns or whatever is complete nonsense. In my own mind I have concluded that we can be biologicaly sexed male and female, but this is as far as it goes. Beyond that our minds our minds are so unique we are impossible to label . Therefore the concept of gender is a joke, it's not real , it's a lie. We are simply individuals. That is it, we are nothing more. Gender doesn't exist only biological sex which is irrelevant to who we are.
Well, according to the "scientist" on the left, gender is not determined by reproductive organs so it must just be a "feeling" a mental concept.
So what biologically determines sex? Is it the reproductive organs, or the chromosomes, or the SRY gene? In most people, all three match. But how do we determine sex when they don't match, especially in light of the fact that A) they themselves may not be aware of the mismatch and B) other people are going to insist that they are either male or female? "scientists" on the right, to use FatBack's phrasing, can't seem to agree. Especially the one on debate sites like this one. I am going to disagree with you that our genders exists just as much as our conciseness exists. They are not tied to our sex, but do commonly match it. But commonly does not mean all. I do agree with the bold, but more along the line that biological sex can't be used as a benchmark as to what we can and can't do as individuals. It still ties in to who each of us are, including being cis or trans.
You're talking about biological anomalies , mutations and genetic defects. This makes this argument completely invalid. Gender can never be a reality if it is just a concept in the mind . The reason it cannot exist is everyone has a completely different concept of what it is. For example if my mind's reality believes gender doesn't exist but yours does they are completely contracting ideas. Both ideas come from the same place, the place where gender is supposed to exist,( the mind), so how can one reality be deemed false but the other is deemed true? Or how can one person's thought be a reality be and another person's contradicting thought of reality exist at the same time ? The idea gender is within the mind completely contradicts itself over and over.
For progressivism to work, individuality must be erased, and what better method to do this than to isolate individuals into contextual controversial classes that then battle over their ideal classification. It's insidious. The concept of dysphoria simply alludes to those who will not accept that the fact based reality of their existence matches that their own minds have created for them. And the progressive mind believes that in order to overcome their perceived inequality in their environment that they should be able to self determine their own reality and force others to accept that it is also valid and real. Depending on whom you ask, this is either a mental illness or fashion. There are demonstrably two sexes, a third variation that is an anomaly and that's it. The term gender simply creates a false narrative about the expression of those two/+ conditions.
I do think the belief of true individualality is key to breaking the shackles of this perverse control and manipulation.
No it doesn't because we don't know the extent of the existence of these variables. Technically, left handedness is an anomaly and/or mutation. A given mutation can easily become a norm, as evidenced by a wide number of variable aspects within humans. And as I pointed out, when you try to tell a person who, for example, was born with a vagina but has (unknown to others, and maybe themselves) an XY pair, and insists that they are a man, most people of your side will try to tell them that they are female and they can't change, no matter how much they want to. So it does remain valid to ask what is the basis of physical/biological sex, if you and others are going to insist on what a person's physical/biological sex is, especially without even checking their genitals, yet alone anything else. While I disagree with you that gender itself is not just a concept in the mind, but an innate part of a person, I readily acknowledge that each person expresses their gender in their own way (or would but instead buckles under social pressure against themselves), and even labels it differently. But then each person can be afflicted with the exact same injury, and they would all describe the pain differently, because they all have a different concept of what pain is. Differing perception of a given thing does not render it non-existent. We can just as easily apply this to many other things as well. Say God for example. One mind's reality believes that God exists, and the other doesn't . Contradicting ideas. So how can one reality be deemed false but the other is deemed true? The answer to one applies to both. But let's look again at conciseness. That also exists in our minds. By your logic, one believing it exists and another believing it doesn't is contradictory, and thus means conciseness doesn't exist. The God example shows that perfectly. A person's thoughts on reality don't necessarily reflect reality. And I know that this argument can work against me as well as for me. After all look at all the issues we have today where we have different beliefs on what reality is. And this is hardly anything new. Look at how much fighting had to be done before the reality of heliocentric was accepted. Agree to disagree. What convinces me the most is not those who are cis gendered and thus feel that gender doesn't exist. They're matched and thus don't really feel it. It is the transgendered and what they go through and their insistence of their actual gender over their sex. Think of it similar to people who have painful conditions that are not readily visible and seen. They know that the pain is there, yet others don't see it and never feel it so to them the ones claiming pain are believing in something not there.
Can't say I agree but thank you for the interesting points. Here is a question if you believe gender is fluid and can be any number of things, how much does validity does it have ? For example if someone biologicaly male believe that they are female do you believe that the existence is a reality and the belief should be consist? For example should they go to a female prison, be allowed to complete against women in sports, does the UK law that women can't be convicted of rape apply to the because they identify as female?
Under what definition of "gender" is it something not real? Both biological sex and social roles are real, so however you view gender, at least under any standard definition, it's real. Hogwash. What scientist claims that science tells us that?
As mentioned above the SRY gene plays a role in this determination of gender. If the SRY gene aligns with a male XY DNA then it has been shown in scientific studies to express AGGRESSION instincts. If the SRY gene aligns with a female XX DNA then it has been shown in scientific studies to express MATERNAL instincts. However if the SRY gene does NOT align with the DNA then a male will end up with maternal instincts and a female with aggression instincts. For those individuals concerned they perceive themselves as the OPPOSITE gender to that of their physical body. What gives YOU, or society in general, the RIGHT to OVERRIDE the GENETICS of these individuals? Why MUST a female wear dresses and raise a family when her INSTINCT is to compete and win? Why MUST a male compete and win when his INSTINCT is to wear dresses and raise a family? These are GENETIC INSTINCTS so no one aside from the individual themselves should be IMPOSING some ARBITRARY restrictions on their BEHAVIOR. What harm does it do YOU, or society in general, if a WOMAN wears MALE clothing in public? NONE whatsoever because that ALREADY happens nowadays. What harm does it do YOU, or society in general, if a MAN man wears FEMALE clothing in public? According to Hollywood and society that man MUST be a serial killer or a pervert or trolling for sex. That ludicrous STEREOTYPE makes no sense because it is estimated that ONE out of every FORTY men wears female clothing UNDER their male clothes. YOUR disingenuous OP simply REINFORCES that ridiculous stereotype since it based upon an ABSENCE of KNOWLEDGE rather than any reasoned or logical basis. The concept of GENDER is based upon the KNOWLEDGE and UNDERSTANDING that our DNA is way more COMPLEX than the SIMPLISTIC BINARY assumption that is so PREVALENT among those who have NEVER encountered what is a REALITY to between TWO and THREE percent of the POPULATION. Why MUST they be FORCED into a CLOSET just because it makes a smallminded and uneducated group of people UNCOMFORTABLE with the concept that some men are NOT aggressive?
Hey, just for fun let's start a thread that says :up is down and down is up"!! That should keep prorgressives entertained for a good long while!
As long as you seriously pondering them, I do not require your agreement. Your civil discourse is sufficient. I can not say anything against your points in and of themselves. I do comprehend their logic from your premise, and it is that which I disagree with. Let us continue, my friend. How much validity does God or any deity have given the seemingly fluid nature across history and denomination/sect? Or the fluidity of the DNA set across the population? Or our thoughts? What makes them exist, and our gender, as I propose it, not? I am guessing that the last word is intended to be consistent? I will answer on that assumption and alter my response as necessary if I am wrong? I do believe that the gender itself exists, whether working well with the physical body, or against it, or somewhere in between. But the question of consistency leads to consistent with what? There is so much within humans that there is no consistency. From the physical to the mental to the emotional. Why should gender be any different? Sports I am setting aside. This is an area where even the transgender community is divided. I don't recall off the top of my head ( and being on the phone, I'm not going to bother to look RN) whether it's this forum or my other one, but there is a whole thread dedicated to that question with evidence from both positions. If the other forum, maybe I'll transfer it here for discussion as well. As to the UK rape law, it is a barbaric piece of twaddle if they cannot recognize the fact that women can be rapists as well, both to male and female victims. But of we were to even entertain the idea that possession of a penis is the only criteria to enable one to rape, then by definition, trans women who have undergone SRS would no longer be capable of rape, which runs counter to many of the anti transgender claims.
"Gender" is much more than mere genitalia. Never forget that male and female are remarkably different from each other in nearly everything, from other 'body parts', to hormones and glandular secretions, to chromosomes. Thus, one's mental makeup, whether to be the 'inserter' or the 'insertee', is possibly framed less by some strained psychological deliberation than by the very physical nature of one's construction... assuming that there are no systemic defects, 'design flaws', or other mistakes.
All the progressives left because Col.Graff told them to get off world, otherwise they would destroy it.
