You are very mistaken and obviously you're not following the thread. Science, logic and nature are against your thoughts on this play on words 'gender'. In fact, this crazy idea of gender smacks the face of science, logic, and nature.
I feel like the trans movement has become a trend resulting from people - children- being stuck in internet echo chambers. Just as much as Alex Jones conspiracy nuts are produced through the reinforcement of self-confirming biases, the trans movement is claiming children for its cause. I have no doubt there are some people out there with a legitimate concern about their gender due to body dysmorphia but there is a much larger group of people who have been taught by our education systems and through internet echo chambers that they should question their own gender.
From your link: Gender is multifaceted, complex, and a little abstract, and not everyone agrees on exactly what it means. Ah yes, 'not everyone agrees on exactly what it means'. What that means is that it is subjective, which is to say, psychological. What that means is neither you, nor I, are right, or wrong, on the subject of gender. It just depends on how one looks at the subject, the point I've been making all along. All you are proving is that gender is as psychological a phenomenon in chimps, who are very close to humans, as it is in humans. There are two ways of looking at nature. First, a fact of nature. Nature produces sex anomalies. Second fact, nature produces male and female. now then, here are two ways of looking at the same data: one view is to look at the two predominant sexes, and assert there are two sexes and anomalies do not change the fact. The second way is to assert that there are as many genders as there are anomalies of sex. Which is correct? Neither, both are. But, for me, the most logical is the former. Anomalies do not create a new category. If they did, then there would be so such things as an anomaly. Yet, nature is filled with anomalies. It's one or the other but it can't be both. You appear to spend more energy and computer space declaring you are correct than actually proving it.
Medicine and medical procedures are ROUTINELY used to treat all MEDICAL conditions. That you are UNAWARE of that OBVIOUS fact is NOT my problem. Sad!
Only ONE of us is mistaken and I KNOW that it is NOT myself since I am the one who has posted logical Scientific facts in this thread while you have merely spouted your uninformed illogical factless OPINION. Have a nice day!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAA! You CHERRY PICKED one short sentence and IGNORED all of the other FACTUAL content! Sad that is ALL you have!
Here's an easy way to settle it.... Unzip your britches and look between your legs.... You see a penis there? That means you're a man a dude a male.... You see a vagina down there instead? That means you're a girl a chick a female. All this gooblygunk junk "science" doesn't change the simple reality of that. If anyone is confused about that I would recommend you study real science a branch of it known as biology.
What if you looked between your legs and saw both sets of genitals? Or, what if you were born with both sets of genitals but your penis was removed from you as an infant?
Then you would be a very rare hermaphrodite. But to decide you are the opposite of what you were born with is delusional.
0.02-0.05% of people are born with ambiguous genitals according https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5866176/ So between 2 and 5 people out of 10,000 are born that way. So in a small city of a million, between 200 and 500 people are born with ambiguous genitals. Do you think there are other parts of human anatomy specific to distinguishing sex that could be ambiguous ?
Nothing near as definitive as genitalia. If there is no such thing as gender then we would also have to say that there's no such thing as sexuality and we have to completely redefine everything that we say about sexuality. Such as there is no such thing as homosexuality etc. That's not some stupid clown world road I have any interest in going down
Like I said, before, you devote much energy and computer space declaring you are correct, but express very little to prove it. Vacuous declarations are not a counter argument. the quote: Gender is multifaceted, complex, and a little abstract, and not everyone agrees on exactly what it means. The quote is also reaffirmed here from the link: Gender, I told the students, goes far beyond mere sex differences in appearance or behavior. It refers to something complex and abstract that may well be unique to Homo sapiens I do not see anything in the article that mitigates this, other than the mention that chimps are similar to humans in some regards. And what is the author's PhD in? Psychology. Viola, gender is fodder for psychologists because, well, it's........... psychological. Which was my original point. Hah! Joke's on you.
BWAHHAHAHHAHAHAAA! IRONIC given that I have provided FACTUAL sources whereas you are the one spouting your baseless OPINION declaring you are correct while you are utterly UNABLE to substantiate your opinion. Sad!
That you knew were transpersons. Who knows how many others you have seen that you never realized were transpersons. You've never knowingly met an intersex person. And given that many may never learn they are intersex, or not until later in their lives, it is actually likely that you have met one. A lack of their revealing it to you, doesn't mean you have not met one. The question then becomes, when does the statistical abnormality become not an anomaly? Why is left handed ness not an anomaly? What is the criteria for that dividing line? <snip> No need to include that long bit, but I will say that that was a good analogy. I'm not sure I fully agree with it, but it is good. ISn't this pretty much what the transgender community is saying when they note that gender and/or sex is on a spectrum? It's not so much as a claim of a new type, but of the realization that there are shades in between the poles, where before all that was acknowledged was the poles and nothing in between. Except that they are honest with themselves. This can be especially true between trans women and cross dressing men. CD's don't claim a female identity. They still say they are male. Simply because you do not agree with their view, it doesn't mean that they are not being honest with themselves. I might as well make the argument that any Christian that doesn't agree with my interpretation of the Bible is not being honest with themselves.
Correct, they are used to help/correct an illness. That you are UNAWARE of that OBVIOUS fact is NOT my problem. Sad!
And yet it is more often the right wing types (not all right wings, just that the majority who do are right wing) that physically attack those who are LBGT. If anything shows a struck nerve, it's that. Indeed the truth does hurt. If reproduction was all there was to human life, then you might have a point. As is, we operate on a much higher level than most other life forms on the planet. So we are more than reproduction. The transgender community, as a whole at least, does not deny sex, as far as reproductive function goes. They only deny that gender, regardless of what label we give it, is automatically matched to the sex. Usually, yes. Then again a person is also usually right handed. Indeed a cure for those problematicly closed minded individuals who can't accept change and new knowledge.
I have yet to see a study that compares pre transition to post transition for suicide rates (as opposed to comparing both as a whole to the overall population), AND eliminates other factors such as bullying and harassment, factors that drive up suicide number on any demographic.
[QUOTE="Patricio Da Silva, post: 1073283404, member: 86272" Funny thing about gender identity, it only exists for humans, no other species has it. [/QUOTE] Until we can manage to communicate abstracts with other species, we can't really know that. At best we can observe homosexual behavior. But does that animal engaging with its own sex view itself as that biological sex or opposite? Is this only an issue for higher thinking life forms? We are starting to grasp that there might well be other such life forms on the planet such as octopi or dolphins. But without effective communication we don't know for sure.
That YOU cannot understand the stark DIFFERENCE between a MEDICAL condition and a MENTAL illness is NOT my problem. Profoundly sad!
Until we can manage to communicate abstracts with other species, we can't really know that. At best we can observe homosexual behavior. But does that animal engaging with its own sex view itself as that biological sex or opposite? Is this only an issue for higher thinking life forms? We are starting to grasp that there might well be other such life forms on the planet such as octopi or dolphins. But without effective communication we don't know for sure.[/QUOTE] We can observe homosexual behavior in other species after determining that there is no single genetic factor for homosexuality in our own species. We have identified genetic factors for trans people and have not done any studies to determine if there are similar genetic factors in other species. The absence of scientific studies does not equate to an absence of trans in other species.
There is the crux of the debate. Are they? Are they honest with themselves? One could debate that point because I hold my male brethren with some suspect, as I know the male species has a very cunning collective mind. That is an opinion, of course. However, I'll take your statement at face value and give you the benefit of the doubt, they are being honest. But, so am I. It's just a different way of looking at the same thing. @Derideo_Te , who I assume is a transfemale, defended his position ( and yours ) with a link to an article by a Phd Psychology candidate. However, I read the article and it stated: Gender is multifaceted, complex, and a little abstract, and not everyone agrees on exactly what it means. Then Derideo_te claimed I was cherry picking the article. So I looked it over again, and it further wrote: Gender, I told the students, goes far beyond mere sex differences in appearance or behavior. It refers to something complex and abstract that may well be unique to Homo sapiens All of which was my point, that 'gender' as opposed to biological sex, is psychological. Derideo_te was arguing his opinion is based on 'science'. That's a misleading statement, because he is arguing that psychology is science. Actually, psychology weaves from science to liberal arts, in and out of both, depending on what is been discussed, observed, measured, philosophized, etc., -- it meanders from science to that of a liberal art, noting that psychology is always listed as part of any liberal art curriculum in undergraduate curriculums. There are some physical facts which, in truth, can be interpreted in more than one way. IN music, we have examples of this. A musical 'triad', build upon the first, third, and fifth interval is a physical fact. But, what is defined as a chord is actually psychological. Why? Because musicology could have just as easily chose four note chords as the basis for defining what a chord is. Musicology could have stated it thus: three notes, 1,3,5 constitutes a triad, and a chord is defined as four or more notes, 1,3,5, & 7. If could have, though it chose to define a chord as 3 or more notes. It could have chosen 2 or more notes. In point of fact, it's rather arbitrary that musicology chose 3 notes. Here we have a physical fact and how to interpret that fact is psychological, and there is no right or wrong way, they are all correct. I've been a musician for 55 years, and to my way of thinking, a chord isn't sufficiently defined until there are four notes. And, I have a very good, legitimate, and technical reason for defying the convention on that point. It has to do with function. With triads, the tonic and dominant functions are identical, both triads. But, the ear doesn't get the full sense, the feel, the sound of the dominant until the fourth note is added. You do not achieve it with a triad. With triads, the tonic and dominant functions, without context, are identical sounds. Same for the leading tone, with triads, it's a diminished 'chord', but with four notes, it becomes a half diminished chord (aka 'minor seventh flat fifth) , one that is used in minor cadences far more than leading tones. IN truth, the leading tone as a triad, is an extension of the dominant ( the fifth position in a major scale, it is the upper structure of a dominant seventh chord, the four note version of the dominant function ). And, for the super tonic, mediant, and submediant functions, as a triad, they are minor chords, identical the tonic minor. But is that what they really are, as function in a major scale? Absolutely not, the sense, feel, sound of the chord isn't really defined until the fourth note is added, which as a minor seventh chord, at which point they are no longer identical to tonic minor triads. They become functions in a major scale, where as triad minors function identically in minor scales. Therefore, in my view, we should not call stacked thirds 'chords' until the fourth note is added. This, as I have offered it, is perfectly logical and could have been chosen by musicology, but they didn't, they arbitrarily chose to call three note stacked thirds as 'a chord'. So, convention has the definition of a chord, 'three or more notes'. That's logical, too. Because it's simpler. Most folks songs are built on triads, but we never say let's learn the triads to Blowin' in the Wind, we say 'lets learn the chords to Blowin' in the Wind'. The point is, Both are logical, so the only reason for choosing one over the other is psychological, not physiological. Similarily, let's take a look at the concept of gender. I'll repeat the same argument I used for Derideo_te Gender is multifaceted, complex, and a little abstract, and not everyone agrees on exactly what it means. Ah yes, 'not everyone agrees on exactly what it means'. What that means is that it is subjective, which is to say, psychological. There are two ways of looking at nature in terms of gender. I say sex is biological, and gender is psychological. Nature produces male and female. Nature is nuanced and wherever there are binaries there is a spectrum associated with each side of the binary equation. The point is, there are two ways of looking at the same data: one view is to say there are two sexes, and nature produces anomolies. So, one view is to look at the two predominant sexes, and assert there are two sexes and anomalies do not change the fact. The second way is to assert that there are as many genders as there are anomalies of sex. Which is correct? Neither, both are correct and there is no reason to choose one definition over the other than the psychological. I choose my view because when I look into the universe of sex, I see two predominant sexes and I see anomalies, intersex and it's variants within the anomaly, and anomalies do not create a new category. what they do, actually, is create degrees within each side of the binary equation, with intersex at the center and since intersex only occurs as one in two thousand, it's an 'anomoly'. nature produces anomalies. But, if one takes the view that anomalies create new categories then there would be so such thing as an anomaly. Yet, nature is filled with anomalies. Which ever way one chooses, It's one or the other but it can't be both. What that means is neither you, nor I, are right, or wrong, on the subject of gender. It just depends on how one looks at the subject, the point I've been making all along --- similar to my musicology example of how a chord is defined. It is psychological, the reason why we choose one over the other. The reason we choose one over the other depends not on scientific fact, but personal psychological makeup, i.e., it depends on how an individual interprets it, the individual's point of view. what I found amusing is that the article written by a Phd candidate Derideo_te though he was using to support his argument, actually supported mine, and the real amusing fact was that the PhD candidate is a 'psychology' PhD candidate Viola, gender is fodder for psychology, because, well, ...... It's psychological, and, as, the author of the article confirmed, 'unique to homo sapiens'. We are both right, there is no correct way to look at a fact which can have more than one interpretation. Some facts are like that, as I just proved in music. "She" is a transfemale. And, I won't fight with any trans who chooses to call themselves 'female', fine, I'll use the feminine pronoun, no worries, mate, I don't want to fight. However, my point of view is as follows, which I responded to her in her video in the comment section: There is nothing wrong with being a feminine male. If I were a feminine male, as feminine as you are, I would just call myself a feminine man, and my reason for doing that would be because, in my universe, that would be what I am. But, it's subjective, and we are different. I do understand that. If you want a feminine name and pronoun, I will accommodate, I don't want to fight. But, you won't change how I think, and since you are telling us how you think, you must expect others to tell you how they think. Life is a two way street. You need to accept that a large portion of society will not see you as a woman, and some might not agree to the feminine pronoun, though I will, for me, it's not that important to fight over. Okay, she is being honest. Fine. But so am I.
Arguing the exception rather than the rule leads to a tyranny by the minority enforced by totalitarian force and violence.
