What is a chair?

[Cognisant]

I can list off the attributes of a typical chair but having some of those attributes doesn't automatically make something a chair. If I tell you something has four legs and you can sit on it, then it could be a chair, or it could be a horse.

Likewise, not having certain attributes commonly found in chairs doesn't automatically exclude something from being a chair, not all chairs have legs, an armchair might only have a single wide base.

A chair is not a couch, but a chair could have almost all the same attributes as a couch, so we must pay close attention to which attributes are most important, those that define a chair by creating a distinction between a chair and a couch.

So, we have the attributes of a chair, and we weight those attributes by how definitive they are, this definitiveness usually corresponds with how inherent they are, in contrast to those attributes which are more superficial.

A good metaphor for this is a toolbox, I want to use the tools in my box to identify an object and not all tools are equal, some are more reliable than others. Whenever possible I want to use my most reliable tools (the most definitive attributes), but that's not always feasible or appropriate, you wouldn't use a sledgehammer on a nail although it could certainly do the job.

Likewise, I might select a single tool (a simple definition) based on it being easy to use, but in doing so I risk being overly reductive and misidentifying chair like things as chairs, or chairs as not chairs, due to some superficial attribute.

Now you might be thinking this is all really complicated, and sure what I've written here is complicated, but I'm explaining base principles. In practice it's quite simple, a chair is defined by the attributes of a chair, and we know something is a chair because it's more like a chair than anything else. This is how we can instantly recognize a painted fibreglass sculpture of a pineapple with a human sized cavity that creates an ass sized shelf ~40cm off the floor as a chair.

Now you might object to the definition being circular and, well, yeah, it's a definition not an argument, it's supposed to be circular. Suppose we define a toucan as a bird but discover that isn't related to other birds, rather it evolved separately like bats. You wouldn't ring the press and announce the extinction of the toucan and that, on an unrelated note, you've discovered a new species of flying mammal.

Well, you could try but don't blame me if you find yourself in a dark alley surrounded by lead-pipe wielding ornithologists. For the safety of your kneecaps I suggest the definition of a toucan is the attributes of a toucan, so if it turns out the toucan is not a bird we change the definition, not the bird.

Likewise, a woman is defined by the attributes of a woman.

The recent Algerian boxer is an interesting case, if she has XY chromosomes but in every other regard is ostensibly female, even having a functional womb and ovaries, then sure by a strict chromosomal classification she’s a man, but practically speaking that stretches the definition of a man so far it no longer serves any purpose.

Mind you this is an exceptional outlier; I wouldn’t use this as precedent to say an MtF trans person is actually a woman if they have sufficient superficial feminine attributes.

 

[Hadoblado]

Your reasoning demonstrates a relatively sophisticated understanding of semiotics. I think we basically agree on everything up until your conclusion, where I respect that this is an act of analysis, interpretation, and imposed meaning. Our conclusions aren't going to be the same given our different foundations and that is both fine and expected. Once we acknowledge the semiotic complexity of the task, our answers are almost arbitrary past that given our level of expertise.

My issue is that you were saying it was simple and claiming people are woke for refusing to give a simple definition, then you post... this. I literally agree with you more than I do 90% of leftists. Your reasoning is above what I would expect from both the left and the right and yet somehow that input is converted into a "woke bad" output.

I stand by the brainchip meme. We should be in our ivory castle drinking tea and looking down our noses at the unwashed masses but instead you're dragging us down into the trenches with the brainlets to argue about woke.

 

[Cognisant]

I believe when I was calling it simple I was referring to the scenario (specifically the swim coach one) and the scenario is simple, I don’t need my entire toolbox or to wax philosophical.

I have a very simple goal: keep my students safe.

A very simple method: ensure only women enter the women’s bathroom.

I don’t need my entire toolbox for this, if it looks like a sex offender I’m not allowing it into the women’s bathroom (attribute: Looks Like A Lady - FALSE), now I could be wrong but I’d rather err on the side of keeping my students safe and the picture you provided definitely looked more like a potential sex offender than a woman.

Now granted I know what a woman is, so this wasn’t complicated for me, I don’t have the woke mind virus devil on my shoulder whining about persecution, because I know what persecution is. For someone who believes a biological man can be a woman because he thinks he is, and that people are entitled to have their subjective identity affirmed, well I can see how that would make the situation very complicated.

But let’s suppose I was saying my definition of a woman is simple, and I do think “having the attributes of a woman” is simple (granted it wasn’t until this morning that I figured out how to phrase it so concisely) but for the sake of argument let’s suppose that definition is not simple.

Why does it matter?
What’s wrong with a nuanced definition?

How about we settle something, would you agree that “because they say so” is not a valid way to determine someone’s gender because anyone could say it?

If you can agree with me on that then I’ll agree that you know what a woman is.

 

[Old Things]

Interesting.

There seems to be a discussion of essence in this, though it is only tangential to your point it seems.

One of the problems with this view, however, is that this is the same exact logic that was used to say that the planets that orbit the sun back before Newton messed everything up (oops!). At this point, people believe everything was what it was because of its nature. While this seems to be a pretty good definition, all things considered, it is circular, just as you say. The planets are not held up by an invisible apparatus so they circled according to their nature, but rather, there was a law that was yet undiscovered: gravity.

Now, I am not saying your view is wrong wholesale. Not at all. I think your talk about this being the most efficient tool is a good analogy. I just wonder why you would want to appeal to circular reasoning, which is a logical fallacy.

The idea is to have the least amount of brute facts. On that much, I think you would agree. But if there are too many brute facts... meaning there are just too many things with a great deal of nuance and not enough concrete definitions, then we are not actually getting anywhere either.

I digress.

 

[Hadoblado]

Why does it matter?
What’s wrong with a nuanced definition?

There is nothing wrong with a nuanced definition. If you were only ever talking about the situation being simple, then I concede that point. I don't think that's what happened because I don't think it makes sense to mock people for being unable to come up with a complicated answer regardless of whether the problem itself is stated in simple terms. But I don't want to argue about it.

How about we settle something, would you agree that “because they say so” is not a valid way to determine someone’s gender because anyone could say it?

If you can agree with me on that then I’ll agree that you know what a woman is.

I'm an empiricist. If "because they say so" causes less harm, that's what I go with. I currently believe it's not a problem beyond people trying to prove it's a problem. I admit it's abusable but I would need to see that it is being abused by people before I consider forcing transwomen into mens bathroom to stop it.

I don't think men pretend to be women in order to SA them. I think if you're in the business of SAing women in their bathrooms, your identity as a woman won't serve as a defense. No trans woman believes they will get away with this given the pervasive stereotypes of trans people as sexual deviants and degenerates. If anything, a trans person is probably more likely to be convicted of SA than a cisman. Last I read (and this was a while ago), there is no evidence for trans people disproportionately committing such crimes.

I will change my mind if you can demonstrate my premises regarding crime stats are wrong. Would you change your mind if it turned out trans people are disproportionately victims of SA or are not disproportionately represented as perpetrators?

 

[Old Things]

I think if you're in the business of SAing women in their bathrooms, your identity as a woman won't serve as a defense.

This is not accurate. I know of a case where a school tried to hide the whole thing and eventually, it did come to a point of blowing up because the father of the girl was furious, as he should be. Point being, the school literally tried to hide rape for political correctness.

 

[Cognisant]

I'm an empiricist. If "because they say so" causes less harm, that's what I go with.

How unempirical of you.

I will change my mind if you can demonstrate my premises regarding crime stats are wrong. Would you change your mind if it turned out trans people are disproportionately victims of SA or are not disproportionately represented as perpetrators?

No.

If a bald, bearded, tattooed masculine person tries to enter the women's bathroom while my students are getting changed I'm going to stop them.

I don't need stats and figures to formulate an argument as to why I think a trans person poses more of a threat than a regular person, I don't care, indeed in this scenario I don't care if the person I'm talking to is trans or not.

As an empiricist I will judge the situation as I see it with my own two eyes.

 

[Black Rose]

being trans and claiming to be trans is not the same thing

so you would need to know before anyone goes into any bathroom

that makes things complicated because in public we don't know

so what happens is that in public people go by looks

people do stop others from actions they see as wrong to what gender is perceived

no one I think would believe that bald tattooed person is a woman at McDonald's

so they would not be in all practicality allowed in the women's restroom

I do not believe you can say a majority of trans persons are trying to do bad things

It is common sense they know what society sees as acceptable

 

[Hadoblado]

I'm an empiricist. If "because they say so" causes less harm, that's what I go with.

How unempirical of you.

No.

If a bald, bearded, tattooed masculine person tries to enter the women's bathroom while my students are getting changed I'm going to stop them.

I don't need stats and figures to formulate an argument as to why I think a trans person poses more of a threat than a regular person, I don't care, indeed in this scenario I don't care if the person I'm talking to is trans or not.

As an empiricist I will judge the situation as I see it with my own two eyes.

One word two meanings. I'm the other sort of empiricist.

You can go with your anecdotes and personal judgement. I'll go with what can be demonstrated at a systemic level.

This is our bible moment I think. The part of the conversation where we can't move each other. Nothing you can say will make me think anecdotes are better form of evidence than a strong study for when we're talking societal prescriptions.

And tbh, this kind of just makes future conversations worthless. It doesn't matter what evidence I present, you can just say you trust your own two eyes to maintain your beliefs. You declare yourself unreachable.

 

[Hadoblado]

Like... Nowhere in my experience have I had a trans person try to push themselves into a womans bathroom. Has that happened to you? What's the empirical process here?

This is a hypothetical situation where you judge someone based on your feelings.

How does this other empiricism even work for you?

 

[Cognisant]

One word two meanings. I'm the other sort of empiricist.

Yes the woke do like to have alternative interpretations of everything.

noun
noun: empiricist; plural noun: empiricists

1. a person who supports the theory that all knowledge is based on experience derived from the senses.
   "most scientists are empiricists by nature"

Alright so what's your definition? Show me the light.

Edit: I love the fact that your argument here is that personal judgement is lesser than external evidence, and now you have to try and give me an alternative definition of "empiricist" that isn't just "well I trust my personal judgement more than external evidence".

Fucking hilarious, because anything in contrast to the conventional definition of "empiricist" is going to be exactly that.

 

[Cognisant]

You can go with your anecdotes and personal judgement. I'll go with what can be demonstrated at a systemic level.

This is our bible moment I think. The part of the conversation where we can't move each other. Nothing you can say will make me think anecdotes are better form of evidence than a strong study for when we're talking societal prescriptions.

And tbh, this kind of just makes future conversations worthless. It doesn't matter what evidence I present, you can just say you trust your own two eyes to maintain your beliefs. You declare yourself unreachable.

It's not an anecdote, it's a thought experiment, like the trolley problem.

If you have a new philosophy of ethics to test out you use it to answer the trolley problem and that helps you find flaws in the theory.

My swim coach scenario puts theory into practice, do you know what a woman is, well here's a scenario where someone who might not be a woman is potentially lying to you.

It's not a hard test, the only challenge to it is that you can't believe whatever this person says, you have to think for yourself. That's like put the square peg in the square hole level of testing, can you do the most basic thing?

This is a hypothetical situation where you judge someone based on your feelings.

How does this other empiricism even work for you?

I define a woman as having the attributes of a woman, if I look at a person and they don't look like a woman, and I don't just mean they look like an ugly woman, I mean they actually don't look like a woman, not even an ugly one, then I'm going to assume based upon based on experience derived from my senses that they're not a woman.

Man look, I'm wrong sometimes, fuck it I get things wrong all the fucking time and when that happens do you know what I do? I have a little cry I own it.

If you got me, actually logically got me on something, then I'll admit it, because being wrong is embarrassing and I want to minimize that, and if I own it then nobody can rub in my face without making a fool of themselves, because I already agree with them, they're just restating the obvious.

And y'know what, I think people respect me for it.
They know that I can be a right bastard to argue with, but I don't always stick to my guns, they know when I know that I'm wrong I have the strength of character to admit it.

At this point I'm halfway convinced your mind changed yesterday and now you're just fucking with me for sport.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Trying to appeal to the ethos of philosophy is not productive. The underlying idea there is skepticism, and I don't think it's a stretch to say that someone who wants to act based on empirical evidence is acting empirically.

Language represents something, and has the job of gluing together representations of something for comprehension.

It is fundamentally implicit.

As users of the language it's great. The words I'm saying here mean what they mean, and nothing else. It's the context and the sum of our experiences that adds the rest.

The thing with these trans issues, is that it's not about changing reality, making heterosexuality illegal, or shitting on the flag.

It's just about preserving the dignity and respect of certain types of identity.

The olympics would have to start snipping out all the genetic monstrosities that apply to them on the fact that your genome deviates from the "norm" too much. The Olympics already suck enough. Show me what humanity is made of ffs.

 

[kora]

I can list off the attributes of a typical chair but having some of those attributes doesn't automatically make something a chair. If I tell you something has four legs and you can sit on it, then it could be a chair, or it could be a horse.

Likewise, not having certain attributes commonly found in chairs doesn't automatically exclude something from being a chair, not all chairs have legs, an armchair might only have a single wide base.

A chair is not a couch, but a chair could have almost all the same attributes as a couch, so we must pay close attention to which attributes are most important, those that define a chair by creating a distinction between a chair and a couch.

So, we have the attributes of a chair, and we weight those attributes by how definitive they are, this definitiveness usually corresponds with how inherent they are, in contrast to those attributes which are more superficial.

A good metaphor for this is a toolbox, I want to use the tools in my box to identify an object and not all tools are equal, some are more reliable than others. Whenever possible I want to use my most reliable tools (the most definitive attributes), but that's not always feasible or appropriate, you wouldn't use a sledgehammer on a nail although it could certainly do the job.

Likewise, I might select a single tool (a simple definition) based on it being easy to use, but in doing so I risk being overly reductive and misidentifying chair like things as chairs, or chairs as not chairs, due to some superficial attribute.

Now you might be thinking this is all really complicated, and sure what I've written here is complicated, but I'm explaining base principles. In practice it's quite simple, a chair is defined by the attributes of a chair, and we know something is a chair because it's more like a chair than anything else. This is how we can instantly recognize a painted fibreglass sculpture of a pineapple with a human sized cavity that creates an ass sized shelf ~40cm off the floor as a chair.

Now you might object to the definition being circular and, well, yeah, it's a definition not an argument, it's supposed to be circular. Suppose we define a toucan as a bird but discover that isn't related to other birds, rather it evolved separately like bats. You wouldn't ring the press and announce the extinction of the toucan and that, on an unrelated note, you've discovered a new species of flying mammal.

Well, you could try but don't blame me if you find yourself in a dark alley surrounded by lead-pipe wielding ornithologists. For the safety of your kneecaps I suggest the definition of a toucan is the attributes of a toucan, so if it turns out the toucan is not a bird we change the definition, not the bird.

Likewise, a woman is defined by the attributes of a woman.

The recent Algerian boxer is an interesting case, if she has XY chromosomes but in every other regard is ostensibly female, even having a functional womb and ovaries, then sure by a strict chromosomal classification she’s a man, but practically speaking that stretches the definition of a man so far it no longer serves any purpose.

Mind you this is an exceptional outlier; I wouldn’t use this as precedent to say an MtF trans person is actually a woman if they have sufficient superficial feminine attributes.

I'm not going to try and covince anyone but the way I see it is this : A chair is also a chair at least in part because it was designed and built by someone or repurposed by someone to fulfill the function of a chair. The object is built and used with a specific intent in mind. This is the case with cultural artifacts, they are built and used with a specific intent.

Likewise gender roles are built by us to fulfill certain functions in society. Of course some of these have emerged from sexual differenciation and biological functions, perhaps as a shortcut to signal reproductive functions, but you can't reduce everything to reproduction because we're such a cultural species and we've transcended a lot of those. People still inhabit the signifiers if they're not looking to have children. Wearing a dress is a purely cultural code and there's no biological necessity to it.

Gender is in large part purely social and aesthetic. You wouldn't like it if it was expected of you to wear dresses and makeup on the street because it wouldn't correspond to the social role and aesthetic you feel comofortable projecting.

What people mean when they say transwomen are women is not "these two things are litterally identical in all of their attributes", it just means that they inhabit the same social gender role. I just don't have a problem with that, morally or epistemologically.

Also the trans people I know literally never set a foot in public swimming pools because it makes them too uncomfortable

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

to fulfill the function of a chair

epistemological limits

 

[Cognisant]

What people mean when they say transwomen are women is not "these two things are litterally identical in all of their attributes", it just means that they inhabit the same social gender role. I just don't have a problem with that, morally or epistemologically.

What is the gender role of a woman?

For that matter, what is the gender role of man?

How does a trans person inhabit these roles?

Apologies for all the questions, I just need to know what your position is before I really get into debating you, I'm told I have a bad habit of being presumptuous.

 

[kora]

I could add that of course I'm not unaware of the fact that all this is counter intuitive and odd when you first consider it. It touches upon fundamental categories that one has assimilated from the earliest of ages. When you're five years old you've divided everyone around you into boys and girls blue and pink. When I was that age I remember crying because my mum put me in dungarees and I thought I looked like a boy and didn't want to wear them to school. I have no idea why I cared so much in that moment but I just did.

I'd say it took me a bit of time to come to this worldview. Most of my questioning came from the fact that I didn't understand gender dysphoria, and I still don't exactly. But then again same sex attraction seems weird to a lot of people and it doesn't necessarily have much of an explanation beyond maybe some ridiculously complex and contingent neural dispositions and its lived experience.

 

[Black Rose]

One word two meanings. I'm the other sort of empiricist.

Yes the woke do like to have alternative interpretations of everything.

noun
noun: empiricist; plural noun: empiricists

1. a person who supports the theory that all knowledge is based on experience derived from the senses.
   "most scientists are empiricists by nature"

Alright so what's your definition? Show me the light.

Edit: I love the fact that your argument here is that personal judgement is lesser than external evidence, and now you have to try and give me an alternative definition of "empiricist" that isn't just "well I trust my personal judgement more than external evidence".

Fucking hilarious, because anything in contrast to the conventional definition of "empiricist" is going to be exactly that.

You are making up a false position of what Hado is saying, Hado must be woke otherwise you cannot say he is wrong. Where did Hado say he would let that tattooed person into any girl's bathroom, that is ridiculous. Where is Hado changing the definition of "woman". The fact is that you are saying all trans people are rapists by denying the statistic he gave and not presenting alternative evidence. And that by allowing a person in a bathroom of the gender where they happen to feel they should to go into, no matter what they look like then a rape will definitively occur. There has been no evidence Trans persons are more likely to be rappists than the normal population and you basically responded with: 'But you are changing the definition of empirical because you are woke'. So what is Hado supposed to say about that back to you if you will not agree on that simple position? Has or will Hado ever go against common sense and allow people to be rapped, of course not. You are saying they will allow people to be rapped because you must insist they are woke in your mind to win the discussion. So you can point fingers and say 'look at this woke person allowing people to be rapped changing definitions'. I do not see where Hado changed any definitions or is being 'woke'. That is something you made up. Common sense dictates things should happen on a case-by-case basis. Not all or none. You have not subtly if you don't think that way.

 

[kora]

What is the gender role of a woman?

For that matter, what is the gender role of man?

How does a trans person inhabit these roles

They shift according to culture and norms, but essentially it's just being perceived as such. Like I can tell a person to become a chair for one of those dominatrix things power play games and use them as a chair, in a sense they really do become a chair and assume the function of a chair. Like I say in my post above I can't fault anyone for finding it strange, and it is particularly strange to someone without dysphoria that it should matter to someone so much that they would go through a transition and submit themselves to what seems like a difficult time to be perceived a certain way. But it seems that it does matter to them enough. You can ask me questions if you like but I don't know if I will be able to satisfy what you're looking for

 

[kora]

A trans person inhabits the role by "passing" socially as the desired gender, the "success" of the transition and the relief or fulfillment they feel internally comes when people spontaneously gender them as preferred.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

If a bald, bearded, tattooed masculine person tries to enter the women's bathroom while my students are getting changed I'm going to stop them.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

A trans person inhabits the role by "passing" socially as the desired gender, the "success" of the transition and the relief or fulfillment they feel internally comes when people spontaneously gender them as preferred.

 

[dr froyd]

"definace of society includes defiance of its language"
-- Adorno

the reason certain people are obsessed with changing the meaning of words and labels is that the pioneers of critical theory considered anything systematic, even scientific systematization, as an instrument of oppression - utilized by the bourgeois to retain the status quo.

this was of course originally applied by marx in purely economic terms, then applied to social issues by people like Adorno, Marcuse, etc etc

its not really possible to understand the contemporary-liberal obsession with things like sex and gender without understanding the ideas of people like Marcuse

 

[Black Rose]

"definace of society includes defiance of its language"
-- Adorno

the reason certain people are obsessed with changing the meaning of words and labels is that the pioneers of critical theory considered anything systematic, even scientific systematization, as an instrument of oppression - utilized by the bourgeois to retain the status quo.

this was of course originally applied by marx in purely economic terms, then applied to social issues by people like Adorno, Marcuse, etc etc

its not really possible to understand the contemporary-liberal obsession with things like sex and gender without understanding the ideas of people like Marcuse

Generationally language does change because each person comes into a different culture than their parents did. They read differently and depending on intelligence they absorb words differently. Systematization for example is used by Simon Baron Cohen to denote autism as opposed to empathizing at the other end. This is wrong because recent neurological studies show where the exact location in the brain autism happens (temporal parietal junction) and systemization has nothing to do with autism but many people believe him as being scientific. He is not wrong that these two categories exist but he is wrong they have to do with autism. Nonetheless, people who do empathize more have greater social intelligence in that they observe people more than objects, and systematization/empathizing is normally distributed. This is not about per se destroying language but that empathizing creates greater language understanding well systematization does not because of the variety of emotions it knows as emotional intelligence. Emotional intelligence can see many differences in gender and that means people who have it understand differences better than systematizers. That a political structure is built around gender or sex is not what people are doing other than going to the extremes of empathizing rather than balancing empathizing with systematizing. No one is telling people to be empathizers, they just are. It is a personality trait, not something learned from a manifesto.

 

[Old Things]

A trans person inhabits the role by "passing" socially as the desired gender, the "success" of the transition and the relief or fulfillment they feel internally comes when people spontaneously gender them as preferred.

Translation: they are obsessed with getting attention.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

the reason certain people are obsessed with changing the meaning of words and labels is that the pioneers of critical theory considered anything systematic, even scientific systematization, as an instrument of oppression - utilized by the bourgeois to retain the status quo.

sounds like they'd love https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Translation: they are obsessed with getting attention.

if the goal is "passing"

that means they want to blend-in

which is the opposite of standing-out

 

[Old Things]

Translation: they are obsessed with getting attention.

if the goal is "passing"

that means they want to blend-in

which is the opposite of standing-out

Except they get their value from people spontaneously affirming their delusions.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Except they get their value from people spontaneously affirming their delusions.

 

[dr froyd]

No one is telling people to be empathizers, they just are. It is a personality trait, not something learned from a manifesto.

that's the idea - it's all just progression of civil rights, empathy.

but we have now reached a level where you can be attacked or even legally prosecuted for maintaining that biological gender exists in humans. That's not mere empathy, that's ideology

like i said in my post; people don't understand how perfectly these narratives correlate with a very specific set of sociological theories. These theories had foundations which in large part have been discredited since (namely freudean psychoanalysis and marxism). But that's a bigger topic.

 

[kora]

A trans person inhabits the role by "passing" socially as the desired gender, the "success" of the transition and the relief or fulfillment they feel internally comes when people spontaneously gender them as preferred.

Translation: they are obsessed with getting attention.

This is simply not true.

 

[Old Things]

A trans person inhabits the role by "passing" socially as the desired gender, the "success" of the transition and the relief or fulfillment they feel internally comes when people spontaneously gender them as preferred.

Translation: they are obsessed with getting attention.

This is simply not true.

I can't think of many reasons why someone would want to identify as the opposite sex they were born as but attention is a live option.

 

[Black Rose]

No one is telling people to be empathizers, they just are. It is a personality trait, not something learned from a manifesto.

that's the idea - it's all just progression of civil rights, empathy.

but we have now reached a level where you can be attacked or even legally prosecuted for maintaining that biological gender exists in humans. That's not mere empathy, that's ideology

like i said in my post; people don't understand how perfectly these narratives correlate with a very specific set of sociological theories. These theories had foundations which in large part have been discredited since (namely freudean psychoanalysis and marxism). But that's a bigger topic.

I was saying that there is a distribution of personality where we can have both systemimizing and empathizing equally or extremes where people have one or the other. And these two things do not need to be about what makes a person good or bad. Social and technical intelligence in a person is not what defines us morally. So you can say it is wrong to prosecute people believing in biological gender and be an empathizer. You can say it is right to prosecute people who believe in biological gender and be a systematizer. System and Empath are not what makes people have these or those ideological opinions. As to what Marx said these people who are pushing the narrative of deconstruction are middlemen of the intelligentsia who are bitter and resentful they are not the bourgeoisie. That is not based on the two categories of personality systematizing and empathizing. They take advantage of these personality types to suit their agenda.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

I can't think of many reasons why someone would want to identify as the opposite sex they were born as but attention is a live option.

can you think of many reasons why someone would be attracted to another of the same phenotype ?

 

[kora]

A trans person inhabits the role by "passing" socially as the desired gender, the "success" of the transition and the relief or fulfillment they feel internally comes when people spontaneously gender them as preferred.

Translation: they are obsessed with getting attention.

This is simply not true.

I can't think of many reasons why someone would want to identify as the opposite sex they were born as but attention is a live option.

Just because you can't think of the reasons and don't understand these people and their lived experiences doesn't mean that what they're doing is morally wrong or that they're just attention seekers. I have a trans friend. I can see it demands significant bravery to go about your life when you are trans. For example my friend was walking down the street the other day with another trans friend of theirs, and a random guy clocked that one of them (not my friend) was trans, and insulted her and told her she was a disgusting whore. My friend stood up to him and threw water in his face. He didn't know my friend was trans and said he would have hit her if she hadn't been a girl. Then they left. Her friend (the one who had been insulted) was mortified and is finding it much harder to leave her flat since this incident. People who choose to transition do not do so lightly.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Just because you can't think of the reasons and don't understand these people and their lived experiences doesn't mean that what they're doing is morally wrong or that they're just attention seekers. I have a trans friend. I can see it demands significant bravery to go about your life when you are trans. For example my friend was walking down the street the other day with another trans friend of theirs, and a random guy clocked that one of them (not my friend) was trans, and insulted her and told her she was a disgusting whore. My friend stood up to him and threw water in his face. He didn't know my friend was trans and said he would have hit her if she hadn't been a girl. Then they left. Her friend (the one who had been insulted) was mortified and is finding it much harder to leave her flat since this incident. People who choose to transition do not do so lightly.

great example

 

[kora]

I could also add that the one who was clocked as trans and insulted, left her country of origin (Russia) because she felt unsafe there, given the general anti-lgbt atmsophere. So saying she is simply doing it all for attention is callous, and ignorant. In fact I met her once and she is a discreet and shy person. People carry too much hate in their hearts, they react with disdain, aggressiveness and violence to people who don't fit the norm.

 

[Old Things]

A trans person inhabits the role by "passing" socially as the desired gender, the "success" of the transition and the relief or fulfillment they feel internally comes when people spontaneously gender them as preferred.

Translation: they are obsessed with getting attention.

This is simply not true.

I can't think of many reasons why someone would want to identify as the opposite sex they were born as but attention is a live option.

Just because you can't think of the reasons and don't understand these people and their lived experiences doesn't mean that what they're doing is morally wrong or that they're just attention seekers. I have a trans friend. I can see it demands significant bravery to go about your life when you are trans. For example my friend was walking down the street the other day with another trans friend of theirs, and a random guy clocked that one of them (not my friend) was trans, and insulted her and told her she was a disgusting whore. My friend stood up to him and threw water in his face. He didn't know my friend was trans and said he would have hit her if she hadn't been a girl. Then they left. Her friend (the one who had been insulted) was mortified and is finding it much harder to leave her flat since this incident. People who choose to transition do not do so lightly.

I'm asking you what the reason is why in the US the amount of people identifying as trans since there was a push for acceptance of trans identification has risen by 4,000%.

Lived experience is subjective since people are influenced by their culture. And if the culture says "Accept any kind of sexuality" and even "It's cool to be trans" then you are going to have a lot more people identifying as trans precisely because of their lived experience and being told that being trans is good. That does not, however, make being trans a good thing. I understand some people struggle with sexual identification. But when you have a bunch of women in their early 20s who are now suing organizations like Planned Parenthood for not asking any questions about the girls' mental health or really trying to understand any kind of deeper issues they may have and just going 100% into trying to transition the girl (like 12-16 or so) and permanently mutilating their bodies so they can't have kids or live like a normal woman after they have grown out of being trans by the time they are about 18 years old, along with the fact that trans people who have transitioned sex have some of the highest suicide rates demographically, then that tells me their lived experience is worth a hill of beans.

 

[Cognisant]

The fact is that you are saying all trans people are rapists by denying the statistic he gave and not presenting alternative evidence.

No I'm refusing to fall for his trap.

If I refuse to allow a masculine person into the women's bathroom I don't know if they are a man or an FtM. So if I'm saying trans people are rapists I'm equally accusing men of being rapists, for all I know this is just a man lying to me about being a woman, not a trans person at all, just a liar.

The trap is that Hado is trying to change what our debate is about, so instead of debating how to identify a woman it's whether or not trans people are rapists.

Which is irrelevant.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

If I refuse to allow a masculine person into the women's

based purely on outward appearance

 

[Old Things]

If I refuse to allow a masculine person into the women's

based purely on outward appearance

You act like that is nothing. How obtuse.

 

[Cognisant]

Some people just aren't ready to be unplugged.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

If I refuse to allow a masculine person into the women's

based purely on outward appearance

You act like that is nothing. How obtuse.

well it's pretty funny when almost every objection mentions

"XX/XY"

and

"gender assigned at birth"

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Some people just aren't ready to be unplugged.

unplugged from what ?