biology, not your subjective "feelings"

[glassjester]

Really not interested in playing your games.

Before you try to pretend you aren't playing a game why not actually answer Selaphiel's question.

Yes, sir. I will do as you say, sir.

Selaphiel's asked what objective fact Shapiro appealed to.
My answer, of course, is that people are male or female.
I asked Selaphiel if a human can be biologically male.

 

[glassjester]

Really not interested in playing your games.

Before you try to pretend you aren't playing a game why not actually answer Selaphiel's question.

So what opinion did Shapiro present?

 

[Selaphiel]

What's the difference between male and female? Do male and female even exist?

I believe I asked you a question that you haven't answered, it is impolite to ask questions in reply to a question. Makes you seem like someone more interested in setting up semantic traps than engaging in honest dialogue. Which objective fact are you talking about?

Unlike the rants of Mr.Shapiro, biology does not show a simple binary of gender, because sexual determination is more complex than that.

Male and female exists in terms of sexual function. A male produces sperm that can inseminate an egg. Females have eggs that can be inseminated by sperm.

But that is a rather minimal definition, one which doesn't imply any particular form of behavior. Once you get to hormone production and expressions of secondary sexual characteristics, the picture is far more complex. On top of that, you have gender behavior and expectations that are mostly culturally determined, or culture at least plays a major role. So someone can be male or female in terms of purely sexual function, but not in any way resonate with cultural expectations of a male or female behavior or societal roles. So it is of course silly of Shapiro to dismiss sociology because it is not a natural science, as if he really has a clue about current discussions on gender in that field.

Selaphiel - Do you think a human can be objectively, biologically male?

Same as above.

My answer, of course, is that people are male or female.

An answer so ambigious that it is meaningless. Male or female in what sense? Sexual function? Behavioral patterns? Filling certain roles in a society?

 

[Ktoyou]

biology, not your subjective "feelings"

If biology "trumps" subjective feelings, we'd better be all prepared to have "gender" police patrolling the public washrooms and change-rooms doing strip-searches!

That is a great idea! Good thinking, did not know you had it in you.

 

[glassjester]

I believe I asked you a question that you haven't answered, it is impolite to ask questions in reply to a question. Makes you seem like someone more interested in setting up semantic traps than engaging in honest dialogue. Which objective fact are you talking about?

Unlike the rants of Mr.Shapiro, biology does not show a simple binary of gender, because sexual determination is more complex than that.

Male and female exists in terms of sexual function. A male produces sperm that can inseminate an egg. Females have eggs that can be inseminated by sperm.

But that is a rather minimal definition, one which doesn't imply any particular form of behavior. Once you get to hormone production and expressions of secondary sexual characteristics, the picture is far more complex. On top of that, you have gender behavior and expectations that are mostly culturally determined, or culture at least plays a major role. So someone can be male or female in terms of purely sexual function, but not in any way resonate with cultural expectations of a male or female behavior or societal roles. So it is of course silly of Shapiro to dismiss sociology because it is not a natural science, as if he really has a clue about current discussions on gender in that field.



Same as above.



An answer so ambigious that it is meaningless. Male or female in what sense? Sexual function? Behavioral patterns? Filling certain roles in a society?

From Wikipedia:

In genetic sex-determination systems, an organism's sex is determined by the genome it inherits. Genetic sex-determination usually depends on asymmetrically inherited sex chromosomes which carry genetic features that influence development; sex may be determined either by the presence of a sex chromosome or by how many the organism has. Genetic sex-determination, because it is determined by chromosome assortment, usually results in a 1:1 ratio of male and female offspring.
Humans and other mammals have an XY sex-determination system: the Y chromosome carries factors responsible for triggering male development. The "default sex," in the absence of a Y chromosome, is female-like. Thus, XX mammals are female and XY are male.

That should clarify what I mean by "male" and "female."

 

[Ktoyou]

Is hermaphroditism not a biological condition?

That is an old term, but get you jest. There should be special public restrooms for them

 

[quip]

We can go that route, if you'd like. But first - are you saying that every non-hermaphroditic human is objectively male or female?

I'm saying that even biologically speaking there is ambiguity regarding general sexuality.

 

[glassjester]

I'm saying that even biologically speaking there is ambiguity regarding general sexuality.

In non-hermaphrodites?

 

[quip]

In non-hermaphrodites?

Yes, perhaps. We're not sure how hormones and/or the brain may differ in transgender individuals.

 

[glassjester]

Yes, perhaps. We're not sure how hormones and/or the brain may differ in transgender individuals.

Alright, so we don't know then.

Do you think anyone is objectively male?

 

[quip]

Alright, so we don't know then.

Do you think anyone is objectively male?

We all have a feminine side as well a masculine one...we all display a prominent side to one degree or another. The obscure functions of the mind ("subjective feelings") are no less a product of biology than our respective genitalia.

 

[glassjester]

We all have a feminine side as well a masculine one...we all display a prominent side to one degree or another. The obscure functions of the mind ("subjective feelings") are no less a product of biology than our respective genitalia.

Again, with the exception of a defect, in terms of chromosomes and genitalia, there is no continuum. The difference between male and female is absolutely binary.

As for feelings: in the case of a transgender man, who "feels like a woman," why should his opinion about what he "truly is inside," outweigh anyone else's?

 

[quip]

Again, with the exception of a defect, in terms of chromosomes and genitalia, there is no continuum. The difference between male and female is absolutely binary.

What does that even mean? Are you desiring absolutes here?

As for feelings: in the case of a transgender man, who "feels like a woman," why should his opinion about what he "truly is inside," outweigh anyone else's?

Likewise and to the point, why should your feelings determine how he/she sexually orients themselves?

On the subject of biology, unless you're claiming some mind/body dichotomy ...the case seems sufficiently closed here.

 

[glassjester]

What does that even mean? Are you desiring absolutes here?

You don't know what male or female means?

Likewise and to the point, why should your feelings determine how he/she sexually orients themselves?

Right, now you're getting the point Shapiro was making the video!
My feelings don't determine another man's thoughts about himself.

And (get this) his feelings don't get to dictate what I (or anyone else) think of him, either.

 

[quip]

You don't know what male or female means?

Rather, I'm not sure how you're using the term continuum in this context.

Right, now you're getting the point Shapiro was making the video!
My feelings don't determine another man's thoughts about himself.

And (get this) his feelings don't get to dictate what I (or anyone else) think of him, either.

Right, though your thoughts and feelings (existing as a normative, majority view) can certainly repress his or her rights, social and self-worth and overall dignity. Ever heard of the concept so-named the tyranny of the majority?

 

[Right Divider]

You're rejecting what the bible says????

Your silly opinions are duly noted.

 

[glassjester]

Rather, I'm not sure how you're using the term continuum in this context.

Anatomically, there is no continuum of male to female - people could be lined up from "very male" to "equally male and female" to "very female."

Right, though your thoughts and feelings (existing as a normative, majority view) can certainly repress his or her rights, social and self-worth and overall dignity. Ever heard of the concept so-named the tyranny of the majority?

But my thoughts and feelings don't dictate the normative, majority view. The public view (any legislation, any government stance, any policy) on the matter must be based on objective measures.

 

[quip]

Anatomically, there is no continuum of male to female - people could be lined up from "very male" to "equally male and female" to "very female."

Sorry still not seeing any point here.

But my thoughts and feelings don't dictate the normative, majority view. The public view (any legislation, any government stance, any policy) on the matter must be based on objective measures.

Your thoughts and feelings direct your action which, in turn, affect others.

Biology was mentioned....you changing direction now?

 

[glassjester]

Biology was mentioned....you changing direction now?

Nope.

Are there any objective, biological measures for determining someone's sex?

 

[quip]

Nope.

Are there any objective, biological measures for determining someone's sex?

There's probably genetic tests which can determine what sex you're born with. Though, is this test sufficient to set law upon? Why or why not?