Transgenderism, sex and gender

[Jose Fly]

I'm agreeing with you that random mutations damage people in different ways and at different levels. Doesn't that fit within your worldview?

Mutational effects run the gamut from negative, to positive, to neutral. But back to what I asked you....you said people are differently "fallen" at birth. Is that from the Bible?

I was not complaining. I was simply saying that everyone in the world can have their own "gender identity" if they want, but that does not mean that we all need to accept and "embrace" it.

I wasn't aware anyone was asking you to embrace or accept anything. Where are they doing that?

 

[Traditio]

No, what I am saying is that Bob's sex is male. His gender may vary, however, depending on who is assigning it, and by what criteria.

I think the problem here is that psychologizers and liberals are getting carried away by terminology. "Gender" is not some kind of magical word used to describe something occult and mysterious.

It's a word used to describe something perfectly pedestrian and mundane. Again, the possible options for "gender," when referring to people, are "man," "boy," "girl" and "woman."

When talking about nouns, the possibilities are "masculine (male)," "feminine (female)" and "neuter."

What you mean by the "gender of Bob" is simply: "Bob's being a man" or "Bob's being a woman."

So what you are actually saying, PureX, is this: "Bob's being a man depends upon somebody's perception of him, whether his own or somebody else's."

In other words: "Bob is a man if and only if Bob is perceived as a man or has 'to be a man' assigned to him."

Which is, of course, doubtful at best.

"Bob" is Bob. His sex is defined by his genitalia

I actually disagree with this. It's the other way around: genitalia are signs of, express and are defined by the sex which correspond to them. Male genitals do not make men. Rather, men naturally have and develop male genitals.

A male set of genitals is simply one of (or a set of) the organs which provide for the completion and perfection of a male animal.

If a male should lose his genitals, he, for all of that, does not cease to be a male.

, and his gender is assigned to him subjectively, by whomever is doing the assigning.

Why should I think this?

Bob is more than his sex. And Bob's gender involves much more than his genitalia.

He's more than a lot of things.

Bob is:

A substance

A bodily substance

A living bodily substance

A sensate living bodily substance (an animal)

A rational sensate living bodily substance (a human being)

A male rational sensate living bodily substance (a man)

This male rational sensate living bodily substance (Bob)

This male rational sensate living bodily substance with the accrual of all of his various accidents (being such and such a weight, being such and such a height, having such and such education, life experiences, etc.). (Bob, a middle class short fat man who works as a music teacher, is married and has three children.)

So I guess if you want to be a simpleton, and ignore who Bob is in favor of his genitalia, then for you, Bob is and can only ever be a human with a penis. But if you are not an ignoramus, or a simpleton, then you might want to consider Bob as a whole person, having not just genitalia, but a personality, and an idea of self, including a great many unique and individual proclivities that make him who he is among the rest of us.

You have yet to provide an actual argument for the proposition:

"Bob is a man if and only if he is perceived as or given the assignment of being a man."

You've simply dogmatically asserted it and insulted me when I disagreed.

 

[Traditio]

Sex is biological.

I agree with this in some broad sense of the word "biological," though the precise details of what this means would require careful analysis and hashing out.

Gender is the behavior and attitudes that a culture associates with an individual's biological sex.

"Being a man" is the behavior and attitudes that a culture associates with an individual's biological sex?

Is that what you are claiming?

Gender identity is an individual's sense of self, which may or may not match that individual's sex.

"'One's identity as a man' is an individual's sense of self (i.e., self-evaluation), which may or may not match that individual's being male or female."

This is what you are claiming. Yes?

The terms sex and gender aren't interchangeable.

"'Being a man' and 'being a male' aren't interchangeable."

What reason do you actually have for believing any of this?

You understand how silly what you are saying sounds when put in plain English, yes?

For what it's worth:

On the other two websites on which I posted the OP (and was subsequently banned), I put a poll which read as follows:

"'Man', in ordinary parlance, means..."

I then gave various options, 1 of which described my view, and the other 3 of which described various liberal views (in what I thought was a pretty fair way of putting it in liberal terms; I didn't try to bias the poll).

In both polls, over half of all respondents answered "a mature male."

And the remainder (the liberal idealogues) were evenly divided among themselves whether "man" means:

"Someone who thinks he's a man."
"Someone who identifies with a set of social norms."
"Someone with a given set of brain-states."

And note, these were both on very liberal boards. I got a one-day ban on one of them for claiming that "transgendered" people are mentally deranged.

Your views, when put in plan English, sound silly and strange to the majority of people.

 

[PureX]

I think the problem here is that psychologizers and liberals are getting carried away by terminology. "Gender" is not some kind of magical word used to describe something occult and mysterious.

The concept we hold of ourselves is not "something occult and mysterious", unless you are a moron, incapable of understanding even the most basic aspects of human consciousness. Or you're an ignoramus who simply ignores all aspects of reality that disagree with their intellectually retarded view of the world.

It's a word used to describe something perfectly pedestrian and mundane. Again, the possible options for "gender," when referring to people, are "man," "boy," "girl" and "woman."

Note: NOT 'male', or 'female' as with sex designation.

When talking about nouns, the possibilities are "masculine (male)," "feminine (female)" and "neuter."

Why are you having to forcibly insert the sexual designations "(male)" and "(female)"? Is it because they weren't there in the dictionary?

Or is it because you know that "masculine" does not mean sexually male, nor does "feminine" mean sexually female. As evidenced by the inclusion of "neuter" under the definition of "gender".

What you mean by the "gender of Bob" is simply: "Bob's being a man" or "Bob's being a woman."

No, according to your own stated definition (minus your forced insertions), what we are referring to as gender is Bob's perceived masculinity, femininity, or neutrality. To say that "Bob's a twink", for example, implies that his gender is feminine while his sex is male.

So what you are actually saying, PureX, is this: "Bob's being a man depends upon somebody's perception of him, whether his own or somebody else's."

No, I am saying that Bob's GENDER IDENTITY depends on the relative perception of him; his own or someone else's.

In other words: "Bob is a man if and only if Bob is perceived as a man or has 'to be a man' assigned to him."

It's amazing how hard you work at not understanding such a simple point!

Bob's body is male if it has a penis. But the conscious entity that we call "Bob" may be masculine, feminine, neutral, or some combination of these. Bob's "sex" is therefor male, while his gender identification may be any combination of characteristics: feminine, masculine, neutral, or dynamic.

It's not rocket science. You're just working really hard at NOT understanding because you don't want to be wrong. And you'd rather remain willfully ignorant than admit that you're wrong about something, and learn from it.

If a male should lose his genitals, he, for all of that, does not cease to be a male.

Actually, he does. He does not cease being masculine, however, if he was masculine before.

"Bob is a man if and only if he is perceived as or given the assignment of being a man."

You need to learn the difference between a man and a male human animal. Once you have done so, you will no longer be confused and angry about the difference between "sex" and "gender" as linguistic terms.

You've simply dogmatically asserted it and insulted me when I disagreed.

I only insult you when I see you being willfully ignorant. And I only do it, then, because I keep hoping you'll rise above it.

 

[Ktoyou]

Who wrote "Sex and Gender"?

 

[annabenedetti]

"Being a man" is the behavior and attitudes that a culture associates with an individual's biological sex?

Is that what you are claiming?

"'One's identity as a man' is an individual's sense of self (i.e., self-evaluation), which may or may not match that individual's being male or female."

This is what you are claiming. Yes?

"'Being a man' and 'being a male' aren't interchangeable."

What reason do you actually have for believing any of this?

Have you read any of my other posts in this thread?

You understand how silly what you are saying sounds when put in plain English, yes?

No.

 

[annabenedetti]

Do you believe you have the right to tell people who assign themselves a different gender that they can't, or shouldn't do so? And if so, by what authority?

Let me point out, once again, that I said NO SUCH thing.

. . .

I'm fine with gender being completely ambiguous and arbitrary, but then don't try to turn around and call it something that has a meaning.

 

[Crucible]

Transgenderism is, by it's own scientific admission, a disease. Let's not pretend it is something it is not, for one, and secondly lets understand that the proposed treatment for this disease is to embrace it.

Which is ridiculous, just as the movement, the supporters, and the so called specialists themselves. They dupe people into magical thinking- that a man is born in a woman's body- and simply demand this to be a truth.

 

[Traditio]

Have you read any of my other posts in this thread?

Not at the time of my posting. I had read your response to me, and that was all I was replying to.

Subsequent to reading this comment, I went back through the thread and read your other comments.

I didn't see anything relevant to my inquiries.

Using plain English as opposed to "sex" and "gender":

What is it that you think is true? Do you think that "to be a man" is a social construct? Or do you think something else?

No.

You don't have conservative friends from the South on your facebook page, huh?

 

[Right Divider]

Mutational effects run the gamut from negative, to positive, to neutral. But back to what I asked you....you said people are differently "fallen" at birth. Is that from the Bible?

It depends on what you mean. The Bible says that God placed a curse on all of creation. This cursed creation affects some more than others.

I wasn't aware anyone was asking you to embrace or accept anything. Where are they doing that?

I guess that you live under a rock.

 

[Right Divider]

. . .

You're comparing apples and walruses.

 

[Jose Fly]

It depends on what you mean. The Bible says that God placed a curse on all of creation. This cursed creation affects some more than others.

Why? Does that seem fair to you? And again, where does this belief in differential cursing at birth come from?

I guess that you live under a rock.

Then perhaps you could show where you've been asked to embrace or accept anything regarding this issue?

 

[Right Divider]

Why? Does that seem fair to you? And again, where does this belief in differential cursing at birth come from?

I didn't say "differential cursing", I was talking about different EFFECTS OF the curse on the creation. Some people are born with birth defects and some are not, etc. etc.

Where does "fair" come into play?

Then perhaps you could show where you've been asked to embrace or accept anything regarding this issue?

Once again, I guess that you live under a rock somewhere.

 

[Jose Fly]

I didn't say "differential cursing", I was talking about different EFFECTS OF the curse on the creation. Some people are born with birth defects and some are not, etc. etc.

So.....everyone is equally fallen at birth, it's just that some are more affected by it than others?

Where does "fair" come into play?

I was under the impression that you were saying people are differently fallen at birth, since mutational effects run the gamut from positive to neutral to negative to severely negative. IOW, under your beliefs mutations are a result of the fall, and given the above range of mutational effects, that means some people are born more "fallen" than others. So I was wondering if that seems fair to you.

Once again, I guess that you live under a rock somewhere.

If you can't give an example, just say so.

 

[Right Divider]

So.....everyone is equally fallen at birth, it's just that some are more affected by it than others?

No, you continue to twist. God created a "very good" creation. Man sinned and God put a curse on this creation.

Its effects are not uniform.

I was under the impression that you were saying people are differently fallen at birth, since mutational effects run the gamut from positive to neutral to negative to severely negative. IOW, under your beliefs mutations are a result of the fall, and given the above range of mutational effects, that means some people are born more "fallen" than others. So I was wondering if that seems fair to you.

Everyone is "fallen" as in the "born in sin". This is different than the effects of God's curse on creation.

That you cannot or will not understand the difference is your problem.

Also, I don't care to take your rabbit trail about "fairness".

If you can't give an example, just say so.

It's not that I can't... it's just that I won't. If you're not aware of what goes on in the world around you, then I'm not going to be your babysitter.

 

[Jose Fly]

No, you continue to twist. God created a "very good" creation. Man sinned and God put a curse on this creation.

Its effects are not uniform.


Everyone is "fallen" as in the "born in sin". This is different than the effects of God's curse on creation.

That you cannot or will not understand the difference is your problem.

Also, I don't care to take your rabbit trail about "fairness".

Ok.

It's not that I can't... it's just that I won't.

Thanks for your input.

 

[Traditio]

The concept we hold of ourselves

You are begging the question. Why should we assume that this is what gender is?

is not "something occult and mysterious", unless you are a moron, incapable of understanding even the most basic aspects of human consciousness. Or you're an ignoramus who simply ignores all aspects of reality that disagree with their intellectually retarded view of the world.

You're simply begging the question. You are presupposing, from the get go, that gender is psychological. I see no a priori reason to assume this. Do you have an argument for it?

Note: NOT 'male', or 'female' as with sex designation.

Depending on the linguistic context, I don't think that "male" would be an inappropriate answer either(say, on a job application).

Why are you having to forcibly insert the sexual designations "(male)" and "(female)"? Is it because they weren't there in the dictionary?

See the OP.

Or is it because you know that "masculine" does not mean sexually male, nor does "feminine" mean sexually female. As evidenced by the inclusion of "neuter" under the definition of "gender".

We're talking about nouns, pronouns and adjectives. Strictly speaking, those things don't have real sexual properties. It's a convention based on an obvious metaphor/analogy to the animal sexes/genders. See the OP.

what we are referring to as gender is Bob's perceived masculinity, femininity, or neutrality. To say that "Bob's a twink", for example, implies that his gender is feminine while his sex is male.

Problem:

If you define gender as "perceived masculinity," etc., then even persons who do not identify as a given gender must be assigned that gender. Examples: pre-op trangendered persons, cross-dressers and persons of a given gender who just don't have features or a manner of dress which "give away" their given sex or gender. I'm sure we've all had moments where we squinted at someone, uncertain of what exactly we were looking at.

Again, this definition would mean that many people are "transgendered" who are not, in fact, "transgendered."

Furthermore, this simply isn't the claim that transgendered persons make.

Bruce Jenner, I assume, does not wish to assert that he is a man who is perceived and perceives himself as feminine. Rather, he wishes to assert that he is a woman.

But if that's the claim that you also wish to make, then we come back to my point. What you and they are actually saying is:

"To be a woman is dependent on perception and is assigned."

I see no reason to believe this.

No, I am saying that Bob's GENDER IDENTITY depends on the relative perception of him; his own or someone else's

Without using liberal buzzwords, please explain to me what a gender identity is and give examples of possible gender identities.

Bob's body is male if it has a penis.

I disagree, as indicated previously. A post-op transgendered person is still a male, as is the unfortunate victim of castrations and other such injuries.

But the conscious entity that we call "Bob" may be masculine, feminine, neutral, or some combination of these. Bob's "sex" is therefor male, while his gender identification may be any combination of characteristics: feminine, masculine, neutral, or dynamic.

Again, why should I think that gender is psychological?

Actually, he does. He does not cease being masculine, however, if he was masculine before.

Do you have an argument for him ceasing to be a male if he should lose his male genitalia in, say, some unfortunate accident?

A neutered dog is still a male dog.

I only insult you when I see you being willfully ignorant. And I only do it, then, because I keep hoping you'll rise above it.

I have a better idea. If you disagree with me, then offer evidence. The insults are unnecessary, and I assume that you wouldn't wish for such treatment for yourself.

 

[Traditio]

Curious note:

I am staring at a job application right now.

Gender:

[ ] male [ ] female

I'm not even making this up. I'm looking at it right now.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Ever notice that there are far more women than men who are friendly and outspoken towards homosexuals and transgenders? They are more likely to befriend them and defend them.

No doubt, it has much to do with a feeling of inferiority gone into being adversarial to a world intended for heterosexual men to lead. What is said in the media is not what their true intent is- they all intended to recondition society to a thought of thinking which is contrary to Christianity.

This is sort of the reason why I don't differentiate feminism from LGBT, or modern liberalism from social and familial lawlessness. It is all interconnected, but they don't want people to realize it- they want people to compartmentalize every branch of that tree so that the trunk won't get cut off.

You and Trad are just a pair of pseudo intellectual cretins. Get a life the pair of ya...

:kookoo:

 

[PureX]

You are begging the question. Why should we assume that this is what gender is?



You're simply begging the question. You are presupposing, from the get go, that gender is psychological. I see no a priori reason to assume this. Do you have an argument for it?



Depending on the linguistic context, I don't think that "male" would be an inappropriate answer either(say, on a job application).



See the OP.



We're talking about nouns, pronouns and adjectives. Strictly speaking, those things don't have real sexual properties. It's a convention based on an obvious metaphor/analogy to the animal sexes/genders. See the OP.



Problem:

If you define gender as "perceived masculinity," etc., then even persons who do not identify as a given gender must be assigned that gender. Examples: pre-op trangendered persons, cross-dressers and persons of a given gender who just don't have features or a manner of dress which "give away" their given sex or gender. I'm sure we've all had moments where we squinted at someone, uncertain of what exactly we were looking at.

Again, this definition would mean that many people are "transgendered" who are not, in fact, "transgendered."

Furthermore, this simply isn't the claim that transgendered persons make.

Bruce Jenner, I assume, does not wish to assert that he is a man who is perceived and perceives himself as feminine. Rather, he wishes to assert that he is a woman.

But if that's the claim that you also wish to make, then we come back to my point. What you and they are actually saying is:

"To be a woman is dependent on perception and is assigned."

I see no reason to believe this.



Without using liberal buzzwords, please explain to me what a gender identity is and give examples of possible gender identities.



I disagree, as indicated previously. A post-op transgendered person is still a male, as is the unfortunate victim of castrations and other such injuries.



Again, why should I think that gender is psychological?



Do you have an argument for him ceasing to be a male if he should lose his male genitalia in, say, some unfortunate accident?

A neutered dog is still a male dog.



I have a better idea. If you disagree with me, then offer evidence. The insults are unnecessary, and I assume that you wouldn't wish for such treatment for yourself.