Jump to content

The Pronoun Wars Continue


Recommended Posts

when people whip out Ben Shapiro, you've lost me, not interested

Link to post
4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Gender is a label and if one doesn’t see gender in the same way, a different label may be chosen. 

"As I see it, a person cannot change their biological sex."  Is that more precise?

I'm not sure I'm on board with the sex-gender distinction.  The sex-is-biological and gender-is-sociological thing is a word game of recent derivation, perhaps even a falsehood (see here).

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
11 minutes ago, Calm said:

Gender is a label and if one doesn’t see gender in the same way, a different label may be chosen. 
 

My brother currently lives in Asia now. If he is asked his age there, he says 55 until the next Chinese NY.  If he is asked his age here, he says 53 until his birthday. Age is a measurement and measurement can vary depending on how they are defined. 
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Asian_age_reckoning

 

So Stefoknee can be a perpetual six-year-old girl?

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
5 minutes ago, Duncan said:

when people whip out Ben Shapiro, you've lost me, not interested

A few minutes ago I whipped out D. Michael Quinn.  I've previously quoted Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, Bill Maher, and other people who raise legitimate points that merit discussion, but whose broader  worldview I find flawed in some substantial ways.

To disregard the argument based solely on the individual who is making it is to commit the ad hominem fallacy.

And I made ten other points that had nothing to do with Ben Shapiro.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So Stefoknee can be a perpetual six-year-old girl?

Thanks,

-Smac

I am just saying it is inaccurate to speak of labels in terms of absolutes when they actually may change depending on a culture. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
4 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am just saying it is inaccurate to speak of labels in terms of absolutes when they actually may change depending on a culture. 

I think "male" and "female" are more than just "labels."  We need to actually be able to define terms and differentiate them from each other, even if those terms cannot be defined in 100% "absolutes."

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If you can ask that question of Amulek, can it be asked of others?

Sure. Why not? I wouldn’t recommend it unless you doubt the sincerity of the asker. Did Amulek’s request seem sincere to you?  

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And is sincerity a replacement for reality?  
 

What is reality? 

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think we should joke about such things.  But I also am not sure we should reflexively and automatically go along with such things either.  
 

Does a 50 year struggle, serving a mission, marrying in the temple, attending church, serving in church callings, seem “reflexive” or “automatic” to you? Really?

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And I'm really not comfortable with the government punishing us for not reflexively and automatically go along with such things.

Here I am undecided. Was it necessary or right for the government to force people in the south to use the same schools bathrooms and water fountains as those that had a different skin color? To me that’s beside the point. To those who would create a thread on a religiously themed board lamenting such laws in a world filled with true horrors, I’d ask the same question I asked above. Is that really what you are concerned about?

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am also not comfortable with your invocation of suicide as a basis for going along with you uncle/aunt.  It seems coercive.  
 

That you find the simple facts of the matter upsetting isn’t my problem. The fact of the matter is that living as she was led to a suicide attempt. The comparison was to Amulek’s flippant (and apparently funny) comparison. 

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Also, your statement that your uncle/aunt "accept{ed} who she was" presupposes that which is in dispute.  I don't think that works.  I think there is an ongoing debate that merits some attention.  Is a person situated like your uncle/aunt well and truly "misgendered?"  A woman trapped in man's body?  Or is this a form of mental illness?  Is gender arbitrarily "assigned at birth," or is it essentially an intrinsic trait like age?

I was born in 1977 or I wasn’t. I was born with a certain set of chromosomes or I wasn’t (chromosomes do not always equal biological sex btw). I was born with a certain set of genitalia or I wasn’t. I feel strongly (so strongly that I am willing to be disowned by my family and church community, so strongly I’m willing to take my own life) that I am a woman. Which of these facts can you independently verify? Which am I the only person that could possibly have anything to say on the matter?

 

-John

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think "male" and "female" are more than just "labels."  We need to actually be able to define terms and differentiate them from each other, even if those terms cannot be defined in 100% "absolutes."

Thanks,

-Smac

Plug parts are labeled male and female.  There is nothing inherent in them that required that label. They got the label because the namers chose to focus on certain attributes a certain way.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_of_connectors_and_fasteners

Not everyone views biological sex in the same way, just as not everyone views colour the same way (a certain colour may be labeled red by one person, blue by another, and neither blue nor red, but a unique colour by yet another. 

We do need to define biological and social constructs associated with sex, but how we need to define them is the debate. We could separate medical needs from social needs, there is nothing inherent in our language that requires us to treat these categories identically. 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A few minutes ago I whipped out D. Michael Quinn.  I've previously quoted Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, Bill Maher, and other people who raise legitimate points that merit discussion, but whose broader  worldview I find flawed in some substantial ways.

To disregard the argument based solely on the individual who is making it is to commit the ad hominem fallacy.

And I made ten other points that had nothing to do with Ben Shapiro.

Thanks,

-Smac

and I never mentioned those people for a reason and I just said I wasn't interested in hearing what Ben Shapiro has to say, that isn't a fallacy-as I wasn't attacking him personally. Do you put more weight into someone's argument just because they said it?

Edited by Duncan
Link to post
41 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:
Quote
Quote
Quote

My preferred pronoun is My Holiness.

Is it really?

If you can ask that question of Amulek, can it be asked of others?

Sure. Why not?

Because if we are only speaking of personal preferences, then I don't see how the government should be involved.  And I'm not sure that personal preferences should carry the day, either.

41 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I wouldn’t recommend it unless you doubt the sincerity of the asker. Did Amulek’s request seem sincere to you?  

I am not sure that sincerity is the definitive consideration here.  Nor is the individual's personal preference.

If he wants you to call him "My Holiness," who are you to question is preference?  And if you can dismiss his preference as lacking sincerity, can he dismiss another's preference as lacking congruence with reality (such as Stefoknee)?

41 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:
Quote

And is sincerity a replacement for reality?  

What is reality? 

"{T}he world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them."  (Source.)

41 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:
Quote

I don't think we should joke about such things.  But I also am not sure we should reflexively and automatically go along with such things either.  

Does a 50 year struggle, serving a mission, marrying in the temple, attending church, serving in church callings, seem “reflexive” or “automatic” to you? 

I was referencing whether bystanders should "reflexively and automatically" go along with "preferred pronouns."  

41 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:
Quote

And I'm really not comfortable with the government punishing us for not reflexively and automatically go along with such things.

Here I am undecided.

Well, I hope you give it some further thought.  The idea of the government compelling us, under threat of fine/imprisonment, over the use of pronouns should be a pretty uncomfortable proposition.

41 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Was it necessary or right for the government to force people in the south to use the same schools bathrooms and water fountains as those that had a different skin color?

I see vast differences between desegretation and governmental compulsion of speech.

41 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

To me that’s beside the point. To those who would create a thread on a religiously themed board lamenting such laws in a world filled with true horrors, I’d ask the same question I asked above. Is that really what you are concerned about?

I can walk and chew gum at the same time.  I can be concerned about more than one thing at a time.

41 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:
Quote

I am also not comfortable with your invocation of suicide as a basis for going along with you uncle/aunt.  It seems coercive.  

That you find the simple facts of the matter upsetting isn’t my problem.

I'm not upset.  And it's not the "simple facts of the matter" that are at issue.  It is the - forgive the word - exploitation of suicide that I find troubling.  Manipulative.  Coercive.

I don't want anyone to commit suicide.  But I also don't think it is appropriate for a person to use the threat of suicide as leverage to coerce others to capitulate to his point of view.

41 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:
Quote

Also, your statement that your uncle/aunt "accept{ed} who she was" presupposes that which is in dispute.  I don't think that works.  I think there is an ongoing debate that merits some attention.  Is a person situated like your uncle/aunt well and truly "misgendered?"  A woman trapped in man's body?  Or is this a form of mental illness?  Is gender arbitrarily "assigned at birth," or is it essentially an intrinsic trait like age?

I was born in 1977 or I wasn’t.

Okay.

41 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I was born with a certain set of chromosomes or I wasn’t (chromosomes do not always equal biological sex btw).

Again, you seem to be presupposing things that are in dispute.  

41 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I was born with a certain set of genitalia or I wasn’t.

Right.  And for a person that is genetically/biologically male, but who "feels" female, that can be a very difficult thing.  I acknowledge that.

41 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I feel strongly (so strongly that I am willing to be disowned by my family and church community, so strongly I’m willing to take my own life) that I am a woman. Which of these facts can you independently verify?

I'm not particularly interested in verifying these things.

41 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Which am I the only person that could possibly have anything to say on the matter?

I don't understand this.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
52 minutes ago, Duncan said:

and I never mentioned those people for a reason and I just said I wasn't interested in hearing what Ben Shapiro has to say, that isn't a fallacy-as I wasn't attacking him personally.

You are utterly and out-of-hand dismissing and refusing to listen to an argument based solely on the person presenting it.  That's about as ad hominem as you can get.

52 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Do you put more weight into someone's argument just because they said it?

The person's credibility, training, experience, etc. can certainly inform the amount of probative weight I lend to the argument.

I agree with Bill Maher's recent remarks on "cancel culture," but certainly not "just because {he} said it." 

Generally speaking, I listen to the argument and see if it has merit.  

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

A few minutes ago I whipped out D. Michael Quinn.  I've previously quoted Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, Bill Maher, and other people who raise legitimate points that merit discussion, but whose broader  worldview I find flawed in some substantial ways.

To disregard the argument based solely on the individual who is making it is to commit the ad hominem fallacy.

And I made ten other points that had nothing to do with Ben Shapiro.

Thanks,

-Smac

Besides, Ben Shapiro is more brilliant than any 10 of his detractors put together. 

Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Calm said:

Plug parts are labeled male and female.  There is nothing inherent in them that required that label.

I'm not sure what you mean by "required," but surely you undertand the basis for the analogy?  That is wasn't arbitrary?  I mean, it has origins going back to the Talmud.

Quote

They got the label because the namers chose to focus on certain attributes a certain way.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_of_connectors_and_fasteners

Sure.

Quote

Not everyone views biological sex in the same way, just as not everyone views colour the same way (a certain colour may be labeled red by one person, blue by another, and neither blue nor red, but a unique colour by yet another. 

Are you sure about this?  Am I at liberty to say that 2 plus 2 equals five?  That Donald J. Trump is the current president of the United States?  That the Earth is a flat disc and not spherical? 

I suppose I am at liberty to say such things, on the basis that I few them differently than others do.  But does that mean I am correct?  That 2 plus 2 really does equal 5?  That Donald J. Trump really is the current POTUS?  That the Earth is a flat disc?

I think people can disagree about all sorts of things, including important things.  But not all things.  There are many things that are beyond reasonable dispute.  

By way of example: Stefoknee Wolscht is not a perpetual six-year-old girl.  I say this even though Stefoknee views himself that way, and appears to be quite sincere and adamant about it.  But he's neither a girl nor perennially six years old.

Quote

We do need to define biological and social constructs associated with sex, but how we need to define them is the debate. We could separate medical needs from social needs, there is nothing inherent in our language that requires us to treat these categories identically. 

I think there are quite a few ways that society needs to treat these categories as identical.  

By way of example: Bathrooms and women's sports.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to post
2 hours ago, Amulek said:

My preferred pronoun is My Holiness.

Please be sure to use this when speaking about me from here on out, even in casual conversations which I may or may not even overhear. 

Remember, there is no religious exemption for this, and failure to do as you have now been clearly been informed will result in a fine of up to $1,000 and/or a year in jail. 

Thanks for your understanding.

 

Tough crowd.  Maybe you should have gone with the safer:

"I identify as Michael Jackson. My preferred pronouns are He/Hee"

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You are utterly and out-of-hand dismissing and refusing to listen to an argument based solely on the person presenting it.  That's about as ad hominem as you can get.

Not listening to or dismissing what a person says based on the person who is doing the talking is a choice based associated with that person but it isn't necessarily an "attack" on that person. 

I don't go to KKK meetings because I'm not interested in their agenda.  But that doesn't mean I am attacking the KKK.  And it also doesn't mean I don't think anyone at the KKK meeting might maybe have something good to say.

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The person's credibility, training, experience, etc. can certainly inform the amount of probative weight I lend to the argument.

I agree with Bill Maher's recent remarks on "cancel culture," but certainly not "just because {he} said it." 

Generally speaking, I listen to the argument and see if it has merit.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I am selective about WHO I choose to listen to and I am selective about the subject I am interested in hearing about.  I think most other people are too.  If you want to attack me or criticize me for saying that, have at it.  You are free to say whatever.

  • Like 1
Link to post
27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You are utterly and out-of-hand dismissing and refusing to listen to an argument based solely on the person presenting it.  That's about as ad hominem as you can get.

The person's credibility, training, experience, etc. can certainly inform the amount of probative weight I lend to the argument.

I agree with Bill Maher's recent remarks on "cancel culture," but certainly not "just because {he} said it." 

Generally speaking, I listen to the argument and see if it has merit.  

Thanks,

-Smac

So, I have to listen to Ben Shapiro now just because it wouldn't violate a logical fallacy rule? isn't that what this is all about someone not wanting to give into someone's else's demands?

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
2 hours ago, Duncan said:

when people whip out Ben Shapiro, you've lost me, not interested

This. A thousand times this.

Your champion of normalcy:

Yeah...........definitely someone you want to hear from about gender issues.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Am I at liberty to say that 2 plus 2 equals five? 

If our language defined 2 as // and five as ////, yes, you could.  Hopefully that one example makes my point so I don’t have to continue making the same. 

Quote

 

think there are quite a few ways that society needs to treat these categories as identical.  

But society is what decides based on its values...which can change.  Not all societies view gender in the same way. 

Edited by Calm
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
6 minutes ago, Calm said:

If our language defined 2 as // and five as ////, yes, you could.  

I'm confused.

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Hopefully that one example makes my point so I don’t have to continue making the same. 

It doesn't.  Sorry.  Our language defines 2 in a set way.  Arbitrarily and/or ideosyncratically redefining 2 to mean something other than 2 doesn't work.  

And I really don't get how 2+2=5.

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

But society is what decides based on its values...which can change.  

But there are constraints, surely?  Consider this story about Abraham Lincoln.

Quote

Few subjects have been more debated and less understood than the Proclamation of Emancipation. Mr. Lincoln was himself opposed to the measure, and when he very reluctantly issued the preliminary proclamation in September, 1862, he wished it distinctly understood that the deportation of the slaves was, in his mind, inseparably connected with the policy. Like Mr. Clay and other prominent leaders of the old Whig party, he believed in colonization, and that the separation of the two races was necessary to the welfare of both. He was at that time pressing upon the attention of Congress a scheme of colonization in Chiriqui, in Central America, which Senator Pomeroy espoused with great zeal, and in which he had the favor of a majority of the Cabinet, including Secretary Smith, who warmly indorsed the project. Subsequent developments, however, proved that it was simply an organization for land-stealing and plunder, and it was abandoned; but it is by no means certain that if the President had foreseen this fact his preliminary notice to the rebels would have been given. There are strong reasons for saying that he doubted his right to emancipate under the war power, and he doubtless meant what he said when he compared an Executive order to that effect to “the Pope’s Bull against the comet.” In discussing the question, he used to liken the case to that of the boy who, when asked how many legs his calf would have if he called its tail a leg, replied, ” Five,” to which the prompt response was made that calling the tail a leg would not make it a leg.

I submit that calling Stefoknee a perennial six-year-old girl does not make him so.  Do you disagree?

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Is it really? Do you know any trans people? My Aunt, as a young boy dressed in women’s clothing. She struggled her whole life to live according to gospel precepts. Serving a mission, marrying, and raising 6 kids in the church. At some point the depression of it all hit and became overwhelming. She tried to kill herself. At that point she decided it was time to accept who she was and she transitioned. That you somehow think this life long struggle is at all analogous to your lame attempt at a joke is pretty telling. 

I am out of reactions for today, but thank you for sharing this post. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

, ” Five,” to which the prompt response was made that calling the tail a leg would not make it a leg.

Except what I am saying is we are just using words/labels and if I am using Spanish I would be saying “la pata” even if it was on “el perro” because they not only use different words, they have different rules defining what is labeled feminine and what is masculine. In English it makes no sense to think of a feminine leg on a masculine dog. 
 

I am not saying we change the biological state by changing how we perceive it (except that we do in that perception influences how we treat something), but that perception is what creates labels and those are fluid depending on the society.  How we talk about the biological state, how we explore and treat it is influenced by perception.
 

For decades medical science treated females as males with exceptions for sexual organs, now there is realization that even in terms of similar organs such as the heart, there can be significant differences that require different treatment rather than assuming identical treatment.  Thus women are less likely to die now by an undiagnosed heart attack...at least in areas where doctors have the different perception now. 

Currently medics perception often is that blacks have  higher pain tolerances. This has led to significant differences in treatment.  Chances are in ten years or twenty, this perception will be seen as inappropriate by most medical professionals.

There are societies that have more than two genders. I don’t know how that affects how they treat people medically or legally, but it likely makes a significant difference of treatment from our current American society. 

Edited by Calm
Link to post

There is a recognition now in our medical literature and somewhat in our greater society that there are people who think differently in that they experience the world differently then others do, they are labeled as neuroatypical (also neurodivergent).  Autism is slowly becoming defined as not a mental disorder, but a different way of perception.***  Society was not wrong to label it a disorder by its then definitions, but as more is learned about the brain it makes sense to categorize Autism as something else. 
 

Gender perception may end up being something similar, imo. There may be a different processing of perception of gender that is different from our typical cultural view. This might be biologically based similar to autism, may have a mixture of social and bio causes, or may be primarily socially determined. I think the science behind it is not developed enough to predict. 
 

****much like Deafness is seen as a different and highly useful and meaningful version of communication rather than a disability by many in the Deaf community and outside it.

Added:  as science becomes more global in its influences (less dominated by assumptions of European civilization), as well as moving further away from the medical ‘one norm fits all, everything else is broken’ model of early Psychology, I think there is a high probability that science will move to a more fluid, more of a spectrum view of healthy behaviour to incorporate views of gender and sexuality from other cultural paradigms.

https://spsp.org/news-center/blog/mate-competition-nonwestern-cultures

http://www.gendertrust.org.uk/gender-concepts-around-the-world/

https://www.pbs.org/independentlens/content/two-spirits_map-html/

Edited by Calm
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:
4 hours ago, Amulek said:

My preferred pronoun is My Holiness.

Is it really?  

Why? Would that be a problem?

And, just to be clear, the rule in question doesn't say anything whatsoever about sincerity, prevalence of usage, or any other qualification - all it requires is that you be clearly informed of the preferred pronoun(s).

 

Quote

Do you know any trans people?

Yes. 

 

Quote

My Aunt, as a young boy dressed in women’s clothing. She struggled her whole life to live according to gospel precepts. Serving a mission, marrying, and raising 6 kids in the church. At some point the depression of it all hit and became overwhelming. She tried to kill herself. At that point she decided it was time to accept who she was and she transitioned. That you somehow think this life long struggle is at all analogous to your lame attempt at a joke is pretty telling.

Well, as a Dad, lame jokes are kind of in my wheelhouse. In fact, I've got a really good one about how the police showed up at my house one time after I downloaded the entire contents of Wikipedia. I told them not to worry, I could explain everything. ;) 

Look, I'm not really interested in getting drawn into a lengthy discussion here (though, knowing me, I may end up changing my mind), so let me just say this: I have some very strong, deeply held (and well-considered) opinions when it comes to free speech, and no appeal to emotion is going to get me to abandon those principled beliefs. 

And it is my sincere belief that using the power of government to compel private citizens to speak in "approved" ways is both Unconstitutional and immoral. 

Period. Full stop. 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
4 hours ago, Duncan said:

So, I have to listen to Ben Shapiro now just because it wouldn't violate a logical fallacy rule?

No.  You can avoid the fallacy by listening to the argument and evaluating it on its merits, as opposed to what you did, which was to summarily dismiss it out-of-hand solely because of the identity of the person who presented it: Ben Shapiro.  That's about as ad hominem as you can get.

4 hours ago, Duncan said:

isn't that what this is all about someone not wanting to give into someone's else's demands?

Nobody is demanding anything.  Nobody is holding a gun to your head.  Nobody is forcing you to participate in this discussion.  Nobody is forcing you to listen to a two-minute YouTube clip.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
Just now, smac97 said:

No.  You can avoid the fallacy by listening to the argument and evaluating it on its merits, as opposed to what you did, which was to summarily dismiss it out-of-hand solely because of the identity of the person who presented it: Ben Shapiro.  That's about as ad hominem as you can get.

Nobody is demanding anything.  Nobody is holding a gun to your head.  Nobody is forcing you to participate in this discussion.  Nobody is forcing you to listen to a two-minute YouTube clip.

Thanks,

-Smac

ah, not buying that. you would like me to watch his clip but not demanding it to avoid the fallacy? that doesn't work for me, sorry! I didn't call him a self righteous prick-which is also ad hominem which much more than what I said earlier. You want me to watch it and then I said no, I don't care for his opinion and then I get this ad hominem stuff. I don't have to participate in the discussion but when Americans are talking about Canada and the laws here and get asked for my thoughts I get interested

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...