Fether Posted January 6, 2022 Posted January 6, 2022 28 minutes ago, smac97 said: Well put. I think we have differing, but not altogether inconsistent, perceptions of what it means to "validate" someone else's opinion. As is the biggest problem with language. The number of meaning a single phrase can have is disgusting. It’s a miracle we get any communication done.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted January 6, 2022 Posted January 6, 2022 1 hour ago, smac97 said: First, please don't personalize this thread. Right. Only you are allowed to do stuff like that. 3
bsjkki Posted January 6, 2022 Posted January 6, 2022 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: “The nearer we get to our heavenly Father the more we are disposed to look with compassion on perishing souls; we feel that we want to take them upon our shoulders, and cast their sins behind our backs.” - Joseph Smith This is an awesome quote. 1
pogi Posted January 6, 2022 Posted January 6, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, smac97 said: I agree. But how Lia Thomas "identifies" sure seems to be defining his/her "biological taxonomy." He "identifies" as a female homo sapiens, and is therefore being treated as if he is a female homo sapiens. I already addressed this. There is a difference between biological taxonomy and how one is "treated" within societal constructs of gender, sports, and bathrooms. She is being treated as the female gender (a social construct) within the social construct of sports. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: How is that distinguishable, then, from me "identifying" as being a wolf? I have also already addressed this. A wolf is part of a biological taxonomy - it is not defined by any current social construct like gender is. Not equivalent. There is no socially recognized equivalent to gender when someone identifies as another species. There is no diagnosis, that I am aware of, in the DSM-5 for species dysphoria. If it becomes a 'thing' in society that affects enough people negatively, who knows, maybe social constructs may amend to accommodate for such identities (I doubt it). Hunting season will become very interesting. If that becomes a thing in society, we will have to address it then, but for now it is a distraction. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Is it factually correct to say that "I am as much a canis lupus as Lia Thomas is a female homo sapiens"? If not, why not? Once again, no that is not a factual statement as those are factual taxonomic terms and are not fluid social constructs/terms such as gender. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: I don't understand. Lia Thomas is being socially and legally designated as a female homo sapiens. So can I be socially and legally designated as a wolf? If not, why not? Accommodating laws do not typically precede accommodating social changes. Are you genuinely concerned of people being socially and legally designated as a wolf someday, or is this just a distraction? 1 hour ago, smac97 said: I think that one's subjective perception cannot alter what is unalterable. Lia Thomas is not a female homo sapiens. Neither is Caitlyn Jenner. Neither is Zoey Tur. Neither is Kristin Beck. But the narrative is nevertheless that "trans women are women." I agree that subjective perceptions cannot alter the unalterable. Social constructs like gender (i.e. "woman"), sports, law, and bathrooms are all subject to change based on subjective perceptions. You are using "female' in the biological taxonomical sense, whereas it can also be used in the social construct sense of gender. They are not the same. Words can be used in different ways - not that big a deal. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Not quite sure what you mean. Lia Thomas, a biological male, is competing in a sport designated for biological females. The division between men's and women's sports has been, until very recently, based on biology, not "gender identity." Now the two are being conflated. I mean that there is no eternal law that states that this sport "must be designated for biological females" only. Sports, being a social construct has fluid laws/rules. If it wants to be designated for females identified by gender, instead of biology, that is up to the social construct. It appears to accommodate for such a thing now, whereas before it didn't. That is proof of the fluidity of social constructs. Contrary to what you seem to think, this does not violate any eternal unalterable law. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Again, the narrative is that "trans women are women." This presupposes a complete severance of "gender" from "sex." Does that work? Are words like "woman" and "female" utterly devoid of biological and scientific meaning? They are women by gender not by genetics/biology. There is a difference. Yes, gender has been severed from sex. That is what I have been trying to tell you all along. By the definition you yourself supplied, gender is defined as a psychological or social construct. Sex is not defined that way. They are different. The words "female" and "woman" can still have biological and scientific meaning, just like "radical" can still have scientific meaning despite how society has "radically" altered the term. It doesn't always mean "awesome". Context is important. The meaning is not lost. Edited January 6, 2022 by pogi 2
smac97 Posted January 6, 2022 Posted January 6, 2022 55 minutes ago, bluebell said: Of course he does. If all Y wants to accomplish is to express his view, then the statement you wrote accomplishes that goal. If Y hopes to be persuasive in his arguments--and if he's not in a court of law where there is a judge who determines who "wins" and where he has a captive audience that has to let him talk--then "expressing a view" might not be the wisest way to go, from a pragmatic perspective. Well, reasonable minds can disagree about such things. For me, I am sort of tired of the bullying and coercion in societal discourse about these issues. I think there is plenty of room for candid exchanges of viewpoints. Thanks, -Smac
bluebell Posted January 6, 2022 Posted January 6, 2022 10 minutes ago, smac97 said: For me, I am sort of tired of the bullying and coercion in societal discourse about these issues. I think there is plenty of room for candid exchanges of viewpoints. Thanks, -Smac I am too, and I agree that there is room for candid exchanges. One can validate and still have a candid exchange of viewpoints. I think the best form of validation includes the ability to be candid. Otherwise, you can end up pandering, and that causes more harm than good. 4
smac97 Posted January 6, 2022 Posted January 6, 2022 27 minutes ago, pogi said: Quote I agree. But how Lia Thomas "identifies" sure seems to be defining his/her "biological taxonomy." He "identifies" as a female homo sapiens, and is therefore being treated as if he is a female homo sapiens. I already addressed this. There is a difference between biological taxonomy and how one is "treated" within societal constructs of gender, sports, and bathrooms. I don't think you are addressing it. 27 minutes ago, pogi said: She is being treated as the female gender (a social construct) within the social construct of sports. I quite disagree. She is being greated as a female homo sapiens. But she's not. 27 minutes ago, pogi said: Quote How is that distinguishable, then, from me "identifying" as being a wolf? I have also already addressed this. A wolf is part of a biological taxonomy - it is not defined by any current social construct like gender is. Not equivalent. I think there is. A female homo sapiens is biologically distinguishable from a male homo sapiens. A homo sapiens is biologically distinguishable from a canis lupus. 27 minutes ago, pogi said: There is no socially recognized equivalent to gender when someone identifies as another species. So what? Let's make one up. We're changing rules to allow male homo sapiens to be treated as female homo sapiens even though they are not. Because he "identifies" as such. So why can't we do the same with a homo sapiens who "identifies" as a wolf, even though he is not one? 27 minutes ago, pogi said: There is no diagnosis, that I am aware of, in the DSM-5 for species dysphoria. There are ongoing efforts to declassify gender dysphoria in the DSM: "Some researchers and transgender people support declassification of the condition because they say the diagnosis pathologizes gender variance and reinforces the binary model of gender.[14]" 27 minutes ago, pogi said: If it becomes a 'thing' in society that affects enough people negatively, who knows, maybe social constructs may amend to accommodate for such identities (I doubt it). Huh. So we can give legal recognition to people as wolves if they "identify" as such based on . . . social trends? Is that what you are saying? I'm reminded of this bith of 19th-century wisdom: Quote In the course of the debate, Mr. Hulbert remarked that the attempt to call the thing what it was not, reminded him of the story of a good old clergyman in Yankeetown who, though very pious, was fond of a joke. The parson was sent for, to examine a young man who had offered himself for a school-master, but on his appearance before the trustees, the parson did not like his looks. When it came his turn to speak the parson said he would put a single question. “Suppose,” said he, “you call a sheep’s tail a leg, how many legs will the sheep have?” “Why five, to be sure,” answered the would-be-school-master with an air of wisdom. “Very well” said the parson: “So if you call a sheep’s tail a leg, it is a leg, is it? But never mind, if the trustees say so, you may keep the school for what I care!” You seem to be saying that we as a society can adapt to sheep having five legs. 27 minutes ago, pogi said: Hunting season will become very interesting. If that becomes a thing in society, we will have to address it then, but for now it is a distraction. With respect, I strongly disagree. Your reasoning, applied prospectively, will have us as a society designing human beings as wolves and sheep has having five legs. These designations are false and inaccurate. If such absurd results arise by applying your reasoning prospectively, I think we should consider whether your reasoning is creating absurd results now. 27 minutes ago, pogi said: Quote Is it factually correct to say that "I am as much a canis lupus as Lia Thomas is a female homo sapiens"? If not, why not? Once again, no that is not a factual statement as those are factual taxonomic terms and are not fluid social constructs/terms such as gender. I agree. But you just barely acknowledged that, prospectively, we may end up designating homo sapiens as canis lupus and treating them as such ("Hunting season will become very interesting. If that becomes a thing in society, we will have to address it then..."). 27 minutes ago, pogi said: Quote I don't understand. Lia Thomas is being socially and legally designated as a female homo sapiens. So can I be socially and legally designated as a wolf? If not, why not? Accommodating laws do not typically precede accommodating social changes. Are you genuinely concerned of people being socially and legally designated as a wolf someday, or is this just a distraction? It's a question that applies your reasoning to a separate context to examine whether it works in that context. This other context is bereft of social pressures and coercion, since nobody is going around calling for "trans species" rights and destroying the reputations and livelihoods of anyone who dares voice a disagreement with "trans species" orthodoxy. So I'll ask the question again: Lia Thomas is being socially and legally designated as a female homo sapiens. So can I be socially and legally designated as a wolf? If not, why not? 27 minutes ago, pogi said: Quote I think that one's subjective perception cannot alter what is unalterable. Lia Thomas is not a female homo sapiens. Neither is Caitlyn Jenner. Neither is Zoey Tur. Neither is Kristin Beck. But the narrative is nevertheless that "trans women are women." I agree that subjective perceptions cannot alter the unalterable. I'm curious, then, as to your take on statements like "trans men are men" and "trans women are women." To me, they are logically equivalent to "trans wolves are wolves." Do you agree? If not, why not? 27 minutes ago, pogi said: Social constructs like gender (i.e. "woman"), sports, law, and bathrooms are all subject to change based on subjective perceptions. You are using "female' in the biological taxonomical sense, whereas it can also be used in the social construct sense of gender. They are not the same. Words can be used in different ways - not that big a deal. Good luck telling that to the biological women swimmers competing against a biological male from UPenn. 27 minutes ago, pogi said: Quote Not quite sure what you mean. Lia Thomas, a biological male, is competing in a sport designated for biological females. The division between men's and women's sports has been, until very recently, based on biology, not "gender identity." Now the two are being conflated. I mean that there is no eternal law that states that this sport "must be designated for biological females" only. You keep responding to me with references to "eternal law." I am not speaking of eternal law. 27 minutes ago, pogi said: Sports, being a social construct has fluid laws/rules. If it wants to be designated for females identified by gender, instead of biology, that is up to the social construct. But that is not what is happening, or what is being expected of us. Consider this bit from the article about Lia Thomas: Quote In an op-ed published on Sunday, editor-in-chief John Lohn slammed the NCAA’s decision to allow Thomas to compete in women’s events — arguing the current requirements aren’t “nearly stringent enough to create a level playing field” between her and her competitors. Thomas is eligible — as per the rules set out by the NCAA — to compete in women’s collegiate events after undergoing the required one year of testosterone suppressant use. The 22-year-old, who competed with the Penn’s men’s swim team for three years prior to coming out as transgender in 2019, has already broken several Penn records so far this season. “Despite the hormone suppressants she has taken, in accordance with NCAA guidelines, Thomas’ male-puberty advantage has not been rolled back an adequate amount,” Lohn wrote. “The fact is, for nearly 20 years, she built muscle and benefited from the testosterone naturally produced by her body. That strength does not disappear overnight, nor with a year’s worth of suppressants.” What does "testosterone suppressant use" have to do with "gender identity?" Why is Lia Thomas required to use testosterone suppressants if she is - as you claim - only being "designated" as a woman "identified by gender, instead of biology"? 27 minutes ago, pogi said: It appears to accommodate for such a thing now, whereas before it didn't. That is proof of the fluidity of social constructs. Contrary to what you seem to think, this does not violate any eternal unalterable law. I have said nothing about "violat{ing} any eternal unalterable law." 27 minutes ago, pogi said: Quote Again, the narrative is that "trans women are women." This presupposes a complete severance of "gender" from "sex." Does that work? Are words like "woman" and "female" utterly devoid of biological and scientific meaning? They are women by gender not by genetics/biology. There is a difference. "I am a wolf because I identify as such, not by genetics/biology." Is this a factually correct statement? 27 minutes ago, pogi said: Yes, gender has been severed from sex. That is what I have been trying to tell you all along. By the definition you yourself supplied, gender is defined as a psychological or social construct. Sex is not defined that way. They are different. I think they are intertwined. I don't think they can be severed. When we try to do that, we end up with falsehoods. I do not become a wolf simply because I "identify" as such. As much as I may feel that I am a wolf, I am not a wolfe. As much as I may adopt lupine habits and behaviors, I am not a wolf. If I persuade the world to create a "social construct" in which I am designated as a wolf, I will remain a human being. Thanks, -Smac
MrShorty Posted January 6, 2022 Posted January 6, 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, smac97 said: Third, you are not addressing the substance of my post, to wit: 2 hours ago, smac97 said: "Pathology" is "a branch of medical science primarily concerning the cause, origin, and nature of disease. It involves the examination of tissues, organs, bodily fluids, and autopsies in order to study and diagnose disease." I am not qualified to speak competently about the "pathology" things like gender dysphoria. I freely acknowledge that. However, I think we can and ought to discuss the social, cultural, political and legal ramifications of going along with people who "identify" as things they are not. Without being able to address the pathology, I don't think there is much if any substance to comparing clinical lycanthropy with transgenderism/gender dysphoria. Clinical lycanthropy is very rare and I see (in a few minutes with a couple of internet searches) no one suggesting that lycanthropy is not pathological. One would have to dig deeper to understand the treatment strategies (and how accommodating or not accommodating the delusion is part of the treatment), but it just does not seem analogous to the transgender/gender dysphoria discussion because there is a substantial body of work suggesting that transgenderism is not pathological. I disagree that we can easily separate the social, cultural, etc. ramifications from the question of pathology. It seems to me that so much of the discussion around these other things depends on how we understand the pathology. These other ramifications are going to be rooted in how we see the pathology, and I don't see how we easily separate pathology from the discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_lycanthropy Edited January 6, 2022 by MrShorty add link to Wikipedia 1
california boy Posted January 6, 2022 Posted January 6, 2022 (edited) 21 hours ago, smac97 said: And also how gender is being re-defined. "Sex," it has been only recently argued, is "biological" (in the chromosomes, the genitalia, the secondary sex characteristics, etc.), whereas "gender" is "psychological" and/or a "social construct." But even this differentiation is falling apart, as we are now being told that sex is something that is "assigned." If I had been "assigned" as a female, that would have been . . . biologically incorrect. My biological sex was not "assigned" or chosen by the doctor who delivered me in a tiny hospital in Kahuku, Hawaii. Instead, my biological sex was, and is, and always will be, built into every cell of my body. I have great sympathy and compassion for people facing difficulties like gender dysphoria. These issues have become hugely politicized, and there is a lot of bullying and menacing about them. Very unfortunate. Okay. Work with me on this, as I would like to understand your position, which seems to utterly sever "gender" from "biology." Consider the following: If I say "I identify as a wolf," then in my view that does alter anything as to my status as a human. If I say "I identify as a ten-year old," then in my view that does not alter anything as to my actual age. If I say "I identify as the biological son of Martin Luther King, Jr.," then in my view that does not alter my parentage. Do you agree or disagree with these propositions? Now, it may happen that I can, in furtherance of my "identifying" as a wolf, mimic and adopt behaviors that are generally attributed to wolves: quadrupedal movement, living in the wild, howling, etc. But what does that mean? Am I a wolf because I "identify" as one, or am I a human? Also, what if I, identifying myself as a wolf, bite someone? Can I be euthanized as a dangerous animal? If not, why not? Also, let's say that I, identifying myself as a wolf, am killed in a tragic propane explosion. If a medical pathologist thereafter examined my remains (my bones, my remaining flesh, my teeth, my DNA, etc.), would his report list the remains as being those of a human being, or a wolf? Again, I'd like to better understand this. If I, a human being (homo sapiens) named Spencer Macdonald, "identify" as a wolf (canis lupus), and you "validate" that identity, what would you say is my species? Homo sapiens or canis lupus? In my view, you "validating" my "identity" as a wolf (canis lupus) would be "validating" a falsehood. Is it? Thanks, -Smac I really find your whole wolf thing to be more comical than a valid point. You claim you are not arguing from the margins, but do you actually know or even have any documentation on anyone who says they are a wolf actually living in the wild an biting people. If so, how many are actually doing that that leads you to draw this line in the sand. If you don't really have any data to support your argument, then doesn't it just become an argument with no valid data support. Honestly it comes off as a justification for your opinions using the absurd for such justification I don't know anyone who has ever identified as a wolf. I have however meant a few guys that like puppy play. They have a leather puppy mask and it is FUN for them to expeince a different persona. But it is STRICKLY a fetish, not an identity. The one guy I know that likes doing this has a high profile job that has NOTHIING to do with his role-play. There are literally hundreds of fetish type role-play both within the gay and straight communities. I could find as many straight people dressing up as furry animals and attending conventions around the country. I could find as many people dressed up as Darth Vader waving a lightsaber. When they are in the role-play of Darth Vador they insist on people addressing them as such. The whole foundation of your resistance to allow a person to identify a certain way is built on a foundation of sand. When you try to validate that false premise for 4 pages, honestly is all it shows is a complete lack of looking at your position from a different point of view. You have no factual data to support this line of reasoning. What is ironic on a Mormon board is that all of your arguments could also apply to your identification as a Mormon. There are people who would insist on not validating your beliefs or your identity. They would call you delusional and feel like they too are forced to accept that you have a freedom to have your religious beliefs. They are infuriated that you get tax breaks to indulge in your own fetish because you are forcing them to accept that lack of tax revenue being withheld because of your delusional personal beliefs and identity. I am not trying to debate you. What I hope is that you will take a step back and consider what you are actually arguing here and consider the mote/beam teaching of Christ. Edited January 6, 2022 by california boy 2
smac97 Posted January 6, 2022 Posted January 6, 2022 1 minute ago, MrShorty said: Without being able to address the pathology, I don't think there is much if any substance to comparing clinical lycanthropy with transgenderism/gender dysphoria. I think there is. We can discuss the social and legal ramifications of such things. 1 minute ago, MrShorty said: Clinical lycanthropy is very rare and I see (in a few minutes with a couple of internet searches) no one suggesting that lycanthropy is not pathological. Rare or not, the principle is the same. 1 minute ago, MrShorty said: One would have to dig deeper to understand the treatment strategies (and how accommodating or not accommodating the delusion is part of the treatment), but it just does not seem analogous to the transgender/gender dysphoria discussion because there is a substantial body of work suggesting that transgenderism is not pathological. Pathological in the sense of "involving, caused by, or of the nature of a physical or mental disease." Gender dysphoria is, for the time being, still in the DSM. But even if it is removed, we're still left with the "sheep have five legs" problem. Thanks, -Smac
pogi Posted January 6, 2022 Posted January 6, 2022 (edited) 25 minutes ago, smac97 said: I think they are intertwined. I don't think they can be severed. When we try to do that, we end up with falsehoods. Until you get this, there is no point in discussing anything else. You can't comprehend what I am saying because you are not severing the two. We are not speaking the same language. We don't end up with falsehoods. Words are social constructs and can take on different meanings depending on context. I know you understand this concept, but for some reason you can't get yourself to accept it in this application. It has already been severed. You already provided the definition as proof. The social constructs are being re-written. Dictionaries are being written to accommodate. Laws are in place to accommodate. Sports rules are changing - biological males are swimming with biological females. This isn't make believe. If you truly want to understand this issue, you have to understand the language being spoken. Edited January 6, 2022 by pogi 2
smac97 Posted January 6, 2022 Posted January 6, 2022 (edited) 31 minutes ago, california boy said: I really find your whole wolf thing to be more comical than a valid point. An appeal to ridicule. Got it. 31 minutes ago, california boy said: You claim you are not arguing from the margins, but do you actually know or even have any documentation on anyone who says they are a wolf actually living in the wild an biting people. I don't think you understand what "arguing from the margins" means. 31 minutes ago, california boy said: If so, how many are actually doing that that leads you to draw this line in the sand. If you don't really have any data to support your argument, then doesn't it just become an argument with no valid data support. Honestly it comes off as a justification for your opinions using the absurthd for such justification. More appeal to ridicule. But it's interesting that you feel free to label the idea of "trans species" identity as "absurd." I would not use such risible, offensive language. I would likewise not disparage those who "identify" as being of an age that they are not. I think these things need to be addressed with tact, decorum and respect. 31 minutes ago, california boy said: I don't know anyone who has ever identified as a wolf. Okay. So . . . what? There are clearly people who identify as things they are not, whether in terms of race (Rachel Dolezal), age (Stefonknee Wolscht), species (Naia Ōkami), and so on. Putting aside the formal DSM designations for such things, I submit that they plainly exist. 31 minutes ago, california boy said: I have however meant a few guys that like puppy play. They have a leather puppy mask and it is FUN for them to edexpeince a different persona. But it is STRICKLY a fetish, not an identity. The one guy I know that likes doing tis has a high profile job that has NOTHIING to do with his role-play. There are literally hundreds of fetish type role-play both win the gay and straight communities. I could find as many straight people dressing up as furry animals and attending conventions around the country. I could find as many people dressed up as Darth Vader waving a lightsaber. When they are in the role-play of Darth Vador they insist on people addressing them as such. I acknowledge these. 31 minutes ago, california boy said: The whole foundation of your resistance to allow a person to identify a certain way is built on a foundation of sand. I have not expressed any such resistance. What I am resisting is the expectation that I go along with falsehoods. "Live and let live" my foot. 31 minutes ago, california boy said: When you try to validate that false premise for 4 pages, honestly is all it shows is a complete lack of looking at your position from a different point of view. Personalizing the thread. 31 minutes ago, california boy said: You have no factual data to support this line of reasoning. Sure I do. 31 minutes ago, california boy said: What is ironic on a Mormon board is that all of your arguments could also apply to your identification as a Mormon. Not really. I think there is a gatekeeping function, namely, the membership roles of the Church. If you are on the roles of the Church, you are a member of the Church, nominally a Latter-day Saint ("Mormon"). Otherwise, you aren't. 31 minutes ago, california boy said: There are people who would insist on not validating your beliefs or your identity. And yet, my name is on the membershp roles of the Church. 31 minutes ago, california boy said: They would call you delusional and feel like they too are forced to accept that you have a freedom to have your religious beliefs. Which, even if true, is irrelevant to whether or not I am on the membership roles of the Church. 31 minutes ago, california boy said: They are infuriated that you get tax breaks to indulge in your own fetish because you are forcing them to accept that lack of tax revenue being withheld because of your delusional personal beliefs and identity. And yet, my name is on the membershp roles of the Church. 31 minutes ago, california boy said: I am not trying to debate you. Yeah, I got that. Personal insults and invective, but no substantive analysis or reasoning. 31 minutes ago, california boy said: What I hope is that you will take a step back and consider what you are actually arguing here and consider the mote/beam teaching of Christ. I've said nothing to disparage or condemn anyone. Thanks, -Smac Edited January 6, 2022 by smac97
smac97 Posted January 6, 2022 Posted January 6, 2022 11 minutes ago, pogi said: Quote I think they are intertwined. I don't think they can be severed. When we try to do that, we end up with falsehoods. Until you get this, there is no point in discussing anything else. You can't comprehend what I am saying because you are not severing the two. We are not speaking the same language. I suppose so. You think "sex" and "gender" are severable. I do not. 11 minutes ago, pogi said: We don't end up with falsehoods. Sure seems like we do. "Trans men are men." A male homo sapiens is treated as if he is a female homo sapiens. I'm a wolf if I "identify" as such. Sheep have five legs. And so on. 11 minutes ago, pogi said: Words are social constructs and can take on different meanings depending on context. I know you understand this concept, but for some reason you can't get yourself to accept it in this application. I think the distinction between "sex" and "gender" is largely fabricated. And is of quite recent derivation. 11 minutes ago, pogi said: Quote Again, the narrative is that "trans women are women." This presupposes a complete severance of "gender" from "sex." Does that work? Are words like "woman" and "female" utterly devoid of biological and scientific meaning? It has already been severed. You already provided the definition as proof. The social constructs are being re-written. Dictionaries are being written to accommodate. Laws are in place to accommodate. Sports rules are changing - biological males are swimming with biological females. This isn't make believe. I know. We are on our way to saying, with a straight face, that sheep have five legs. And we will punish anyone who deviates from this orthodoxy. GK Chesterton was spot on: "We shall soon be in a world in which a man may be howled down for saying that two and two make four, in which people will persecute the heresy of calling a triangle a three-sided figure, and hang a man for maddening a mob with the news that grass is green." Thanks, -Smac
california boy Posted January 6, 2022 Posted January 6, 2022 (edited) 7 minutes ago, smac97 said: An appeal to ridicule. Got it. I don't think you understand what "arguing from the margins" means. More appeal to ridicule. Okay. So . . . what? There are clearly people who identify as things they are not, whether in terms of race (Rachel Dolezal), age (Stefonknee Wolscht), species (Naia Ōkami), and so on. Putting aside the formal DSM designations for such things, I submit that they plainly exist. I acknowledge these. I have not expressed any such resistance. What I am resisting is the expectation that I go along with falsehoods. "Live and let live" my foot. Personalizing the thread. Sure I do. Not really. I think there is a gatekeeping function, namely, the membership roles of the Church. If you are on the roles of the Church, you are a member of the Church, nominally a Latter-day Saint ("Mormon"). Otherwise, you aren't. And yet, my name is on the membershp roles of the Church. Which, even if true, is irrelevant to whether or not I am on the membership roles of the Church. And yet, my name is on the membershp roles of the Church. Yeah, I got that. Insults and invective, but no substantive analysis or reasoning. I've said nothing to disparage or condemn anyone. Thanks, -Smac Pointing out the absurdity of your argument is not an insult or invectiveness. Pointing out your complete lack of data to support your argument is not an insult. So if this wolf had a membership card for a wolf pack, then what? Edited January 6, 2022 by california boy 1
MrShorty Posted January 6, 2022 Posted January 6, 2022 34 minutes ago, smac97 said: Rare or not, the principle is the same. Is it? The principle is only the same if both conditions are considered pathological (argument almost becomes circular). 35 minutes ago, smac97 said: Gender dysphoria is, for the time being, still in the DSM. Correct, and the DSM is, at least in the US, considered to be important in determining pathology. The DSM has changed over the years, as new science and thought come along to change what is considered pathological. With that in mind, better analogs would probably be some of those "pathologies" that have since been removed from the DSM (like homosexuality in the '70s and '80s) or those issues on the "need more study" list, or issues that have been considered for removal from the DSM but not removed. Lycanthropy's status as a pathology is not contested, and so I consider it a poor analog.
smac97 Posted January 6, 2022 Posted January 6, 2022 3 minutes ago, california boy said: So if this wolf had a membership card for a wolf pack, then what? I don't understand. I "identify" as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I was baptized as a child. I served a mission. I married in the temple. I attend church services regularly. I have held callings for all of my adult life. I publicly hold myself out as a member. I profess belief in the doctrines and sustain the leaders of the Church. And above all that, my name is on the records of the Church. Conversely, if I "identify" as a wolf, that does not make me a wolf. I may adopt lupine behaviors and attributes, but that does not make me a wolf. As much as I want to be a wolf, my wanting does not make it so. Me telling myself every day that I am a wolf, and having others affirm this to me, will not make a wolf. Similarly, if I "identify" as a mother, that does not make me one. Even though "mother" is a social construct, it is inextricably linked to the female sex. Thanks, -Smac 1
pogi Posted January 6, 2022 Posted January 6, 2022 (edited) 45 minutes ago, smac97 said: Sure seems like we do. "Trans men are men." A male homo sapiens is treated as if he is a female homo sapiens. I'm a wolf if I "identify" as such. Sheep have five legs. And so on. No. You are not even attempting to see things from the perspective of a different language. There is no species equivalent to gender. PERIOD!!! It doesn't exist. The word is not there. The law is not there. The social construct simply is not there. It doesn't exist. How is this not beyond clear? Gender, on the other hand, does exist as a social construct. Society treating a biological male as a female gender is not a falsehood. It is a social construct and therefore is what society says it is and cannot be a falsehood. Unless you are suggesting that social constructs are based on some eternal law and are unchangeable. If you are not saying that (which you claim to not be saying above) I don't understand where you are coming from in calling this a "falsehood". Based on what rule or law? It can't be based on a social rule/or law, because those are accommodating. so there must be some eternal law you are referring to here. 45 minutes ago, smac97 said: I think the distinction between "sex" and "gender" is largely fabricated. And is of quite recent derivation. It is fabricated. It is a matter of perspective. These are just words. We give them meaning ("fabricated"). Words are social constructs. They can be used however society deems appropriate. You seem to be speaking in terms of black and white, truths and falsehoods, when in fact these are just all just relative social constructs. Edited January 6, 2022 by pogi 2
smac97 Posted January 6, 2022 Posted January 6, 2022 2 minutes ago, MrShorty said: Correct, and the DSM is, at least in the US, considered to be important in determining pathology. The DSM has changed over the years, as new science and thought come along to change what is considered pathological. With that in mind, better analogs would probably be some of those "pathologies" that have since been removed from the DSM (like homosexuality in the '70s and '80s) or those issues on the "need more study" list, or issues that have been considered for removal from the DSM but not removed. Lycanthropy's status as a pathology is not contested, and so I consider it a poor analog. I'm okay with that. I think it serves its purpose. The DSM is useful to an extent, but I think its clinical objectivity is in some doubt. I think your reliance on it is misplaced: Quote Gender dysphoria (GD) is the distress a person feels due to a mismatch between their gender identity—their personal sense of their own gender—and their sex assigned at birth.[5][6] The diagnostic label gender identity disorder (GID) was used until 2013 with the release of the DSM-5. The condition was renamed to remove the stigma associated with the term disorder.[7] People with gender dysphoria commonly identify as transgender.[8] Gender nonconformity is not the same thing as gender dysphoria[9] and does not always lead to dysphoria or distress.[10] According to the American Psychiatric Association, the critical element of gender dysphoria is "clinically significant distress".[1] As I see it, if a biological male homo sapiens "identifies" as a female homo sapiens, and feels "clinically significant distress" about it, then he has "gender dysphoria." If he "identifies" as a female homosapiens and does not feel "clinically significant distress" about it, then he is not diagnosed with "gender dysphoria." But in either instance, he "identifies" as as something he is not: a female homo sapiens. Now, if a person "identifies" as a wolf, we don't seem to really delve into whether he feels "clinically significant distress" about it. Why do you think that is? Thanks, -Smac
pogi Posted January 6, 2022 Posted January 6, 2022 (edited) 46 minutes ago, smac97 said: GK Chesterton was spot on: "We shall soon be in a world in which a man may be howled down for saying that two and two make four, in which people will persecute the heresy of calling a triangle a three-sided figure, and hang a man for maddening a mob with the news that grass is green." Thanks, -Smac Comparing the laws of math against social constructs of sports and gender is silly. This is why I keep bringing up unchangeable law. You seem to be conflating solid laws with fluid social constructs. Edited January 6, 2022 by pogi 1
ttribe Posted January 6, 2022 Posted January 6, 2022 This thread: What happens when one man's obsession with denying other people the right to self-identify their gender becomes the latest hill on which he is willing to die. 2
Vanguard Posted January 6, 2022 Posted January 6, 2022 Wow. Talk about getting bogged down. I think what I am looking for is the distinction between a biological male claiming to be a female and a biological male claiming to be a wolf. What is the difference that makes the difference in these two examples? Please set aside the possibility of an individual actually claiming he is a wolf - that appears to be immaterial to the question. I have always looked at the designation of man ultimately as a commentary on his biology rather than how he identifies himself though admittedly when I thought of the designation man I conjured images of the dominant gender expression (i.e, short hair, wears pants, doesn't wear make-up, etc). And so I now look at gender as the social construct that many others claim it is. It also happens to be a construct I think is the most helpful for our society but that is a different point. Nonetheless, that a biological male claims to be a female (because he likes the gender construct that it conveys) does not change the fact that he is a male. The Caucasian, 35 year-old biological male can claim all he wants that he is an Asian, 20 year-old female but that does not make it so. And now, I think I'm confused as to what everyone else is thinking. ; )
smac97 Posted January 6, 2022 Posted January 6, 2022 6 minutes ago, pogi said: Quote Sure seems like we do. "Trans men are men." A male homo sapiens is treated as if he is a female homo sapiens. I'm a wolf if I "identify" as such. Sheep have five legs. No. Yes. 6 minutes ago, pogi said: You are not even attempting to see things from the perspective of a different language. All evidence to the contrary. I'm conversing with people who disagree with me about this. I am reading what they are saying about this. 6 minutes ago, pogi said: There is no species equivalent to gender. PERIOD!!! It doesn't exist. I don't know what you mean by "species equivalent to gender." The distinction you are drawing here is really quite new, so new that I question its overall utility. See here: Quote The concept of gender, in the modern sense, is a recent invention in human history.[26] The ancient world had no basis of understanding gender as it has been understood in the humanities and social sciences for the past few decades.[26] The term gender had been associated with grammar for most of history and only started to move towards it being a malleable cultural construct in the 1950s and 1960s.[27] And yet here you are, speaking definitively and beratingly about a concept that is only a few decades old. Quote Before Sexologist John Money and colleagues introduced the terminological distinction between biological sex and gender as a role in 1955, it was uncommon to use the word gender to refer to anything but grammatical categories.[1][2] For example, in a bibliography of 12,000 references on marriage and family from 1900–1964, the term gender does not even emerge once.[1] Analysis of more than 30 million academic article titles from 1945–2001 showed that the uses of the term "gender", were much rarer than uses of "sex", was often used as a grammatical category early in this period. By the end of this period, uses of "gender" outnumbered uses of "sex" in the social sciences, arts, and humanities.[2] It was in the 1970s that feminist scholars adopted the term gender as way of distinguishing "socially constructed" aspects of male–female differences (gender) from "biologically determined" aspects (sex).[2] Societies around the world somehow managed to go on for thousands of years without the supposedly obvious distinction between "sex" and "gender." Kinda makes you wonder, then, if the "distinction" has been only recently fabricated to justify socially popular trends. Quote In the last two decades of the 20th century, the use of gender in academia has increased greatly, outnumbering uses of sex in the social sciences. While the spread of the word in science publications can be attributed to the influence of feminism, its use as a synonym for sex is attributed to the failure to grasp the distinction made in feminist theory, and the distinction has sometimes become blurred with the theory itself; David Haig stated, "Among the reasons that working scientists have given me for choosing gender rather than sex in biological contexts are desires to signal sympathy with feminist goals, to use a more academic term, or to avoid the connotation of copulation."[2] Huh. Quote In legal cases alleging discrimination, sex is usually preferred as the determining factor rather than gender as it refers to biology rather than socially constructed norms which are more open to interpretation and dispute.[28] Julie Greenberg writes that although gender and sex are separate concepts, they are interlinked in that gender discrimination often results from stereotypes based on what is expected of members of each sex.[29] In J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote: The word 'gender' has acquired the new and useful connotation of cultural or attitudinal characteristics (as opposed to physical characteristics) distinctive to the sexes. That is to say, gender is to sex as feminine is to female and masculine is to male.[30] I think Justice Scalia is correct. So for you to say that "gender" and "sex" are severable is like saying "feminine" and "female" are severable, or "masculine" and "male" are. I just don't think that works. I think they are inherently linked. Also, using all caps and multiple exclamation marks does not persuade. 6 minutes ago, pogi said: The word is not there. The law is not there. The social construct simply is not there. It doesn't exist. How is this not beyond clear? Gender, on the other hand, does exist as a social construct. So do sex-based distinctions. 6 minutes ago, pogi said: Society treating a biological male as a female gender is not a falsehood. "Society treating a human doing as a wolf is not a falsehood." Except, it is. 6 minutes ago, pogi said: It is a social construct and therefore is what society says it is and cannot be a falsehood. Unless you are suggesting that social constructs are based on some eternal law and are unchangeable. If you are not saying that (which you claim to not be saying above) I don't understand where you are coming from in calling this a "falsehood". Personhood is a social construct. American society denied personhood to black Africans for hundreds of years. And it was a falsehood to do so, because they were persons. Do you agree? Perhaps "what society says" is not always definitive. There are tons of examples of society establishing "constructs" that do not accord with science, reason, morality, etc. 6 minutes ago, pogi said: Based on what rule or law? It can't be based on a social rule/or law, because those are accommodating. so there must be some eternal law you are referring to here. I don't deny that there is a moral component to my argument. But I have not really been referencing that. A "social construct" is "an idea that has been created and accepted by the people in a society." I reject the notion that "gender" is purely a "social construct." First of all, distinguishing "gender" from "sex" is a very recent thing, and severing them from each other completely is just off the wall loopy. 6 minutes ago, pogi said: It is fabricated. It is a matter of perspective. These are just words. Words are social constructs. They can be used however society deems appropriate. You seem to be speaking in terms of black and white, truths and falsehoods, when in fact these are just all just relative social constructs. Slavery was "a social construct" (defined as "an idea that has been created and accepted by the people in a society"), and yet we cannot deny that it also had real-world ramifications. "Gender identity" is a newly-minted "social construct," but it also has real-world ramifications. There are also moral components to both. Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted January 6, 2022 Posted January 6, 2022 13 minutes ago, ttribe said: This thread: What happens when one man's obsession with denying other people the right to self-identify their gender becomes the latest hill on which he is willing to die. I've done nothing of the sort. Thanks, -Smac 1
Vanguard Posted January 6, 2022 Posted January 6, 2022 14 minutes ago, smac97 said: So for you to say that "gender" and "sex" are severable is like saying "feminine" and "female" are severable, or "masculine" and "male" are. I just don't think that works. I think they are inherently linked. This confuses me though. What is an example of something feminine that is also something female? 1
Popular Post The Nehor Posted January 6, 2022 Popular Post Posted January 6, 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, smac97 said: Well, reasonable minds can disagree about such things. For me, I am sort of tired of the bullying and coercion in societal discourse about these issues. I think there is plenty of room for candid exchanges of viewpoints. Right on schedule. We got the standard “reasonable minds can disagree” bit and the general complaint about how horribly uncivil everyone else is and how positively wearying all this is on the poor fellow. Edit: Oops…..we already did the ‘please stop personalizing this” thing so we might get a duplicate here in a bit. Sorry for throwing off the cadence. Edited January 6, 2022 by The Nehor 5
Recommended Posts