Absent an absolute authority, who is to say what anything is.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Obehave said:

Or maybe he just really likes to play word games and is trying to encourage others to play with him? 

I think Analytics is more, well, analytical than that.  He's not playing a game.  He's trying to advance a viewpoint and ideology.  And ugly and dangerous and reckless ideology.

1 hour ago, Obehave said:

Word games can be fun.  And when the players want to stop they can just go back to limiting themselves to standard dictionaries.

If you don't like to play word games, don't worry.  You will not be forced to play them.  You may still be encouraged or even tempted by others to play them but if you really REALLY don't want to play them you will never HAVE TO play them.

I think we are well past mere "word games."  California actually went so far as to try to legally prohibit and penalize (as punishing with fines and jail) the use of non-preferred pronounds, gender references, etc.  See here:

Quote

A California court struck down a 2017 anti-discrimination law protecting LGBTQ elders, making it legal for employees to intentionally misgender and deadname patients at long-term care facilities.

The Third District Court of Appeals ruled that forcing employees to refer to patients by their preferred pronouns and names would be a violation of their freedom of speech and ideology.

"We recognize that misgendering may be disrespectful, discourteous and insulting, and used as an inartful way to express an ideological disagreement with another person's expressed gender identity," Associate Justice Elena J. Duarte wrote for the court.

"But the First Amendment does not protect only speech that inoffensively and artfully articulates a person's point of view."

In Canada, so-called "misgendering" in a work setting is "a human rights violation."  There is even a story about a father being jailed for "contempt of court" because he refused to use male pronouns when referencing his daughter:

Quote

A Canadian man was arrested this week after violating a court order that banned him from speaking publicly about his son’s gender transition.

The man — whose identity is reportedly under a publication ban by a British Columbia Court of Appeals to protect his child — was found in contempt of court and arrested Tuesday for calling the teen his daughter and publicly referring to him with the pronouns “she” and “her,” according to The Post Millennial.

The teenager was born as a female and reportedly identifies as transgender and prefers the use of male pronouns.

The father reportedly began litigation against the teen’s mother after learning of the transition, and the matter was settled by the province’s highest court earlier this year, according to Global News. The parents are separated.

The high court ordered the dad to not stand in the way of the 15-year-old’s hormone therapy and to try and better understand gender dysphoria, the outlet reported. He was also told to stop speaking to the media about the case and warned that his public attempts to undermine his child’s wishes was a form of family violence, according to the article.

And here:

Quote

A Canadian father has been arrested for “misgendering” his own 14-year-old child by calling her his “daughter,” and referring to her with the pronouns “she” and “her.”

Robert Hoogland — the father of a 14-year-old biological female who identifies as transgender and prefers male pronouns — was found in contempt of court and jailed on Tuesday after repeatedly calling his child his “daughter,” despite the court forbidding it, according to a report by the Post Millennial.

The Attorney General of British Columbia reportedly issued a warrant for his arrest for contempt.

Hoogland is opposed to his teenage daughter going through transgender-related medical procedures, and has repeatedly expressed his opposition in the hopes of saving his child from irreversible damage.

The Canadian medical system, the legal system, and the child’s mother, however, have gone forward with the “social and medical transition” of Hoogland’s daughter, the report adds.

In December of last year, Hoogland was mandated by British Columbia Supreme Court Justice Francesca Marzari to cooperate in the “transitioning” of his daughter’s sex, and was told not to refer to her as female again.

“This could never happen, said those who called my stance against Bill C16 alarmist,” reacted Canadian psychology professor Jordan Peterson. “I read the law and saw that it was, to the contrary, inevitable.”
...
“Here I am, sitting there as a parent, watching a perfectly healthy child be destroyed, and there’s nothing I can do but sit on the sideline — and according to Justice Boden at the time, cheer it on,” Hoogland said in an interview last year. “I can only affirm, or get thrown in jail.”

Justice Boden of the British Columbia Supreme Court had reportedly declared that Hoogland and his wife had to affirm their daughter’s new gender identity. Hoogland was told that if he tried to dissuade his daughter or refer to her as a female, then he would be considered guilty of “family violence.”

After the ruling, Hoogland gave an interview to the Federalist, in which he lamented the situation, and pointed out that his daughter is biologically female.

After that, Justice Marzari reportedly signed a “protection order” authorizing the police to arrest Hoogland if he were to again be caught referring to his daughter as female, or with female pronouns.

Hoogland said that the Marzari ruling even stated that he was allowed to “think thoughts” that were contrary to the Boden ruling.

“The court was gracious enough to say that they could not police my thoughts,” Hoogland said.

In January of last year, the highest court in British Columbia reportedly declared that the child should continue taking testosterone, and imposed a “conduct order” on Hoogland, mandating that he continue referring to his daughter by male pronouns.

“They’ve now created a delusion, and they’re forcing parents, like myself, to live in this delusion,” Hoogland said last year. “And then what happens when the bubble explodes, and the delusion ends?”

“She can never go back to being a girl,” he added. “I mean, she’ll always be a girl, but she’ll never go back to being a girl in a healthy body that she should have had — she won’t be able to have children, she won’t have a family. These kids don’t understand what this stuff means.”

An estimation of more than 80 percent of children with gender dysphoria will end up desisting from their belief that they are the opposite sex once puberty is over.

“What kid who’s 13 is thinking about a family and having children? Not many,” Hoogland continued. “What kind of father would I be if, let’s say in five, ten years, my daughter is de-transitioning, and she turns to me and says — ‘Why did none of you do anything to stop this? I was a child. None of you stuck your neck out for me back then.'”

“When my daughter asks me that question, I’ll say, ‘I did everything that I possibly could,” he added.

A video:

These are not just word games.  These are not just abstractions.  The stakes here are real, and serious.  The ideology being advanced and the consequences that necessarily flow from it are destructive and ugly.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited June 23, 2022 by smac97

[Analytics]

[In response to me saying I understand that "identifying as a woman" is a statement about how she sees herself on the inside, and isn't a statement about the biological features of her body]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

How, then, does Lia Thomas end up on the women's team at UPenn?

This is the type of question that makes it impossible for me to believe you are the least bit informed on this issue and are talking in good faith. Lia Thomas being on the women's team has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the phrase "identifying as a woman" or with the definition of a woman. The rules that allow her to be on the team don't even use the word "woman" (which illustrates why your infatuation with the question "what is a woman?" is totally irrelevant and is a red herring). The NCAA made a good-faith effort to create rules that balance "fairness, inclusion, and safety for all who compete." In the NCAA's own words:

The NCAA Board of Governors on Wednesday voted in support of a sport-by-sport approach to transgender participation that preserves opportunity for transgender student-athletes while balancing fairness, inclusion and safety for all who compete. The new policy, effective immediately, aligns transgender student-athlete participation for college sports with recent policy changes (PDF) from the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee and International Olympic Committee.

Like the Olympics, the updated NCAA policy calls for transgender participation for each sport to be determined by the policy for the national governing body of that sport, subject to ongoing review and recommendation by the NCAA Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports to the Board of Governors. If there is no NGB policy for a sport, that sport's international federation policy would be followed. If there is no international federation policy, previously established IOC policy criteria would be followed.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Why, then, do sports organizations allow biological males to participate in women's sports?

I'm having a really hard time believing that this line of questions is made in good faith. In the circumstances when biological males are allowed to participate in women's sports, everyone acknowledges that the individual is a biological man who sees herself as a woman on the inside. Typically, the rules to qualify to be on the team are different for these people than they are for biological females. In all cases, it has nothing to do with your insistence that people "on my side" somehow believe that "identifying as a woman" magically causes your biological features to turn into those of a woman, or whatever it is that you pretend to think I believe.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Why are we being told that "trans women are women?"

Because you keep saying that over and over and over and over. If you want us to stop hearing it, stop saying it!

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Why are people refusing to answer "What is a woman?"

As I've already explained, the question isn't being asked in good faith.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Why are otherwise intelligent people saying facially absurd things like "A woman is anybody who identifies as a woman?"

First you get mad at us for thinking it is a biological question and a biologist should be consulted to give a precise legal answer. Then you get mad at us for refusing to answer. Then you get mad at us for giving an answer you don't like. This illustrates the question isn't being asked in good faith.

If you want to know what a woman is, look it up in the dictionary. 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Classic equivocation.  Classic.  

Trying to understand what somebody means by a word depending on its context isn't equivocation. It is communicating in good faith. 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

This is exactly the point I have been making for a while now.

I'm glad you agree with me on the definition of woman. If only you would acknowledge that I answered the question!

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

  Folks like you refuse to answer "What is a woman" because you want that word to mean . . . anything any individual wants it to mean.

Objection! Counsel is badgering the witness! The witness already provided two(!) definitions for the word! According to the court's transcript, he already said, "According to an outwardly definition, she is "really" a man. According to an inwardly definition, she is "really" a woman. Regardless, these are just words in a language that is continuing to evolve. The point is to understand the speaker, not to argue about whether somebody's usage of the language conforms to the One True Definition of this or that word."

Seriously. Why do you keep asking this stupid question, keep ignoring me when I answer it, and keep insisting that I refuse to answer it? If you're trying to convince the reader that you aren't a bigot, this isn't how to go about doing it.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

This is what I think people like you are doing. 

You are playing "language games" when you "stretch {words} beyond recognition..."

This gets back to my original point. You pretend to believe:

1- Sprits have gender

2- You can learn spiritual truths by looking inward

But when somebody looks inward and is convinced the gender of their spirit is different than the gender of their physical tabernacle, you go into a fit and refuse to humor the idea that being a man or a woman could, depending upon the context, refer to somebody's spirit rather than to their physical body. 

Just because I think that depending upon the context, the word "woman" could refer to the gender of the spirit rather than the gender of a physical body doesn't mean that I think any word could mean anything beyond all recognition.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

And yet it is the folks on your side of the debate that want to use the force of law to "insist" on definitions, pronouns, etc.

CFR that people on "my side" want to use the force of law for any such thing.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Words are intended to convey commonly-understood meanings.  That is their raison d'être.  And yet here you are, saying that "woman" can mean, well, pretty much anything at all.

I never said any such thing. Your straw men are getting dried and are withering away from such overuse. 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

"I am a child of God" is an expression of belief.  It is not an empirically testable statement.

What is a child?

Why do you refuse to answer that simple question?

Why do you insist that child means something other than what it means?

Why do you pretend that somebody is a child of somebody other than their biological parents?

Why do you think child can mean anything you want it to mean? 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Meanwhile, "Caitlyn Jenner is a woman" is an empirically testable statement, because he is not a woman.

Likewise, you being a child of Elohim is an empirically testable statement. You are a child of the people on your birth certificate. That is an empirical fact that can be empirically proven with genetic testing.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Really stretching with this one.

"I am a child of God" is an expression of religious belief.

No it isn't. It is claiming that you are a child of somebody other than your biological parents. It is objectively false.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Conversely, your side of the debate is full-to-overflowing with coercive, bullying tactics.  To disagree with you is to be a bigot.  To disagree with you is to be stupid and ignorant.  

No, I'm standing up to a bully. Calling a bigot a bigot is not bullying. 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Your side of the debate is also increasingly using the coercive force of law to impose these things on others.  

What are you talking about? It was your side that recently passed state law about who can participate on sports teams. It is your side that has recently passed laws about which bathrooms people must use.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Appeal to ridicule. 

I'm not ridiculing. I'm illustrating that just as the word "child" can have multiple meanings depending upon the context, the word "woman" can also have different meanings depending upon the context.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Ironically, you apparently deny that you want terms like "woman" to be able to mean "anything and everything,"

That isn't ironic, but you are correct and I thank you for saying something about my beliefs that is actually true. It is refreshing.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

and yet A) you refuse to answer "what is a woman,"

That is false. I've already answered this question. Multiple times.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

and B) you do, in fact, allow it to mean anything and everything.

That is false. Just because a word has multiple definitions doesn't mean it could mean anything and everything.

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, Obehave said:

Only in word games when the players agree to define words according to whose turn it is to decide.  Otherwise words have generally accepted definitions as decided by the general population, collectively.  Not everyone likes to play word games.

A recent news story says the next edition of the Oxford English Dictionary will feature over 600 definitions of the word "run." Words do have multiple meanings. This isn't a word game. It is the nature of language. We use the context of words to understand their meaning in context.

 

[rodheadlee]

The only thing I have to say on this subject as I have a problem with Lia Thomas competing in women's sports.

[Calm]

 

4 hours ago, Vanguard said:

 

ETA: Could someone PLEASE pm me and explain how I can get multiple quotes together instead of separated like I've done? It is extremely helpful to include several posts back in order to understand the context of an ongoing exchange. I was able to do it on the old America's Debate and the ongoing Debating Christianity debate forums but I can't for the life of me figure it out here. : )

The multi quote function is the little plus sign in the lower left of the quote box. Click the plus on all the ones you want to include and then when ready to reply, click the quote box that appeared in the lower right and the board will create a reply box for you with all the clicked posts included. 

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, Obehave said:

True, but what if the word woman could also be applied to what some of us still call a man?  Who wins?  Whose turn will it be to decide?

The point isn't "who wins." The point is to communicate. If I'm speaking, I'll use the terms that most clearly gets the point across. If I think there is any ambiguity about a term, I'll use a different word that is less ambiguous, or will add context to clarify the point. That's why I posted a glossary of words I use, and, for example, on this thread I've said "biological sex" rather than just sex, in order to remove any ambiguity of what I'm talking about.

Granted, sometimes people don't like certain connotations and try to use different words to change connotations, such as when the Mormon Church issued a style guide that said it should be referred to as "The Church of Jesus Christ" rather than the less ambiguous terms "LDS Church" or "Mormon Church." Maybe there is somebody on "my side" who is deliberately trying to change the language to manipulate people in that same way but if so, I never got the memo.

That's how I see the world. Words are simply a vehicle to communicate. In contrast, Smac seems to think "woman" is more than just a word--it is a platonic ideal with exactly one definition which must be affirmed as an article of faith. If I used the word "woman" in a sentence and you asked in good faith what I meant by that, I'd gladly explain my point. In contrast, Smac repeatedly asks for definitions of words I never used as a litmus test for whether I'm a good guy with a white hat or a bad guy with a black hat.

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, Obehave said:

Yeah I was wondering about that just a few minutes ago.  People who publish dictionaries get their definitions by seeing how words are used in the general public, so what's going to happen when they see a lot of words being used as you use them?

There is going to be a good ending to all of this mess, eventually, from my perspective, and yet from the perspective of some other people it will not be what they will call good.  Or maybe just not as good as how others will live.

The irony of this is that despite the fact that Smac keeps interrogating me for definitions of the word "woman," I haven't been using that term in this conversation, and I don't think I ever have. I refer to Lea Thomas as a "biological male who self-identifies as a female, i.e. who feels on the inside that she is woman." He doesn't ask me about the definition of that word to understand how I use it. He asks me about it because he think he can use whatever I say or don't say as a weapon against me. So when you talk about using words "as I use them," what words and definitions are you talking about? I'm not endeavoring to change the English language. 

In any case, to the extent that language evolving is a mess, it's been that way for as long as language has existed, and always will be.

[Analytics]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think Analytics is more, well, analytical than that.  He's not playing a game.  He's trying to advance a viewpoint and ideology.  And ugly and dangerous and reckless ideology.

Here is my ideology:

1- If somebody prefers to be referred to with certain pronouns, the polite thing to do is humor them and use those pronouns.

2- If a sports league wants to be inclusive and allow biological-males (i.e.-transgender-females) to participate in women's sports, that's their business and they can work out the details without me screeching about it.

3- If it would be most comfortable for all involved for a certain individual to use the men's (or women's) restroom, allow them to do so. We don't need laws that have the police checking people's private parts and telling them where they may and may not urinate.

4- If somebody really feels on the inside that they are a certain sex, that has just as much validity as feeling on the inside that you are a child of God, that you have intrinsic worth, or whatever else other people feel on the inside. Be respectful to people's feelings.

5- In general, medical interventions are dangerous and should be approached with caution. But ultimately, if a person, his-or-her parents (if a minor), and his-or-her medical team decide to take medical interventions, that is their business, not mine.

So please tell me. How is this viewpoint ugly, dangerous, and reckless?

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think we are well past mere "word games."  California actually went so far as to try to legally prohibit and penalize (as punishing with fines and jail) the use of non-preferred pronounds, gender references, etc.  See here:

Note that this is in the context of how healthcare workers speak to old, vulnerable seniors. While it is incredibly, inexcusably rude to for healthcare workers deliberately insist on using pronouns that people don't want to be referred to by, I don't support criminalizing such rudeness (although if I were their boss at the nursing home, I would fire such people).

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

In Canada, so-called "misgendering" in a work setting is "a human rights violation."  There is even a story about a father being jailed for "contempt of court" because he refused to use male pronouns when referencing his daughter:

I don't even live in Canada. What does this have to do with me? I never advocated for such things.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

And here:

A video:

A child, his/her mother, and his/her healthcare provider all agreed on a certain medical treatment. The father disagreed and sued. The judge sided with the child, mother, and healthcare provider.

It's a terrible situation. Personally I have no idea whether the specific medical interventions were in the best interest of the child, and in general I am wary about such things. However, I don't think the best way to determine how to treat various medical situations is by watching propaganda videos, and in general, I am inclined to allow the child, parents, and healthcare provider decide what's best in their particular circumstance. I guess that makes me a monster.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

These are not just word games.  These are not just abstractions.  The stakes here are real, and serious.  The ideology being advanced and the consequences that necessarily flow from it are destructive and ugly.

I'm curious about what ideology you think I am advancing. You think it is destructive and ugly to insist that the definition of a word depends upon the context in which it is used?

Edited June 24, 2022 by Analytics

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

 

Granted, sometimes people don't like certain connotations and try to use different words to change connotations, such as when the Mormon Church issued a style guide that said it should be referred to as "The Church of Jesus Christ" rather than the less ambiguous terms "LDS Church" or "Mormon Church." Maybe there is somebody on "my side" who is deliberately trying to change the language to manipulate people in that same way….

The Church’s style guide asks for “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” to be used in the first reference. After that, the shortened versions can be used:  the Church, the Restored Church, the Church of Jesus Christ. Since the first reference is explicitly the Church’s full name, I don’t see any ambiguity or manipulation to change the connotation to anything but the actual name, which is precise enough to clearly identify it. 
 

If someone does not bother to first use the full name, but uses the shortened requested versions, the confusion is on them, not the Church. 
 

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/style-guide

Edited June 24, 2022 by Calm

[Analytics]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

The Church’s style guide asks for “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” to be used in the first reference. After that, the shortened versions can be used:  the Church, the Restored Church, the Church of Jesus Christ. Since the first reference is explicitly the Church’s full name, I don’t see any ambiguity or manipulation to change the connotation to anything but the actual name, which is precise enough to clearly identify it. 
 

If someone does not bother to first use the full name, but uses the shortened requested versions, the confusion is on them, not the Church. 
 

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/style-guide

This illustrates my point. The style guide itself says, "the term “Mormon Church” has long been publicly applied to the Church as a nickname." That term clearly and accurately describes the Church. You say "Mormon Church," and people know exactly what you are talking about. In contrast, "The Church of Jesus Christ" is longer, ambiguous, and loaded.

Going back to Smac's original rant, he said:

Quote

The common theme here is, of course, communication.  Words.  We need to interact and communicate with each other, which requires common understanding of words....Re-defining terms so as to manipulate others for sociopolitical purposes is a bad thing.

Claiming that the Mormon Church should be referred to as "the Church of Jesus Christ" is as much as a Orwellian neologism as anything else he listed.

[Analytics]

33 minutes ago, Obehave said:

I was talking about how you use words based on "what the speaker of the word intends it to mean."  That is not the way words are intended to work. Instead of allowing users of words to define words by what they intend them to mean we should expect people to use an appropriate word for the message they intend to communicate.  Words have standard definitions which are listed in standard dictionaries. When someone uses a word in some non-standard way they are not using that word as it is generally understood and are instead trying to give that word some other definition.

You make a fair point. But to clarify where I'm coming from, I'm not granting a speaker the license to redefine words any way he wants and then expect the listener to mind read about some arbitrary "intended meaning." The point is that the speaker and listener need to both make a good-faith effort to communicate. Demanding the definition of "woman" when the word wasn't used in context isn't a good-faith effort to communicate. 

33 minutes ago, Obehave said:

It also doesn't make very much sense for a biological male to "identify" himself as a female.  What or who is giving him the idea he is female?

Some people believe that spirits have gender and that you can use spiritual means to learn spiritual truths.

33 minutes ago, Obehave said:

 A quick look in a standard dictionary would help to explain what is meant by male and female.  Why would a male think he is something he isn't? 

Do you believe spirits have gender? Do you believe you can learn truths about spiritual things by looking inward? Do you believe in personal revelation?

33 minutes ago, Obehave said:

And how would he know what being what he isn't is like?

I guess it depends on whether you believe we can learn truth about spiritual things.

33 minutes ago, Obehave said:

 A male has zero experience being a female.

Yes, but a spirit that is female has an eternity of experience being a female spirit. Of course if you don't believe in spirits or don't believe that spirits have gender or don't believe we have access to spiritual truths, then this is all silly to you. But if you do believe in such things, why not acknowledge that somebody's personal revelation about themselves aren't really any of your business?

33 minutes ago, Obehave said:

 I think most people would see that as some type of mental inability to understand what he is...

Yes, there are people who think that believing in spirits, spiritual truths, God, etc., are symptoms of mental deficiencies. Do you really want to be allies with such people?

33 minutes ago, Obehave said:

He may really want to be a female but, according to definitions in standard dictionaries, he really is male, the opposite of a female

According to standard dictionaries, "gender" and "sex" are two distinct things. Sex has to do with physical biology, and gender has to do with "social and cultural roles and behavior," and with "personal awareness or identity." Identity has to do with "sense of self."

These distinctions, as supported by the dictionary, illustrate why the context of words matters. The word "female" can apply to a person's sex or to their gender. Whether somebody is a male or is a female depends on whether we are talking about their biological sex or their gender. If somebody grew up watching Mr. Roger's Neighborhood and thinks what's on the inside is most important, we shouldn't be surprised when asked if they are male or female (and hence are a man or a woman) they talk about who they are on the inside.

When a transgender person claims to really be a woman, she is making a statement about who she is on the inside and not about what she looks like between her legs. 

 

[Analytics]

6 hours ago, Obehave said:

When I hear people say they aren't what their biological body shows them to be I do hear what they are saying.  I see no lack of communication.  I don't agree because I know what male and female bodies are like and what the words male and female mean.

Where you confuse me, then, is when you speak so confidently about the fact of what sex somebody is, without clarifying if you are referring to their physical body or their spirit body.

6 hours ago, Obehave said:

Do you think everyone in the world should believe there is a spirit living in a biological body that is not only a sexual being but possibly a different sex type than of the biological body? 
 

No.

6 hours ago, Obehave said:

I think most people are not thinking of this issue in spiritual terms.  I think most people think this is an issue involving a person's biological body and brain, strictly in a mortal and biological context.

I disagree. When Lea Thompson says she is a woman, she is talking about who she is on the inside and is is not claiming she has two X chromosomes and a natural vagina.

6 hours ago, Obehave said:

I think most of us who do believe there is a sexual being in our biological body think we are the same sex on both levels.  Our God is not a god that causes confusion. 

I’m sure you’re right. However, it’s remarkable how specific people get when they create God in their own image. Some believe God won’t answer a prayer about whether Mormonism is true because the question is too stupid for God to take seriously. Some people think God hates fags. And some people think that God wouldn’t ever accidentally allow a woman to be born into a man’s body, or vice versa, and think anybody who feels differently about their own sex is mentally ill. Everybody thinks God agrees with them in all of the particulars.

Thinking you know the plan God has for the lives of others with such specific detail is hubris.

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, Analytics said:

Thinking you know the plan God has for the lives of others with such specific detail is hubris.

Strongly agree with you for once!

I think we get the specific trials we individually need in order to overcome them

I am a word freak and sometimes think about the words "underGO" and "overCOME"

The Christ is the model of one who "underWENT" all possible trials and "overCAME"  ALL of them, and so He beCOMES the perfect teacher for all.

[Analytics]

22 hours ago, Obehave said:

the standard definition of "sex" I am using is:  either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions.   I googled "sex definition" to get that.

I am aware of no standard definition showing a distinction between the sex of a person's physical (mortal) body vs that person's spirit (immortal) body.  

I personally believe both are the same for each person.  If the physical, biological, physical body is male then so is the finer and more pure physical spiritual body of that person.  If you believe there is a difference that is your own personal belief.

I agree that person is making that claim but on the inside of that body there are the reproductive organs of a male.  So what sex is that person?  All of the physical evidence of that person which we can see with our physical eyes shows that person is male.

Notice that the pronouns I use to refer to that person are based on all of the physical evidence of that person which we can see with our physical eyes.  Yes that person claims to be female but based on the physical evidence that person is male.

I hear where you are coming from, and it gets back to my original point on this thread. Coming from a Latter-day Saint this attitude is ironic, and maybe a bit hypocritical.

Refusing to call somebody she/her when she informs you those are the pronouns she prefers reminds me of people who refuse to use the title "Elder" when referring to a missionary. You can insist that you refer to her as he/him based upon standard dictionary definitions and so forth, and they can insist for similar reasons that the 18-year old kid isn't an "elder." 

To me, this is exactly the same attitude, which I find to be rude and petty.

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I hear where you are coming from, and it gets back to my original point on this thread. Coming from a Latter-day Saint this attitude is ironic, and maybe a bit hypocritical.

Refusing to call somebody she/her when she informs you those are the pronouns she prefers reminds me of people who refuse to use the title "Elder" when referring to a missionary. You can insist that you refer to her as he/him based upon standard dictionary definitions and so forth, and they can insist for similar reasons that the 18-year old kid isn't an "elder." 

To me, this is exactly the same attitude, which I find to be rude and petty.

And yet the Latter-day Saints are not attempting to use demands, insults, the force of law, etc. to compel anyone to use the word "Elder."

Quite a difference, that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

And yet the Latter-day Saints are not attempting to use demands, insults, the force of law, etc. to compel anyone to use the word "Elder."

Quite a difference, that.

Thanks,

-Smac

"Demands" and "insults" don't compel anyone to be polite to other human beings, so I'm not sure what you're talking about there. Furthermore, you are comparing generalized and assumed good-behavior of you and yours to cherry-picked bad behavior of your adversaries. That's meaningless.

Regarding "the force of law," the example you provided earlier was to a very specific circumstance. A few years ago, California passed a "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Long-Term Care Facility Residents’ Bill of Rights," which said that if you are an employee of a nursing home, you are required to be polite to the residents, which means you can't, "willfully and repeatedly fail to use a resident’s preferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns." I can understand the need for such a thing. If I'm rude to a Mormon missionary, he can (and will) walk away. But if somebody is physically confined to a nursing home, they can't walk away. They are stuck there, and the abusive worker has all the power. In the words of one of the justices that struck down the law, “To not call one by the name one prefers or the pronoun one prefers, is simply rude, insulting, and cruel. The impact of using inappropriate pronouns is even more offensive and hurtful when it occurs in an environment where one cannot choose the persons with whom one associates.”

The California legislature attempted to protect frail people confined to nursing homes from behavior by their care providers that is recognizes as rude, insulting, and cruel. If you think that makes the legislature the bad guys and makes the people who want to be rude, insulting, and cruel to the frail people confined to nursing homes the good guys, then so be it. The good news is that you won the battle. Celebrate it! You are free to get a job at a California nursing home and be as rude, insulting, and cruel to the residents as you want. You won. Enjoy your freedom to be rude.

 

 

Edited June 27, 2022 by Analytics

[Analytics]

42 minutes ago, Obehave said:

Try to look at this from my perspective now.  A person who is biologically male asks others to use feminine pronouns when referring to him.  I say him because he is biologically male and I explain why I use him and not her in his case,  He then gets upset with me because I will not use feminine pronouns when referring to him.  I then think about walking away from him while thinking there is no more I can do to settle this issue because I do not believe I should say something is what it isn't, and vice versa.  In my perspective this is a man asking me to call him a woman.

You're just repeating yourself now. I get it. If somebody wants to be referred to as "Elder Johnson," the polite thing to do is call him Elder Johnson, even if he's an 18-year old kid who is anything but "elder." Likewise, if somebody wants to be referred to with the pronouns she/her, the polite thing to do is refer to her by she/her.

In both cases, the question is do you want to be accurate according to your own beliefs about reality, or do you want to be polite to another human being.

[Analytics]

19 minutes ago, Obehave said:

Actually the word elder has several standard definitions that apply the way that word is used in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

From Merriam-Webster online

: of earlier birth or greater age // his elder brother

: of or relating to earlier times : FORMER

: archaic : of or relating to a more advanced time of life

: prior or superior in rank, office, or validity

: one living in an earlier period

: one who is older : SENIOR // a child trying to please her elders

: an aged person

: one having authority by virtue of age and experience // the village elders

: any of various officers of religious groups: such as

a: PRESBYTER sense 1

b: a permanent officer elected by a Presbyterian congregation and ordained to serve on the session and assist the pastor at communion

c: MINISTER sense 2

d: a leader of the Shakers

e: a Mormon ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood

Not to quibble, but none of those definitions is equivalent to "a full-time male missionary of the Mormon Church."

19 minutes ago, Obehave said:

There is no standard definition of woman as a biological male who prefers to be called a woman.  Maybe someday there will be and then I will give it some more consideration.

We aren't talking about the definition of "woman." We are talking about whether it is acceptable and polite to use the pronouns she/her when they prefer it, regardless of their biological sex.

From Merriam Webster: 

She, pronoun, 1: that female one who is neither speaker nor hearer

Female, adjective, 1b: having a gender identity that is the opposite of male

Gender Identity, noun: a person's internal sense of being male, female, some combination of male and female, or neither male nor female

That's what's in the dictionary.

Whether or not you refer to an individual by "he" or "she" isn't a biology test on whether or not you are confident that the individual's biological sex is classified as being male or female. Rather, it is a shorthand way to refer to somebody or something without overusing other types of nouns.

According to Merriam Webster, somebody with a female gender identity is in fact female, and thus can correctly be referred to by the pronoun she.

[Vanguard]

On 6/23/2022 at 4:37 PM, smac97 said:

I don't see how "female sports" as an appellation would "keep the males out."

But if we keep the appellation women's sports then why are those of a different sex (i.e., males) having to alter their physiology away from what it once was? I thought the term woman was to be defined solely by the person claiming to be one and therefore irrespective of any perceived maleness in this case. From this way of thinking, wouldn't it be unfair to expect Lia Thomas to alter anything about herself in order to play with fellow self-identified women when the term woman is wholly subjective and has nothing to do with the person's sex? To continue flogging a dead horse, if it's women's sports then membership within that group should  be the individual's simple attestation of such and nothing more. If the sports world intended the term woman to be essentially synonymous with female (as virtually all of us did up until very recently), it now should course correct and refer to this element of the sports world as sports involving females and sports involving males in order to avoid this conundrum with Lia and others like her - a course correction I would be entirely in favor of.

Edited June 27, 2022 by Vanguard

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

"Demands" and "insults" don't compel anyone to be polite to other human beings,

Laws do.  And even though these things do not "compel," anyone, they are not being used by Latter-day Saints relative to the title of "Elder."  So there really isn't symmetry between behavior relative to "Elder" and relative to preferred pronouns, IMO.

Meanwhile, let's take a quick looksee at a few from-the-other-side examples:

A transcript:

Quote

ZOEY TUR: We both know chromosomes don’t necessarily mean you’re male or female....You have a thing like Klinefelter’s syndrome. So, [pointing to Shapiro] you don’t know what you’re talking about, you’re not educated on genetics.

SHAPIRO: What are your genetics, sir?

DREW PINSKY, HOST: I’d stay away from the genetics and back to the brain scans.

ZOEY TUR: You cut that out now, or you’ll go home in an ambulance.

SHAPIRO: That seems mildly inappropriate for a political discussion...

TUR: You are being rude.

SHAPIRO: I’m sorry, it’s not rude to say that someone who’s biologically a male is a male.

ZOEY TUR: You just called me a "sir."

SHAPIRO: Someone who is biologically male is a male... it is not a matter of insulting of inflammatory. It’s a fact. You are a male. Dr. Drew is a male... It’s not a matter of aggressively insulting. … The entire discussion is whether we are embracing mental illness and delusion as a society, that’s the entire discussion.

More here:

Quote

The Internet has since been abuzz with commentary, much of it angrily critical of Shapiro. On Friday, Tur agreed with a Twitter user who said he would pay to see her “curb stomp” Shapiro. The tweets have since been deleted.

"You cut that out now, or you'll go home in an ambulance."

Zoey Tur's ultimatum sure sounds compulsory/coercive.  If a substantially large and muscular man (that is, a biological male) grabs a notably smaller person by the back of the neck and says "You stop doing X, or you'll go home in an ambulance," I think the average smaller person would reasonably feel compelled/coerced, under threat of imminent and severe physical violence, to stop doing X.  Do you disagree?  

I have never heard of a Latter-day Saint missionary saying something like "You better call me 'elder,' or you'll go home in an ambulance" or "I approve of curb-stomping anyone who refuses to call me 'elder.'"

Zoey Tur did these things.  And while everyone on the panel had plenty to say about Ben Shapiro being "rude," none of them uttered a peep when Tur physically grabbed Shapiro's neck and told him "You cut that out now, or you'll go home in an ambulance," nor did they say anying when Tur told Shapiro that he (Shapiro) is "consumed with hatred" and is "a little man" and a "little boy."  And while the panel got upset in a hurry when Shapiro referenced genetics, none of them had anything to say when Tur did so ("You have a thing like Klinefelter’s syndrome...").

Also, as far as I can tell, Zoey Tur totally got away with both the battery (grabbing Shapiro by the neck) and the assault (threatening to send him "home in an ambulance").  Nothing says "I'm oppressed!" like being able to commit assault and battery, have it captured on video and in front of numerous witnesses, and still get away with it.

Zoey Tur, check your privilege!  

Another (language warning) :

Again, I am not aware of Latter-day Saint missionaries behaving these ways.

And another:

Nobody is going to get fired for declining to call a Latter-day Saint missionary "Elder."

In Scotland:

Quote

Catholics are pressing for further changes to Scotland's controversial hate crime bill amid a last-minute consultation.

The Scottish Parliament's justice committee gave the public just four days to respond to the consultation, which ended at 10 a.m. local time on Monday.

Scotland's Catholic Parliamentary Office issued an urgent appeal on Friday to Catholics to share their views on the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill. The legislation has reached the third stage of the parliamentary process, the last step before it becomes law.

The Catholic Parliamentary Office, founded by the Scottish bishops in 1991, said that it remained "deeply concerned" by proposed drafts of the section of the bill relating to freedom of expression.

Humza Yousaf, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, asked for comments on four options for the freedom of expression clause.

The Catholic Parliamentary Office said that the clause was "extremely important" as it would affect the right to free speech.

"We have argued from the beginning for a strong freedom of expression clause in relation to religion, religious beliefs and practices, and the position of not holding religious beliefs, and we are glad that this has been included in options 1 and 2," it said.

"However, we remain deeply concerned at the lack of similarly strong terms for the protected characteristics of sexual orientation and transgender identity. This weakness is common across all four options."

It continued: "The beliefs which underpin these characteristics raise moral questions that are hotly disputed in a way similar to religion, and free and open debate must be allowed as must the right to disagree."

"There should be no threat of prosecution for expressing the belief that, for example, there are only two sexes or genders; that a man cannot become a woman and vice versa; or that marriage can only be between one man and one woman." 

"Further, nobody ought to be criminalized for using a person's birth name or pronoun."

And here:

Quote

Scottish feminist campaigner Marion Miller has been charged with hate crimes after posting allegedly “homophobic and transphobic” tweets. In an appalling assault on free speech, Scotland has passed a little-noticed law against “hate crime” that not only covers public statements but remarks made in private. In practice, of course, it will chiefly protect those minorities most likely to complain about what they see as offences against them. Far from eradicating “hate” in Scotland, they have simply created a new aristocracy that must on no account be offended.

And in Canada:

Quote

What does it mean to be transgender and why do pronouns matter?

People who are transgender come from all walks of life. Yet they are some of the most disadvantaged individuals in society. Trans people routinely experience discrimination, harassment and even violence because their gender identity or gender expression is different from their birth-assigned sex.

Gender identity is each person’s internal and individual sense of being a woman, a man, both, neither, or anywhere along the gender spectrum. Personal names and pronouns are two fundamental ways we express gender and how others perceive our gender. Traditional gender pronouns (she/her, he/him) do not fit everyone’s gender identity.

The words people use to describe themselves and others are very important. The right terms can affirm identities and challenge discriminatory attitudes. The wrong ones can disempower, demean and reinforce exclusion. This is as true today for non-binary gender pronouns like “they” as it was for the evolution of the feminist movement and the use of the term “Ms” or a married woman’s maiden name.
...

Doesn’t this interfere with freedom expression?

Our lawmakers and courts recognize the right to freedom of expression, and at the same time, that no right is absolute. Expression may be limited where, for example, it is hate speech under criminal law.

And in Norway:

Quote

Norway’s parliament outlawed hate speech against transgender people on Tuesday, expanding its penal code which has protected gay and lesbian people since 1981.

People found guilty of hate speech face a fine or up to a year in jail for private remarks, and a maximum of three years in jail for public comments, according to the penal code.
...
The amendments outlawed discrimination based on “gender identity or gender expression” and changed “homosexual orientation” to “sexual orientation”, meaning bisexual as well as lesbian and gay people will be explicitly protected from discrimination.
...
The law’s opponents argued that it could criminalise free speech criticising LGBT+ rights, said Anine Kierulf, an assistant professor of law at the University of Oslo.

Nobody is trying to use the law to criminally punish Norwegians who decline to call male Latter-day Saint missionaries "Elder."

And California:

Quote

The State of California Third District Court of Appeals ruled on Friday that a state statute requiring nursing home staff to use the correct pronouns for trans and nonbinary patients is a freedom of speech violation.

The Court, in a unanimous 3-0 decision, struck down this key provision of the LGBTQ Long-Term Care Facility Residents’ Bill of Rights, created by SB 219 in 2017, authored by Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and sponsored by Equality California. The Court upheld the provision in the law that requires nursing homes to place transgender patients in rooms that match their gender identity.

“The Court’s decision is disconnected from the reality facing transgender people. Deliberately misgendering a transgender person isn’t just a matter of opinion, and it’s not simply ‘disrespectful, discourteous, or insulting.’ Rather, it’s straight up harassment. And, it erases an individual’s fundamental humanity, particularly one as vulnerable as a trans senior in a nursing home. This misguided decision cannot be allowed to stand,” Senator Wiener said in a statement.

In New York:

Quote

You can be fined for not calling people ‘ze’ or ‘hir,’ if that’s the pronoun they demand that you use
By Eugene Volokh

That’s the official legal guidance from the New York City Commission on Human Rights:

The NYCHRL [New York City Human Rights Law] requires employers[, landlords, and all businesses and professionals] to use an {employee’s, tenant’s, customer’s, or client’s} preferred name, pronoun and title (e.g., Ms./Mrs.) regardless of the individual’s sex assigned at birth, anatomy, gender, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on the individual’s identification.

Most individuals and many transgender people use female or male pronouns and titles. Some transgender and gender non-conforming people prefer to use pronouns other than he/him/his or she/her/hers, such as they/them/theirs or ze/hir. [Footnote: Ze and hir are popular gender-free pronouns preferred by some transgender and/or gender non-conforming individuals.] …

Examples of Violations

a. Intentional or repeated refusal to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun or title. For example, repeatedly calling a transgender woman “him” or “Mr.” after she has made clear which pronouns and title she uses …

Covered entities may avoid violations of the NYCHRL by creating a policy of asking everyone what their preferred gender pronoun is so that no individual is singled out for such questions and by updating their systems to allow all individuals to self-identify their names and genders. They should not limit the options for identification to male and female only.

So people can basically force us — on pain of massive legal liability — to say what they want us to say, whether or not we want to endorse the political message associated with that term, and whether or not we think it’s a lie.

We have to use “ze,” a made-up word that carries an obvious political connotation (endorsement of the “non-binary” view of gender). We have to call people “him” and “her” even if we believe that people’s genders are determined by their biological sex and not by their self-perceptions — perceptions that, by the way, can rapidly change, for those who are “gender-fluid” — and that using terms tied to self-perception is basically a lie. (I myself am not sure whether people who are anatomically male, for example, but perceive themselves as female should be viewed as men or women; perhaps one day I’ll be persuaded that they should be viewed as women; my objection is to being forced to express that view.) We can’t be required to even display a license plate that says “Live Free or Die” on our car, if we object to the message; that’s what the court held in Wooley v. Maynard (1978). But New York is requiring people to actually say words that convey a message of approval of the view that gender is a matter of self-perception rather than anatomy, and that, as to “ze,” were deliberately created to convey that a message.

What’s more, according to the City, “refusal to use a transgender employee’s preferred name, pronoun, or title may constitute unlawful gender-based harassment.” … So an employer or business that learns that its employees or patrons are “refus[ing] to use a transgender employee’s preferred” pronoun or title would have to threaten to fire or eject such people unless they comply with the City’s demands.

But of course “ze” and “Ms./Mrs.” are just examples. We have to use the person’s “preferred … pronoun and title,” whatever those preferences might be. Some people could say they prefer “glugga” just as well as saying “ze”; the whole point is that people are supposed to be free to define their own gender, and their own pronouns and titles.… Or what if some people insist that their title is “Milord,” or “Your Holiness”? They may look like non-gender-related titles, but who’s to say? What if someone decides that one of the 56 genders is indeed especially noble or holy and that those really are the preferred gender terms? …

And this isn’t just the government as employer, requiring its employees to say things that keep government patrons happy with government services. This is the government as sovereign, threatening “civil penalties up to $125,000 for violations, and up to $250,000 for violations that are the result of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct” if people don’t speak the way the government tells them to speak. Nor is this likely to stay in New York City: The New York officials are arguing that this is just what the New York gender identity discrimination ban requires, and indeed it is part of the standard ideology expressed by many transgender rights activists….

Feel uncomfortable about being forced to use terms that express social status views (“Milord”) or religious views (“Your Holiness”) that you may not endorse? Well, you should feel uncomfortable about people being forced to use “ze,” which expresses a view about gender that they might not endorse. And, more broadly, I think we should all feel uncomfortable about government regulators forcing people to say things that convey and support the government’s ideology about gender.

From Virginia:

Quote

Asserting their First Amendment rights against compelled speech, elementary-school teachers in Loudoun County, Virginia, are challenging a school-board rule requiring them to address transgender and ‘gender expansive’ students by their preferred pronouns. The teachers claim that the pronouns convey messages about transgenderism that violate their religious beliefs as well as their understanding of biology. As a compromise, in an effort to balance their speech rights with students’ interests in being recognised, the teachers have offered to address the students only by their names, eschewing the use of any offending pronouns. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has sided against them.

Confirming its transformation from a free-speech organisation into a progressive advocacy group, it has submitted a brief in Cross v Loudoun County, advocating restrictions on fundamental First Amendment freedoms. According to the ACLU, public-school teachers should be required to affirm controversial, state-imposed orthodoxies about sex and gender in violation of their conscience, in order to protect students from discrimination.

Sad to say, the ACLU’s brief against the First Amendment is neither a shock nor a surprise – it was predictable. Its retreat from defending speech that conflicts with progressive values and ideas dates back at least 15 years. Still, there is a difference between avoiding litigation that requires defending the right to use whatever progressives consider harmful speech and engaging in litigation to suppress it or to compel speech aimed at mitigating its alleged harms. The ACLU has crossed a line, effectively advancing arguments about the direct, indisputable dangers of offensive language and ideas that have long been used to justify bans on ‘hate speech’.

And on and on and on.

AFAIK, there are no Latter-day Saints trying to use the force of law to coerce the use of "Elder," or to impose fines and/or criminal punishment for failing to use that word, or have such non-use characterized as "hate speech" or "harassment" under the law.

Meanwhile, your side of the debate is trying to do all these things.

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

so I'm not sure what you're talking about there. Furthermore, you are comparing generalized and assumed good-behavior of you and yours to cherry-picked bad behavior of your adversaries. That's meaningless.

Feel free to point me to incidents where Latter-day Saint missionaries have thrown hissy fits, screamed and sworn, threatened physical injury, or sought to use the force of law to punish anyone who chooses to not call them "Elder."

Take your time.  I'll wait.

Meanwhile, I could continue the above-referenced list of "bad behavior{s}."  And I reject the suggestion that this is just "cherry-picked bad behavior."  Scotland.  Norway.  Canada.  California.  New York.  Virginia.  These are all deliberate efforts, being advanced from people on your side fo the debate, to use the force of law to coerce and punish people, well, like me.  As it happens, I am fortunate enought to live in a country where I am largely protected under the law from your side's efforts to coerce and punish.

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

Regarding "the force of law," the example you provided earlier was to a very specific circumstance.

Baloney.  See above.  Scotland.  Norway.  Canada.  New York.  Virginia. 

California was not a one-off.  It was not "a very specific circumstance."  Your side of the debate is trying to have passed such coercive/punitive laws in many jurisdictions.

Your side of the debate wants to coerce speech.  Your side of the debate wants to punish people for not submitting to coerced speech.  And but for our wonderful Constitution, your side of the debate would be getting this result bit by bit.

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

A few years ago, California passed a "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Long-Term Care Facility Residents’ Bill of Rights," which said that if you are an employee of a nursing home, you are required to be polite to the residents, which means you can't, "willfully and repeatedly fail to use a resident’s preferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns." I can understand the need for such a thing.

No doubt.  But I wonder if you can understand the constitutionality of "such a thing."  Or if you even care at all about the constitutionality of it.

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

If I'm rude to a Mormon missionary, he can (and will) walk away. But if somebody is physically confined to a nursing home, they can't walk away. They are stuck there, and the abusive worker has all the power. In the words of one of the justices that struck down the law, “To not call one by the name one prefers or the pronoun one prefers, is simply rude, insulting, and cruel. The impact of using inappropriate pronouns is even more offensive and hurtful when it occurs in an environment where one cannot choose the persons with whom one associates.”

The California legislature attempted to protect frail people confined to nursing homes from behavior by their care providers that is recognizes as rude, insulting, and cruel. If you think that makes the legislature the bad guys and makes the people who want to be rude, insulting, and cruel to the frail people confined to nursing homes the good guys, then so be it. The good news is that you won the battle. Celebrate it! You are free to get a job at a California nursing home and be as rude, insulting, and cruel to the residents as you want. You won. Enjoy your freedom to be rude.

I enjoy the freedom of not being coerced to say things I do not believe are true, or that I believe are factually false.

I enjoy the freedom from punishment under the law for not saying the things your side of the debate is trying to force others to say.

I enjoy being protected from . . . people like you.

I find it noteworthy that nowhere in your summary of California's effort to coerce speech do you actually, you know, say that you were or are opposed to it.  I infer something quite the contrary, namely, that you approve of what California tried to do.  That you want jurisdictions to use the force of law, likely including fines and perhaps even imprisonment, to compel other people to say things they do not want to say, to affirm things they believe to be factually false.

Am I correct in that inference?  Did you support the California law?

Thanks,

_Smac

 

Edited June 27, 2022 by smac97

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Quote

I don't see how "female sports" as an appellation would "keep the males out."

But if we keep the appellation women's sports then why are those of a different sex (i.e., males) having to alter their physiology away from what it once was?

Because the regulatory/administrative agencies, both public and private, and run these things are trying to have their cake and eat it too.  They want to both

A) utterly ignore biology by allowing biological males to compete against biologically female contestants,

while at the exact same time they also want to

B) address and, to an extent, mitigate some of the substantial physical advantages biological males have over biological females by imposing on the former certain eligibility requirements, such as "testosterone suppression medication."

25 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

I thought the term woman was to be defined solely by the person claiming to be one and therefore irrespective of any perceived maleness in this case. From this way of thinking, wouldn't it be unfair to expect Lia Thomas to alter anything about herself in order to play with fellow self-identified women when the term woman is wholly subjective and has nothing to do with the person's sex?

You would think that, yes.  But then we'd probably wander into the vagaries of the massive bait-and-switch equivocation game where "woman" refers to "gender identity" except when it doesn't, when it refers to "biological sex" except when it doesn't, or when it refers to both "gender identity" and "biological sex," except when it doesn't, and so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 27, 2022 by smac97

[Raingirl]

1 hour ago, Obehave said:

Actually the word elder has several standard definitions that apply the way that word is used in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

From Merriam-Webster online

: of earlier birth or greater age // his elder brother

: of or relating to earlier times : FORMER

: archaic : of or relating to a more advanced time of life

: prior or superior in rank, office, or validity

: one living in an earlier period

: one who is older : SENIOR // a child trying to please her elders

: an aged person

: one having authority by virtue of age and experience // the village elders

: any of various officers of religious groups: such as

a: PRESBYTER sense 1

b: a permanent officer elected by a Presbyterian congregation and ordained to serve on the session and assist the pastor at communion

c: MINISTER sense 2

d: a leader of the Shakers

e: a Mormon ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood

 

There is no standard definition of woman as a biological male who prefers to be called a woman.  Maybe someday there will be and then I will give it some more consideration.

I want to be accurate according to my own beliefs about reality AND I want to be polite to another human being.  I can disagree with another human being while being polite. 

 

 

Refusing to address a person by their requested name or pronoun is anything but polite. It is rude and arrogant. 

[smac97]

48 minutes ago, Obehave said:

I would have told Piers that I don't believe biological males can become biological females. 

Would you also tell him that you don't believe biological males can become "women"?

The sleight-of-hand inherent in re-defining "woman" to include anyone who "identifies" as one is a significant, perhaps even dispositive, point.

48 minutes ago, Obehave said:

Trans surgery may help to make a man appear to be more like a woman, but the man is still a biological male regardless of his appearance or extra body parts.

Yep.

If I "identify" as a ten-year-old boy, I can dress and behave like one, but that does not make me one.  I cannot alter my chronological age, I cannot alter my birth certificate to reflect my "identity," and so on.

If I "identify" as the ten-year-old son of Elon Musk, I can tell other people this, but it does not make it so.  My mother could not sue Elon Musk for unpaid child support, if Elon Musk were to die intestate I could not make a claim for a portion of his wealth, and so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 27, 2022 by smac97

[Raingirl]

1 hour ago, Obehave said:

I don't believe I am being rude or arrogant when I don't give others what they request from me.  I also don't believe I am being rude or arrogant when I don't agree with people who I believe to be wrong.

You and I seem to be different that way, and I am okay with that.

Of course you don’t. Most rude and arrogant people think they’re right.  And believe being rude and arrogant is a good thing.  

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Raingirl said:

Refusing to address a person by their requested name or pronoun is anything but polite. It is rude and arrogant. 

Agree!