Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

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


Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

No, I'm not.

Yes, you are.

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

"What is a woman?" has become a necessary inquiry because your side of this debate is conflating things.  "Trans women are women."  "Men can menstruate."  "Women can have penises."  "A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman."

You are the one who keeps saying "Trans women are women."  "Men can menstruate."  "Women can have penises."  "A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman." Over and over and over and over again. They aren't my words. They are your words. You are the one using them in a manner that is both an equivocation and a straw man.

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

These absurdities are trading on equivocation.

And you are the one doing the trading.

Link to comment
16 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

When I contemplate what it means for me to be a man, I come up blank every single time. “What does salt taste like?” to borrow words from BKP. 

I'd say that's more of a problem of description than ontology. We may not be able to describe what salt tastes like, but we know that there is a distinctive "salty" taste that certainly exists, though it fails of description. In the case of salt, we know it exists through contrast with other flavors: there are things that do not taste "salty" against which we can compare the taste of "salt." Since I don't have any other way of living, if I were to draw a blank on what it means to be a man, that is due to a failure of contrast. A fish surrounded by water and all that. 

Regarding the "eternal definition of a woman," I don't know. Given that our primordial nature is uncreated and thus possesses innate characteristics, I would assume that some characteristics code to male and others to female, but what those are I don't know. I am confident, based on neuroscientific research, that there exist differences in cognitive processes between the sexes which could be involved.  It seems likely that our premortal spirit bodies had recognizable sex. Beyond that is pure speculation.

Edited by OGHoosier
Link to comment
30 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

I'd say that's more of a problem of description than ontology. We may not be able to describe what salt tastes like, but we know that there is a distinctive "salty" taste that certainly exists, though it fails of description.

We know there is a difference but it fails easy description. Hence SMAC’s and other conservatives “gotcha” question of what is a woman is disengenious grand standing. 

30 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

In the case of salt, we know it exists through contrast with other flavors: there are things that do not taste "salty" against which we can compare the taste of "salt." Since I don't have any other way of living, if I were to draw a blank on what it means to be a man, that is due to a failure of contrast. A fish surrounded by water and all that. 

Indeed we have contrast. I have always felt like a man (boy) but can’t describe it. My Aunt (born biologically male) knew from a young age that she was female. After serving a mission, having six kids and surviving suicide attempts, she transitioned and lives as a woman. If I can’t even begin to define what it means for me to be male, how can I tell her she is not a woman?

30 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

Regarding the "eternal definition of a woman," I don't know.
 

If I don’t know is the best answer that is available (and I belief it is), it seems like the ultimate in hubris to pass judgement on those that have a different life experience than my own. 

30 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

Given that our primordial nature is uncreated and thus possesses innate characteristics, I would assume that some characteristics code to male and others to female, but what those are I don't know. I am confident, based on neuroscientific research, that differences in cognitive processes between the sexes which could be involved.  It seems likely that our premortal spirit bodies had recognizable sex. Beyond that is pure speculation.

Average sex differences don’t translate well into individual experience. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Yes, you are.

No, I'm not.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

You are the one who keeps saying "Trans women are women."  "Men can menstruate."  "Women can have penises."  "A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman." Over and over and over and over again. They aren't my words. They are your words. You are the one using them in a manner that is both an equivocation and a straw man.

Not so.  I did not originate any of these statements.  They are all coming from your side of the debate.

"Trans women are women."  385K results on Google.

"Men can menstruate."

Quote

FLASHBACK: Just Three Years Ago, A Bill Maher Panel Ridiculed The Idea That Leftists Claim ‘Men Can Menstruate’

HBO host Bill Maher and guest panelists laughed at Dennis Prager’s claims that leftists say “men can menstruate” in a 2019 episode of “Real Time with Bill Maher.”

“To say that men can menstruate is a lie and that is now what is said,” Prager began. “Check it out, folks. Anyone who says men cannot menstruate is considered transphobic.”

“I missed this whole story,” Maher replied. The host argued a “very small percentage” of people are making these arguments.

Prager argued that biological men are being allowed to compete against women and dominate the sports and are being labeled as women. Maher argued that his framing is “nonsense,” since the issue at stake is biological men participating and dominating women’s athletics, not on whether men can menstruate.

Prager said a men’s room at the University of Berkeley provided tampon dispensers, to which Maher said the men ... were asked to get their girlfriend a tampon. Universities, in fact, were placing tampons in men’s bathrooms intended for biological women that identify as men as early as 2017.

In 2018, a British school district approved new sex education lessons that included teaching children as young as 8-years-old that “all genders” can menstruate. The report given to teachers stated “Trans boys and men and non-binary people may have periods.”

...

Daily Wire podcast host Matt Walsh asked a “non-binary” couple to define the term “woman” on a January episode of Dr. Phil. After they decline to answer, the host argued that proponents of transgender ideology cannot define basic terms such as “man” and “woman.”

The “Matt Walsh Show” host told Fox News’ Jesse Watters that gender ideology “collapses right in front of you” due to the inability to answer basic questions and definitions on gender.

“They can’t answer. They can make the claim, they can make the assertion, but they can’t explain it,” he said in March. “Just like they can say ‘trans women are women.’ Well, what does that mean? What exactly is a woman? They can’t answer that either.”

What is now stated as a matter of fact was, just a few years ago, scoffed at as being absurd.

"Women can have penises."

Quote

'JK Rowling is wrong - a woman CAN have a penis' says Labour's Stella Creasy as she recalls being threatened with gang rape when she was a student

  • Stella Creasy said women can have penises when asked how to define the word 
  • While recognising it exists, the MP said the issue does not stop at biological sex
  • Labour's Creasy said she has been called 'a bad feminist' for her views on trans 

Labour MP Stella Creasy has said a woman can have a penis and that author JK Rowling is wrong as she recalled being threatened with gang rape at university.

The MP for Walthamstow said she has been told she is a 'bad feminist' for disagreeing with the world-renowned Harry Potter author who has voiced concerns that biological women were being put at risk in favour of trans rights.

In an interview with the Telegraph to discuss her revelation this month that she had been threatened with gang rape at university, the mother-of-two shared her views on how the word woman should be defined.

She told the newspaper: 'Do I think some women were born with penises? Yes. But they are now women and I respect that.'

Ms Creasy said she disagrees with the Harry Potter author, adding: 'JK Rowling doesn't support self-identification whereas I do. Of course biological sex is real - it's just not the end of the conversation.

'I am somebody who would say that a trans woman is an adult human female.'

Again: "I am somebody who would say that a trans woman is an adult human female."  

This is the sort of equivocation and conflation that is problematic.

"A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman."

This fellow, Patrick R. Grzanka, is an Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology and Chair of the Interdisciplinary Program in Women, Gender, and Sexuality at the University of Tennessee’s flagship campus in Knoxville.  

Matt Walsh: You want to answer questions about 'Women's Studies,' and so shouldn't the first answer you should be able to provide is what exactly is a woman?
Grzanka: Well, for me it's actually a really simple answer, and that's a person who identifies as a woman.
Walsh: But what are they identifying as?
Grzanka: As a woman.
Walsh: But what is that?
Grzanka: As a woman.
Walsh: Do you know what a circular definition is?
Grzanka: I do.
Walsh: It's sort of like what you're doing right now.  "A woman is a woman."
Grzanka: Mm-hmm.  Because you're seeking what we would call in my field of work an essentialist definition of gender.  I think it sounds like you would like me to give you a set of biological or cultural characteristics that are associated with with one gender or the other.
Walsh: I'm not seeking any type of definition.  I'm just seeking a definition.
Grzanka: Yeah, and I gave you one. 

This is the sort of equivocation and doublespeak and conflation I am addressing.

And note here that what Prof. Grzanka is saying is reflected quite clearly in one of the memes I posted (and which you characterize as "bigoted") :

Screen-Shot-2022-06-10-at-7.51.41-AM.png 

And I again note that in all your posts you have not answered the question "What is a woman?"  I think it is because answering that question is, for people like you, dangerous.  So you instead lash out and say that anyone asking it is a bigot and/or stupid and/or lacking in empathy and compassion.  That's pretty standard fare these days.  Insults in lieu of substance.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:
Quote

These absurdities are trading on equivocation.

And you are the one doing the trading.

I am the one resisting the very equivocation that you and yours are trying to foist onto society.

There are only two sexes.  That's it.  Biological sex is not a spectrum.  

People like Susannah Temko and Emily Quinn are exceptions that prove the rule.  This article, by Andrè Van Mol, MD, does a good job of addressing intersex persons:

Quote

Intro to Intersex
Intersex is a colloquialism for what is more formally titled Disorders of Sex Development (DSD). Per psychiatrist Karl Benzio in an article published in Today’s Christian Doctor in 2015: “Intersex – People who have anatomy that is not considered typically male or female or have anatomy not matching their genetic sex of XX or XY. Most come to medical attention because healthcare professionals or parents notice something unusual about their bodies or puberty or fertility isn’t normal, but some are not known until death/autopsy.”

The term intersex leans to the ideological, and clarity is needed here. A DSD consistently means a definable, objective underlying medical problem. We should not conflate a condition with an identity. California’s 2019 Assembly Bill 201 makes precisely that type of error in section 2295(a)(2): “Intersex people are a part of the fabric of our state’s diversity to be celebrated, rather than an aberration to be corrected.” That is both a straw argument and misdirection because a medical condition is something one has, not who one is. Celebrate the person, yes, and recognize that person’s disorder of sex development, which may or may not need correcting.

Sex
Sex is objective, identifiable and immutable biology, thus within the realm of science. Biological sex is established at conception, declared in utero, and recognized or not at birth. Every nucleated cell in our bodies has a sex. There are only two gametes, sperm and egg, that participate in the generation of new life. There is no third gamete active in that process. Sex differences are real and of consequence. More than 6,500 shared genes are expressed differently in human males and females. These differences impact our brains; organ systems; propensity for developing certain diseases; differing responses to drugs, toxins and pain; contrasting cognitive and emotional processes; behavior; and more. To offer one example, sotalol has triple the likelihood of provoking torsades de pointes in women compared to men. Sex matters.

"We should not conflate a condition with an identity.

Yes. Yes.  But your side of the debate wants to do exactly that: conflate a "condition" (intersex, gender dysphoria, etc.) with "an identity."

"Sex is objective, identifiable and immutable biology, thus within the realm of science. Biological sex is established at conception, declared in utero, and recognized or not at birth.

I have long lost count of how many times I've heard the "assigned at birth" thing.  You even included it in your "definitions" of "sex" and "gender identity" (as an aside, I note that you did not provide a source for these supposed definitions). 

I was not "assigned" my brown eyes.  I was not "assigned" my weight at birth.  And I was not "assigned" my sex by Dr. Heder (the OB who delivered me in a tiny hospital in Kahuku, Hawaii way back in the day).  And yet your side of the debate insist that sex is something that is "assigned."

"Every nucleated cell in our bodies has a sex. There are only two gametes, sperm and egg, that participate in the generation of new life. There is no third gamete active in that process."  

Lia Thomas is a biological male, a man.  He is not a biological female, a woman.  And yet he is being treated as if he is a biological woman.  And he is being so treated because your side of the debate is conflating and equivocating.  Your side hugely equivocates in your use of the word "woman."  You are trading on fabricated ambiguities that arise when you want to say that "woman" can refer to either an adult biological female or anyone who "identifies" as a woman.

"More than 6,500 shared genes are expressed differently in human males and females. These differences impact our brains; organ systems; propensity for developing certain diseases; differing responses to drugs, toxins and pain; contrasting cognitive and emotional processes; behavior; and more. ... Sex matters."

Yes, it does.  it matters a lot.  

Quote

Gender
Gender is an engineered term that reportedly debuted in the academic literature in 1955 in an article addressing “hermaphroditism” (as it was then known) by psychiatrist Dr. John Money of John Hopkins University. (Dr. Money would go down in ignominy with time, but I digress.) Gender identity refers to self-perception and feelings that are subjective and prone to change. Gender is most often used as a sex stereotype. My point is this: nouns have gender; people have a sex.

Hoo, boy!  I sure like the calm clarity and accuracy of this statement (which you will no doubt condemn as "bigoted" and lacking in "empathy").

Conflation of biological sex with "self-perception and feelings that are subjective and prone to change" is a very serious issue, IMO.

Quote

Intersex, Round Two
The nomenclature “intersex” acknowledges something between two sexes and not a third sex. The term is intersex and not “extrasex,” therefore acknowledging the binary nature of human sex. Biological sex rarely may be phenotypically unclear in a given individual, but this does not represent a third one.

Evolutionary biologist Colin Wright rejects the “sex is a spectrum” mantra with clear reasoning: “a spectrum implies a continuous distribution, and maybe even an amodal one (one in which no specific outcome is more likely than others). Biological sex in humans, however, is clear-cut over 99.98 percent of the time.” Dr. Wright continues, “any method exhibiting a predictive accuracy of over 99.98 percent would place it among the most precise methods in all the life sciences. We revise medical care practices and change world economic plans on far lower confidence than that.”

 "The term is intersex and not 'extrasex,' therefore acknowledging the binary nature of human sex."

Once more, with feeling: "{T}he binary nature of human sex."

In your (noticeably unsourced) definition of "sex" you suggest that "{s}ex is typically categorized as male, female or intersex."  That is simply not so.  "Intersex" is not a sex.  Humans are bipedal hominids.  And yet some folks would point us to someone like Frank Lentini and deny the categorization of humans as bipedal hominids because some are born with three legs, or one leg, or no leg at all.  This is equivocation and obfuscation, and it is what you and yours are doing when you point to people like Susannah Temko and Emily Quinn.

Your side of the debate insists that "sex is a spectrum."  812,000 hits on Google

Back to the article by Dr. Van Mol:

Quote

Intersex/DSD is Not Gender Dysphoria or Trans-identification
Intersex is not a subjective ideation. There is always an objective underlying medical origin. The DSM-5 Gender Dysphoria criteria states: “Specify if: With a disorder of sex development (e.g., a congenital adrenogenital disorder such as 255.2 [E25.0] congenital adrenal hyperplasia or 259.50 [E34.50] androgen insensitivity syndrome).” Intersex is what they mean, and it is different than gender dysphoria.

"Intersex ... is different than gender dysphoria."  And yet your side of the debate conflates and equivocates.  Discussion of so-called "gender identity" almost inevitably triggers references to intersex persons.

Quote

Intersex/DSD is Rare
Wildly inflated claims of the prevalence of DSD are common, but untrue. Dr. Leonard Sax exposed the source of some of this in his article, “How common is intersex.” Dr. Sax writes that Anne Fausto-Sterling asserted in her 2000 book Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality that intersex totaled 1.7 percent of human births. However, Sax shows that she included in her calculations common conditions having nothing to do with DSD. Dr. Sax notes that congenital adrenal hyperplasia and complete androgen insensitivity syndrome are the most common DSDs, which is in keeping with the previously stated DSM-5 Gender Dysphoria specification. Dr. Sax concludes that DSD/Intersex, “far from being ‘a fairly common phenomenon,’ is actually a rare event, occurring in fewer than two out of every 10,000 births.”

Similarly, a 1992 Danish study found their rate of “testicular feminization syndrome” to be 1:20,400. A 2001 Dutch study stated their rate of androgen insensitivity syndrome “with molecular proof of the diagnosis is 1:99,000.”

And a 2016 Danish study examining all their known 46XY karyotype females (androgen insensitivity syndrome) born since 1960 found the prevalence at 6.4 per 100,000 live born females. Intersex/DSD is rare.

The number of humans born with something other than two legs is likewise small, and yet nobody points to that small number as a refutation of humans being bipedal hominids.  The exceptions do not swallow the rule.  That some people are born with one leg, or three, or no legs at all, does not upend the classification of humans as bipedal hominids.

The same goes with people who are intersex.  There are exceedingly rare instances of intersex persons, but that does not give rise to a third sex.

Also, the vast majority of people who are making claims akin to Lia Thomas and Caitlynn Jenner are not "intersex," but are instead members of one biological sex that "identify" as a member of the other sex.  And yet these same people demand that we conflate their gender dysphoria/identity with biological sex, and that we declare biological men like Lia Thomas and Caitlynn Jenner are women.  They do so by tacitly equivocating on the meaning of "woman."  And the only way to preserve that tacit equivocation is to A) refuse to answer "What is a woman," and B) accuse anyone who asks that question of being a bigot, of lacking empathy, etc.

Quote

Conclusion
A disorder of sex development/intersex uniformly signifies the presence of a definable, objective underlying medical problem. Intersex is a condition—something someone has—and neither an identity nor a third sex. DSD/intersex represent rare conditions requiring highly individualized therapeutic approaches and timelines, not a blanket one-size-fits-all prescription.

I think it is sort of repellant when folks arguing in favor of affirming gender dysphoria (and worse, mandating such affirmation) point to intersex persons.  This typifies the sort of conflation and equivocation I find problematic.

Here is the entire article by Colin Wright (referenced by Dr. Van Mol).  It's well worth a read: Sex Is Not a Spectrum

Some excerpts:

Quote

As more and more people refer to themselves as trans, nonbinary, and gender-non-conforming, activists have been adamantly pushing the narrative that our common understanding of males and females existing as real biological entities is obsolete. Instead of male and female, some argue there are only varying degrees of “male-ness” and “female-ness.” Because of this, they assert that segregating any space or sports using binary sex categories is illegitimate, since if no definitive line can be drawn who’s to say a purported “male” isn’t really female? Many even go so far as to claim that we should let people decide for themselves what sex they are, as though this were a matter of personal choice.

"More and more people."  Yep.  This clearly has a significant "social contagion" dimension.  

Quote

The view that sex is a spectrum is no longer confined to university humanities departments and hermetic internet communities. It has now made considerable inroads into mainstream culture, thanks in part to a highly sympathetic media environment. Even prestigious scientific journals such as Nature have given space to authors who argue that “the idea of two sexes is simplistic” and that “biologists now think there is a wider spectrum than that.” Another Nature editorial insisted that attempts to classify an individual’s sex using any combination of anatomy and genetics “has no basis in science.” A recent book, The Spectrum of Sex: The Science of Male, Female, and Intersex, argues this position from cover to cover. Its publisher, a Canadian academic press, gushes that “this transformative guide completely breaks down our current understanding of biological sex.”

And I think that breakdown is based on sociopolitical ideologies and pressures, and not much on science and reality.  

A person who genuinely and sincerely thinks and "feels" that he is Napoleon Bonaparte should not be mistreated.  He has a mental health condition that merits attention and treatment, and compassion and patience and empathy.  But I think one thing he does not need is broad societal affirmation of that belief/feeling.  Certainly individuals can choose to go along this fellow's "identity," but it becomes quite dangerous to the fabric of society and individual liberties if and when people around him are required to affirm that identity.  And yet that is precisely what your side of the debate is trying to do.

Quote

In February of 2020 I co-authored a Wall Street Journal op-ed on this subject, entitled The Dangerous Denial of Sex. Along with my co-author, developmental biologist Emma Hilton, I highlighted the harms that sex-spectrum pseudoscience can impose on vulnerable groups, including children, women, gay men, and lesbians. Since we were confined to a newspaper op-ed format, Dr. Hilton and I had scant space to explore in detail the actual science of biological sex and the pseudoscience of sex spectrum ideology. That is the subject of this essay.

The article goes on to address the basics of the "sex is a spectrum" idea (the existence of intersex persons, overlapping secondary sex characteristics, "Genderbread Person," etc.).

Quote

This way of thinking about biological sex is now frequently presented to children in school using such cartoon illustrations as The Genderbread Person (shown below). In the purple box labeled “Biological Sex,” you’ll notice the terms “male” and “female” are not used. Instead, terms denoting the idea of sex as a continuous variable—“male-ness” and “female-ness”—are chosen.

Classic equivocation.  "Biological sex" is no longer "male" and "female," but is instead "male-ness" and "female-ness."

Quote

Many of the traits listed as defining one’s degree of male-ness and female-ness are secondary sex organs and characteristics: genital morphology, body shape, voice pitch, and body hair. Conspicuously absent from this chart is any mention of primary sex organs (gonads, i.e. ovaries and testes in the case of females and males, respectively) or the typical functions associated with sex, such as menstruation in females and ejaculation in males. There is also no mention of eggs or sperm (produced by ovaries and testes, respectively).

f3c6cc11-5238-4901-bb78-6f6797da6811_840

Ya gotta wonder why discussions of "Biological Sex" are deliberately omitting references to ovaries, testes, eggs, sperm, etc.

It's almost as if your side of the debate wants to obscure and circumvent these things.  It's almost as if your side of the debate wants to subordinate and ignore "biological sex" and instead focus on newly-minted ideas about "gender identity" and "gender expression."  It's as if you want the meaning of "woman" to be, well, whatever you and yours want it to be (as evidenced, inter alia, by your suggestion that biological sex is "assigned").

Quote

Both of these arguments—the argument from intersex conditions and the argument from secondary sex organs/characteristics—follow from fundamental misunderstandings about the nature of biological sex, which is connected to the distinct type of gametes (sex cells) that an organism produces. As a broad concept, males are the sex that produce small gametes (sperm) and females produce large gametes (ova). There are no intermediate gametes, which is why there is no spectrum of sex. Biological sex in humans is a binary system.

"Biological sex in humans is a binary system."

And yet your side of the debate argues that "sex is a spectrum," that biological males are "women," that men can menstruate, that women can have penises, and so on.

Quote

It is crucial to note, however, that the sex of individuals within a species isn’t based on whether an individual can actually produce certain gametes at any given moment. Pre-pubertal males don’t produce sperm, and some infertile adults of both sexes never produce gametes due to various infertility issues. Yet it would be incorrect to say that these individuals do not have a discernible sex, as an individual’s biological sex corresponds to one of two distinct types of evolved reproductive anatomy (i.e. ovaries or testes) that develop for the production of sperm or ova, regardless of their past, present, or future functionality. In humans, and transgender and so-called “non-binary” people are no exception, this reproductive anatomy is unambiguously male or female over 99.98 percent of the time.

The binary distinction between ovaries and testes as the criterion determining an individual’s sex is not arbitrary, nor unique to humans. The evolutionary function of ovaries and testes is to produce either eggs or sperm, respectively, which must be combined for sexual reproduction to take place. If that didn’t happen, there would be no humans. While this knowledge may have been cutting edge science in the 1660s, it’s odd that we should suddenly treat it as controversial in 2020.

"The binary distinction between ovaries and testes as the criterion determining an individual’s sex is not arbitrary."

And yet here you are, telling us that "sex" is something that is merely "assigned" by a doctor.

Quote

That above-cited 99.98 percent figure falls short of 100 percent because of the roughly 0.02 percent who are intersex. (The actual figure is estimated to be about 0.018 percent.) But the claim that intersex conditions support the sex spectrum model conflates the statement “there are only two sexes” (true) with “every human can be unambiguously categorized as either male or female” (false). The existence of only two sexes does not mean sex is never ambiguous. But intersex individuals do not demonstrate that sex is a spectrum. Just because sex may be ambiguous for some does not mean it’s ambiguous (and, as some commentators would extrapolate, arbitrary) for all.

By way of analogy: We flip a coin to randomize a binary decision because a coin has only two faces: heads and tails. But a coin also has an edge, and about one in 6,000 (0.0166 percent) throws (with a nickel) will land on it. This is roughly the same likelihood of being born with an intersex condition. Almost every coin flip will be either heads or tails, and those heads and tails do not come in degrees or mixtures. That’s because heads and tails are qualitatively different and mutually exclusive outcomes. The existence of edge cases does not change this fact. Heads and tails, despite the existence of the edge, remain discrete outcomes.

Excellent analogy, this.

Quote

Likewise, the outcomes of sex development in humans are almost always unambiguously male or female. The development of ovaries vs testes, and thus females and males, are also qualitatively different outcomes that for the vast majority of humans are mutually exclusive and do not come in mixtures or degrees. Males and females, despite the existence of intersex conditions, remain discrete outcomes.

Yep.

Quote

The existence of intersex conditions is frequently brought up in an attempt to blur the line between male and female when arguing for the inclusion of trans women in female sports and other contexts. But transgenderism has absolutely nothing to do with being intersex. For the vast majority of individuals claiming either trans or non-binary identities, their sex is not in question. Primary sex organs, not identity, determines one’s sex.

Yep.  This should be axiomatic, but we are living in strange times.  Even Caitlynn Jenner admitted this in the past:

Macdonald (quoting from Jenner's book) : "I am firmly on the side of womanhood now, but I am not a woman, nor will I ever be."  Three sentences later, "I use the women's restroom because I am a woman.  I changed my gender on my birth certificate to female because I am a woman."  So there's a little confusion there, right?
Jenner: Not for me.  What's wrong with that?

This is interesting to me in two ways:

First, Caitlyn Jenner seems to genuinely not comprehend the contradition between saying "I am not a woman, nor will I ever be" and then, a few sentences later, saying "I am a woman."

Second, the above YouTube video of this interview has a rather jarring cut right after Jenner says "What's wrong with that."  I thought that was strange, since the cut omits some of the further discussion of the point Macdonald was making.  And I couldn't find the full interview on YouTube, so I had to go over to Vimeo, which has it here.  At the 24:25 mark:

Macdonald (quoting from Jenner's book) : "I am firmly on the side of womanhood now, but I am not a woman, nor will I ever be."  Three sentences later, "I use the women's restroom because I am a woman.  I changed my gender on my birth certificate to female because I am a woman."  So there's a little confusion there, right?
Jenner: Not for me.  What's wrong with that?
Macdonald: Well, here it says "I am not a woman," and here it says "I am a woman."
Jenner: Well, okay.  "I am a woman."  Okay.  That.  Um, I, my journey to womanhood was different.  I always had this woman that lived deep down inside.  But I don't, I never, I am very comfortable with the word "trans woman," because my experience was very different.  I didn't grow up dating guys, you know, being around all the girls.  I was on the other side of the fence.  I will never have a period, I'll never birth a child.  {I} raised a lot of kids, but never actually birthed one.  I honestly have always felt like I don't want to put women down.  I love women.  I don't want to put women down thinking, okay, now all of the sudden, yes, I am this woman.  I'm a trans woman, okay?  My experience was different.  I can go to the women's restroom, I can enjoy all the things of womanhood, dress and be comfortable, and be comfortable with myself.  But it's almost like finally I got to the point in my life this little Caitlynn who's lived inside of me all my life, okay?  And had to hide and sneak around and do all this sort of stuff..."

As you can see, Jenner's explanation is not a model of clarity.  However, she does seem to concede that there is a ontological distinction between a "woman" and a "trans woman."  They are not the same.  They are not interchangeable.  Moreover, Jenner points to the source of that distinction: biology.  "I will never have a period, I'll never birth a child."

Notwithstanding what Jenner said in the above interview (which aired in 2017, and so presumably was recorded around that time), she had previously accepted a "Woman of the Year" award from a women's magazine.

Are you seriously going to say that this is not equivocation?  

Also, consider Jenner's statement that he "changed {his} gender on {his} birth certificate to female."  This is, to me, fascinating.  He is not claiming that he was female when he was born, but he altered the factual statement on his birth certificate anyway. 

Are we also prepared to let people change other factually-correct statements on birth certificates? 

Can a person change her date of birth if she "identifies" as ten years younger than her chronological age?  If not, why not?

How about the place of birth?  If I "identify" as Scottish Citizen, can I change my birth certificate so that it states I was born in Inverness?  If not, why not?

What about my mother?  If I "identify" as the son of, say, Audrey Hepburn, can I change my birth certificate so that it states that?  If not, why not?

I am quite sincere in posing these questions.  They are not rhetorical.  I would really like an answer to them.

I am not, however, presenting these questions primarily to you, Roger, as I think I can anticipate your response (something along the lines of me being stupid, ignorant, bigoted, etc.).  As for other participants, though, I would like to hear from you.

Back to the "Sex is Not a Spectrum" article:

Quote

In regard to the argument from secondary sex organs/characteristics, the primary flaw is that it confuses cause and effect. Remember, secondary sex characteristics are anatomies that differentiate during puberty. In females, these include (among others) the development of breasts, wider hips, and a tendency for fat to store around the hips and buttocks. In males, secondary sex characteristics include deeper voices, taller average height, facial hair, broader shoulders, increased musculature, and fat distributed more around the midsection. However, these secondary sex characteristics—while plain to the eye, and inseparable from the way most laypeople think about men and women—do not actually define one’s biological sex. Rather, these traits typically develop as a consequence of one’s sex, via differences in the hormonal milieu produced during puberty by either testes or ovaries.

The different developmental trajectories of males and females are themselves a product of millions of years of natural selection, since secondary sex characteristics will contribute to evolutionary fitness in males and females in different ways. Females with narrower hips had more trouble delivering large-headed children, and so those with larger hips had an evolutionary advantage. This wasn’t relevant to males, however, which is one reason why their bodies tend to look different. But that doesn’t mean that a person’s hips—or any of their secondary sex characteristics, including beards and breasts—define their sex biologically. These traits, while having evolved due to sex-specific selection pressures, are completely irrelevant when it comes to defining one’s biological sex.

Caitlyn Jenner has undergone some medical procedures to imitate female secondary sex characteristics.  And she dresses in ways typically associated with women.

But none of this makes Jenner a woman.

Quote

Analogies help, so let me offer another one. Bikers ride motorcycles, and cyclists ride bicycles. While these two vehicles share many similarities (two wheels, handlebars, seats, spokes, etc.), they differ in at least one fundamental way. Motorcycles are powered by engines and fuel, while bicycles are powered by pedaling legs. Whether someone is a biker or a cyclist depends entirely on the binary criterion of whether they are riding a motorcycle or a bicycle. This is the primary characteristic that defines bikers and cyclists. However, there are also many secondary characteristics associated with bikers and cyclists. Bikers, for instance, are more likely to wear leather jackets, jeans, and bandanas. Cyclists are more likely to wear skin-tight spandex. Bikers wear heavy helmets that contain the entire head and include a face-shield. Cyclists typically wear lightweight helmets that cover only the top of their heads.

Many of the secondary characteristics of bikers and cyclists are not arbitrary or coincidental. Like male and female secondary sex characteristics, we can map the utility of biker and cyclist secondary characteristics to their primary characteristics. Bikers wear tough clothes because they travel at higher speeds, which necessitate protective clothing in case of an accident and to mitigate windchill. Cyclists, on the other hand, exert great physical effort pedaling their entire body weight plus the weight of their vehicle, which necessitates lighter, breathable, wind-breaking clothing and protective gear. Given cyclists’ slower crash speeds, the trade-off in favor of less protective gear is worthwhile.

But a person riding a motorcycle wearing a spandex suit and lighter helmet doesn’t become a cyclist (or less of a biker) because they share these secondary traits more commonly associated with cyclists. And a person riding a bicycle wearing jeans and a leather jacket doesn’t become a biker (or less of a cyclist) by sharing secondary traits more typical of bikers. Just as these secondary traits do not define bikers and cyclists, secondary sex characteristics do not define males and females.

Great analogy, this.

The article is really good, but too long to quote further.  Definitely worth a read.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
23 hours ago, Obehave said:
Quote

You are adamantly unwilling to look at these issues with empathy and nuance, and insist that the phrase "gender identity" must have precisely the same definition as  "biological sex." You deliberately equivocate between these words and ideas, and use that equivocation as the basis for your "astute" memes. In reality, your "astute" memes are bigoted.  

In your mind is it possible for anyone to disagree with your position while you feel they have considered your position with empathy and nuance?  I believe I have considered your position with empathy and nuance and I still believe your position is wrong.

Same here.  "Bigotry" is "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own."  I'm quite willing to listen to and interact with Analytics and those whose sociopolitical ideologies align with his.  I reject the notion that I stubbornly and completely fail to tolerate his views.  But because I disagree with his views, he accuses me of bigotry.

23 hours ago, Obehave said:

A man who identifies as a woman is still a man who identifies as a woman, so I still see that man as a man.  With empathy I can believe that man really wants to be identified as a woman, but my empathy does not cause me to agree with him.

Can't we all just get along regardless of whether or not we believe someone is right or wrong?  The fact that I can see people who are wrong on many issues doesn't mean I don't love those people. We're all wrong about something, I think.

Honestly, I think many folks on the other side of this debate cannot "get along" with people who disagree with them.  It's their way or the highway.  If you disagree with Analytics, you are stupid and/or ignorant ("an exceedingly superficial understanding of the issues"), "mocking," "bigoted," "disrespectful," "hypocritical" (boy, that was a weird one), and so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Hence SMAC’s and other conservatives “gotcha” question of what is a woman is disengenious grand standing. 

It's hardly disingenuous grandstanding. We know there's a difference. Men and women exist, so there is something that constitutes "man" and "woman". This dilemma is best highlighted by Iain McGilchrist's conception of the divide between right and left brain. The right operates holistically, it is capable of acknowledging large-scale realities without exhaustive theories of classification or causation, it can operate in the presence of intuitive and interpretive ambiguity. The left brain is methodical, procedural, and detail-oriented, operating like the living manifestation of a proof. Western culture has elevated left-brain proceduralism above its proper role as the means to the right-brain end, which leads us to lose the forest of reality for the trees. Man and women mean something, no matter how many ways in which one can differ from the Platonic form.

 

Quote

Indeed we have contrast. I have always felt like a man (boy) but can’t describe it. My Aunt (born biologically male) knew from a young age that she was female. After serving a mission, having six kids and surviving suicide attempts, she transitioned and lives as a woman. If I can’t even begin to define what it means for me to be male, how can I tell her she is not a woman?

Contrast with what? As near as I can tell none of us have lived outside of our own heads. If we are to have that contrast, then it must be in relation to something outside of our introspection. What is it then - what is your external referent - what is a woman? A state of mind?

Commonsense epistemology and its traveling partner phenomenal conservatism - the best account of human knowledge by my reckoning - teach that all things are based on "seemings" - things seem a certain way to us, and that gives us reason to believe they are that way in the absence of well-founded defeaters. What constitutes a well-founded defeater is, by nature, paradigm dependent. The paradigm question is "what is a woman." If "biological female" is inherent in that definition, then no, biological males cannot be women, and no seeming will overcome that. If "biological female" is not part of that definition, then a seeming could overcome that. Which means that the question MUST be answered if you have interest in interpersonal conduct being based on truth - what is a woman? 

Quote

If I don’t know is the best answer that is available (and I belief it is), it seems like the ultimate in hubris to pass judgement on those that have a different life experience than my own. 

This would be true if we did not have the belief that our spirits and bodies are built in each other's image and are both sexed. I don't need to know the initial causes of a phenomenon (say, proto-sex a la Gregory Smith) to know what it now is (sex).

I retain the right to make statements about truth without kneeling before the moral imprecation of "judgement," which we all do and inevitably must as part of human cognitive structure. The admonition has always been to judge righteously, not be studiously opinionless.

Quote

Average sex differences don’t translate well into individual experience. 

And yet they exist. 

Edited by OGHoosier
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Obehave said:

I believe their spirit is either one or the other, male or female, but if their bodies can fully function as both men and women biologically, including sexually, then I feel as if I would have no other logical choice but to say they are both.

I'm open to the idea that their spirits might be intersex as well. At least, I'm not aware of a precedent which would decisively rule it out.

Link to comment
21 hours ago, Analytics said:

Yes, of course.

That's fine.

For me, if a man identified as a woman and kindly requested that I use she/her pronouns, I would:

1- 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.

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

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

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

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

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

21 hours ago, Analytics said:

2- Out of common decency, I would endeavor to use her preferred pronouns when referring to her.

As a general rule, so would I.  But I would resist mightily any effort to require me to do so.

21 hours ago, Analytics said:

3- Would recognize that whether she is a woman depends on the definition of "woman" we are using.

Classic equivocation.  Classic.  Bill Clinton would be proud.

21 hours ago, Analytics said:

According to an outwardly definition, she is "really" a man. According to an inwardly definition, she is "really" a woman.

This is exactly the point I have been making for a while now.  Folks like you refuse to answer "What is a woman" because you want that word to mean . . . anything any individual wants it to mean.

This is equivocation.  It is Orwellianism writ large.  It is about power and control.  Lewis Carroll touched on this in his Through the Looking Glass:

Quote

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

Alice was much too puzzled to say anything.

Citing the foregoing, Bruce Corley made the following observation:

Quote

Like Alice who did not know the language games of a nonsense world, the alert student could wish for a bit of help in grasping what words really mean, especially when their masters stretch them beyond recognition.

This is what I think people like you are doing. 

You are playing "language games" when you "stretch {words} beyond recognition," such that a word as as basic and universal as "woman" has - by your measure - an infinitely malleable and elastic definition.  

Alice was quite right: "The question is whether you can make words mean so many different things."

But Humpty Dumpty was likewise correct when he declared that his purpose in warping and twisting words is designed to exert power and control.  "The question is which is to be master -- that's all."

21 hours ago, Analytics said:

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, much less insist that she is using a definition different than the one she is clearly using.

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.

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.

21 hours ago, Analytics said:

As an example, if you said you were a child of God, I would try to understand what you meant by that, would try to be respectful about such a personal belief, and otherwise wouldn't give it much thought. But if somebody came along and said "I am a child of God" was:

  1. insidious Orwellian doublespeak intended to undermine civilization

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

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

21 hours ago, Analytics said:
  1. factually wrong given what "child" actually means

Really stretching with this one.

21 hours ago, Analytics said:
  1. something that must be resisted

"I am a child of God" is an expression of religious belief.  There is nary a whit of coercion or threat or bullying in it.

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.  

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

21 hours ago, Analytics said:
  1. a phrase used by people who think "child" means anything and everything that anybody wants it to mean and is an existential threat to the English language

Appeal to ridicule.  Yawn.

Ironically, you apparently deny that you want terms like "woman" to be able to mean "anything and everything," and yet A) you refuse to answer "what is a woman," and B) you do, in fact, allow it to mean anything and everything.  You call these ideosyncrasies "inwardly definition{s}."  

21 hours ago, Analytics said:
  1. something that must be mocked with a tedious set of memes about how stupid it is to think "child" means anything you want it to mean, then...

I have not mocked anyone.  The point being addressed in this meme...

Screen-Shot-2022-06-10-at-7.51.41-AM.png

... was plainly and publicly re-stated by Prof. Grzanka when he said that a "woman" is "a person who identifies as a woman."

And yet I don't think you would accuse him of mockery or bigotry.

21 hours ago, Analytics said:

I would point out that in all likelihood, this person hasn't really looked at the "I am a child of God" issue with empathy and nuance. The asinine response proves it. 

And even more insults.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
21 hours ago, Calm said:
Quote

1- 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

And not a statement about me (or any other person she is talking to) either, imo.

How can usage of the word "woman" not be a "statement about {you}," who are a woman?

If you were to say to yourself, "I identify as a surgeon," then that is probably no big deal.  But as soon as you use those words in communicating with other people, when you tell them that you are lawyer, then isn't that quite a bit different? 

And if you tell these other people that you are a surgeon and you expect them to go along with that statement and rely on it as being factually correct, isn't that even more significant?  

This is, I think, why we are seeing so much tension about seemingly trivial things like preferred pronouns, or a gas station attendant inadvertently calling a trans woman "sir."  When we communicate true statements, we are helping each other.  But when we communicate falsehoods, we are manipulating and attempting to exercise control each other.

I get that there are a lot of emotions and feelings in all this.  But it is precisely in those circumstances that we need to hew closer to the truth, rather than go along with falsehoods in a "go along to get along" kind of way.  I can be empathetic with someone with gender dysphoria, but I can't get on board with the idea that I should reflexively acquiesce/ratify/endorse that dysphoria.  I mean, I can accommodate some small measure as to trivialities (such as calling someone who has legally altered their gender by their preferred pronouns), but I will resist efforts to compel me to do so, whether those efforts are along the lines of what Analytics does (trying to insult and shame others into capitulation or silence), or whether those efforts are attempted to be codified and enforced by law.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Link to comment
20 hours ago, Obehave said:

Sex is determined by someone's biological body, whether male or female.  Do you agree? 

I think he'll say "Yes" to the above question.

But then when you ask him something like "And a 'woman' is an adult belonging to the female 'sex.'  Do you agree"?, he . . . won't answer.  Or he will equivocate.  Because "woman" can mean anything anyone wants it to mean by way of - as Analytics puts it - an "inwardly definition."

20 hours ago, Obehave said:

If a person's biological body is male then what logical justification would there be for him (a male pronoun) to think he is female (a female pronoun)? 

Here I think Analytics will equivocate by trying to make "female" as being, like "woman," inherently ambiguous, as meaning anything anyone wants it to mean under an "inwardly definition."

20 hours ago, Obehave said:

I would say that even if he feels like he is female, he is wrong, and his body proves it. 

So would I.

But then Analytics would likely call us ignorant bigots for presuming to say that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
20 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The church teaches sex/gender are eternal.

Yes.

20 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

What is the eternal definition of a woman?

An adult human female (though the physical body of a "human" will undergo substantial change in the hereafter).

20 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Is it the evolved mammary glands? The ovaries? The womb? Do these things have meaning in the eternities? Genuine question.

When Jesus was resurrected, He ate fish and honecomb.  From this I think we can infer that His body was A) resurrected, B) corporeal, C) included the same basic parts as He had before, and so on.

I don't know the particulars.  But the broad strokes seem to be there. 

20 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Please provide the definitive eternal definition of the word “woman” please.  

We have not been given "the definitive eternal definition of the word 'woman.'"  So I guess we'll need to extrapolate.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
53 minutes ago, smac97 said:

How can usage of the word "woman" not be a "statement about {you}," who are a woman?

Because in that case we are talking about one individual who identifies as a woman and not a global discussion about what is womanhood and I don’t see a need to insert myself into every other woman’s life or even anyone who identifies internally as a woman.

Quote

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.

Nor does it require me to pretend she is biologically a woman.

Quote

If you were to say to yourself, "I identify as a surgeon," then that is probably no big deal.  But as soon as you use those words in communicating with other people, when you tell them that you are lawyer, then isn't that quite a bit different? 

And if you tell these other people that you are a surgeon and you expect them to go along with that statement and rely on it as being factually correct, isn't that even more significant?  

If someone who was not a lawyer attempted to assume a legal role and represent others in court, etc, that is very different than someone who simply feels like a lawyer.  Actions are different than sensations and feelings.  Now if a biological man who identifies as a woman also begins to try and act in the legal role of a woman and wants to receive the benefits accorded to women legally, that is something else entirely.  
 

If someone is requiring me to change my own or others’ actions in more ways than accepting and being willing to conceive of them as internally something different than their external appearance/form (accept and interact on the level that they identify internally as a different gender than their biological sex), such as a biological male identifying as a woman wanting to share female safe space and not have me call security or if biologically female identifying as a man and wanting me to be sexually attracted to him…I reserve the right to respond on a case by case basis.  

But accepting someone identifying internally  as a woman, I don’t see an issue with that any more than if someone asks me to accept that internally they are depressed or lonely.  An emotional reaction of love and caring to their sharing how they feel and think of themselves is not even inconvenient imo.  And using a different pronoun, not much different than someone telling me they prefer a nickname.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

We know there is a difference but it fails easy description. Hence SMAC’s and other conservatives “gotcha” question of what is a woman is disengenious grand standing. 

I don't think "What is a woman" is a "gotcha" question.  It is being used in everyday discourse, so we need to arrive at a definition.

I find the evasions and equivocations surrounding the refusal to answer that question to be disingenuous.

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Indeed we have contrast. I have always felt like a man (boy) but can’t describe it.

You can't describe what a "man" is?  Seriously?  You can't define it?

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

My Aunt (born biologically male) knew from a young age that she was female.

"Female" meaning . . . what?

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

After serving a mission, having six kids and surviving suicide attempts, she transitioned and lives as a woman.

And yet, she is not a woman.  She is a biological male.  She is a man.  

If she were to die and be buried, five hundred years from now someone exhuming her remains would run scientific tests and find that those remains to be those of . . . a man.  An adult biological male.  Not a woman.

That your aunt lives "as a woman" does not mean she is a woman.

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If I can’t even begin to define what it means for me to be male, how can I tell her she is not a woman?

This seems like a rhetorical sleight-of-hand.  Nobody is asking you to "define what it means for {you} to be male."  I am instead asking "What is a woman?"  I think that question is as readily answerable as if I were to ask "What is a cat?" or "What is a tree?"  And I would find it a bit absurd for someone to respond with something like "I don't know.  I'm not a cat," or "I can't even begin to define what it means to be a tree."

If I were to tell a friend (who has known me and my family for years, and who even visited my mother and me in the hospital right after I was born), in all sincerity and confidence, that I am the biological son of Audrey Hepburn, should he go along with that?  Or would he need to demure, saying "How can I tell Spencer he is not the son of Audrey Hepburn?"

I think (A) you would not go along with my statement, however sincerely and zealously I believe it to be correct, and (B) you could rather easily find a way, if you so chose, to tell me that I am not the son of Audrey Hepburn ("Spencer, you are not the son of Audrey Hepburn," for example).  

Now, I can think of all sorts of situations where my friend could choose to abstain from A and B above, but I don't think he could credibly say that he is incapable of A and B.  He could simply choose to be indifferent/ambivalent to my asserted paternity.  He could just choose to go along with my claim.  He could even choose affirm it back to me.

But if my friend was called to testify as a witness in a lawsuit, and if he was asked, under oath, to state the identity of my mother, what should he say?  Should he say "Kathy Macdonald," or "Audrey Hepburn?"

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If I don’t know is the best answer that is available (and I belief it is), it seems like the ultimate in hubris to pass judgement on those that have a different life experience than my own. 

This is a bit silly.  I am not "pass{ing} judgment" on my Cavalier King Charles Spaniel when I say he is a "dog."  I am not "pass{ing} judgment" on Sacramento when I say it is the capital of California.  I am not "pass{ing} judgment" on Hugh Jackman when I say he is an Australian.

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Average sex differences don’t translate well into individual experience. 

"Experience" determines biological sex?  Not chromosomes, primary sex characteristics, etc.?

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

Too much to read! Sorry to go back to what appears the basics for many of you but is the transgender movement saying the term 'woman' is a socially constructed term and 'female' is what our chromosomes indicate?

Seems so, given that Analytics has asserted that "What is a woman?" is an "ambiguous question," with the answer depending upon whether we use "an outwardly definition" or "an inwardly definition."

By Analytics' reckoning, a "cat" is, depending on the definition I choose, either A) "a small domesticated carnivore, Felis domestica or F. catus, bred in a number of varieties / any of several carnivores of the family Felidae, as the lion, tiger, leopard or jaguar, etc.," or else B) anything else.  Literally anything.  

Today, my "inwardly definition" of "cat" is "a Chinese form of fermented tofu that has a strong odor" (synonymous with "stinky tofu").  

I know that sounds ridiculous, but that is where Analytics' reasoning takes us.  Such as it is.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Obehave said:

What I think I am seeing is a preference to base their ideas on what they think rather than what they can see with their physical eyes.  And it's fascinating to me!

Same here.  But those preferences start to become a bit more serious and difficult to accommodate when others are coerced into going along with them.

1 hour ago, Obehave said:

Consider the case of a person who biologically meets the criteria for being a man, not a woman.  Now throw in the idea that this person thinks he is a woman, even though his biological body shows that he is a man.

You and I, smac97, see this case logically while considering the physical evidence.  His body is physical evidence that he is a man.  And yet Analytics (great name) seems to think he could be a woman simply because he thinks he is!

Once folks like Analytics divorce words from their normative and widely-held and -understood meanings, once words can be re-defined any anyone to mean anything, then we will start to run into serious problems.  This process has, I think, already started.

1 hour ago, Obehave said:

What a world we live in. 

Check out one of the quotes in my sig line: "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." -- G.K. Chesterton

To which I would append "and shoot a person who dares to disagree with the notion that the word 'woman' can mean whatever anyone wants it to 'inwardly' mean."

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

No, I'm not.

Are too.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Not so.  I did not originate any of these statements.  They are all coming from your side of the debate.

They are coming from people who agree with me that it's ironic for a Mormon to attack the belief that gender is something that exists on a spiritual level and that you can learn about this spiritual truth through spiritual means? 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

"Trans women are women."  385K results on Google.

 I clicked on top link, which is an editorial at the ACLU of PA website. The point is that within the context of them fighting for women's rights, trans women are within that umbrella. They are simply taking a big-tent approach to women's rights. They are defining their terms, and then using those definitions in a coherent, consistent way.

You are the one who is taking their definition, applying it in a context that you chose, for the expressed purpose of conflating it. 

You are the one conflating the term. Not me. Not people on my side of the debate.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

A link to a Daily Caller article where Dennis Prager says "Men can menstruate" doesn't support your claim that this is coming from "my" side of the debate.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

"Women can have penises."

Again: "I am somebody who would say that a trans woman is an adult human female."  

This is the sort of equivocation and conflation that is problematic.

She isn't equivocating. She is clearly defining terms. You are the one who is equivocating by taking her words out of context.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

"A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman."

He provided definition of woman in the context of a woman studies program at a university. The equivocation doesn't begin until you start taking what he said out of context.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

And I again note that in all your posts you have not answered the question "What is a woman?"  I think it is because answering that question is, for people like you, dangerous.  

I don't answer the question because I think it is a stupid question that is being asked in a disingenuous way. 

The word "woman" means what the speaker of the word intends it to mean. Depending on the context, it might mean an adult human female. Or it might mean somebody who can safely and appropriately use a women's restroom. Or it might mean somebody who is welcomed as a member of the women's rights movement. If somebody defines the word the way they are using it and then uses it consistently, or if the definition is clear from the context, then they aren't equivocating. If you don't like their definition and take it out of context, then you are the one who is equivocating. Not them.

@mfbukowski was exactly right when he said, "Are you guys really arguing about semantics? Buy a dictionary and get a life!"

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

In your (noticeably unsourced) definition...

I sourced my definition. How could you say I didn't? They were authored by Laurel Wamsley of NPR, with guidance from GLAAD.

It isn't a matter of whether you agree with the definitions or not. It's a matter of understanding the definitions people use when speaking.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The number of humans born with something other than two legs is likewise small, and yet nobody points to that small number as a refutation of humans being bipedal hominids.

Yet if somebody were to say "some people don't have two legs" you would go ballistic and mock them for saying such self-contradictory thing. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The same goes with people who are intersex.  There are exceedingly rare instances of intersex persons, but that does not give rise to a third sex.

Using your classification system then, Emily Quinn isn't intersex; she is a woman. Yet she was born with testicles. Will you admit that? Will you say, "yes, some women are born with testicles"? Why do you mock people who say true things like that?

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Are we also prepared to let people change other factually-correct statements on birth certificates? 

Can a person change her date of birth if she "identifies" as ten years younger than her chronological age?  If not, why not?

How about the place of birth?  If I "identify" as Scottish Citizen, can I change my birth certificate so that it states I was born in Inverness?  If not, why not?

What about my mother?  If I "identify" as the son of, say, Audrey Hepburn, can I change my birth certificate so that it states that?  If not, why not?

I am quite sincere in posing these questions.  They are not rhetorical.  I would really like an answer to them.

I made good-faith answers to similar questions from you in my second post on page 4 of this thread. 

 

 

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, Obehave said:

I appreciate that you are being very chummy with me but I would prefer to learn about Analytics from what he actually says, himself. 

I was not intending to speak for Analytics, just predict what he is going to say.

29 minutes ago, Obehave said:

I agree that when someone identifies as a man, or a frog, or dragon, or whatever, that is only an indication of what they think they are. 

And all things being equal, I wouldn't care.  But as soon as they start insisting that I or anyone else affirm and ratify and accept as factually true that he is "a frog, or dragon, or whatever," then we start to run into problems.

29 minutes ago, Obehave said:

Maybe Analytics would rather just go along with others by saying something like: Okay, I can respect that as what you think.

Pandering to a falsehood so as to "just go along" is a risky proposition, particularly when there are real and substantial "downstream" ramifications.

29 minutes ago, Obehave said:

I think the world needs more people who are right to let others know when they are wrong. 

If a good friend were to come to me and say "I think I may be a woman trapped in a man's body," I would tread carefully.  I would certainly want to be solicitious and compassionate and tactful, and I don't think that would necessarily entail me staking out a position on what he is saying.  However, if he were to come to me and say "I think I may be a woman trapped in a man's body, and so I have decided to undergo 'top' and 'bottom' surgeries," then a different response is warranted.

29 minutes ago, Obehave said:

Instead of people who will only say something like: Okay good for you for sharing how you think.  We need to add:  You are wrong, but I still respect your right to your opinion.

Yes.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Obehave said:

Peer pressure only works for so long, and most people become very independent at a very early age   At some point everyone decides to make their own stand based on what they choose to believe and do.

Yes but what is the result?  Just more people who don't agree with some other people.  There has never been a time when all of us agreed with each other, and I don't believe there ever will be.

People like that have always been around.  There have always been people who have been wrong about something and who did not agree with who is right.  How old are you?  Are you young?  I'm 61 in Earth years and I've seen this kind of thing for... forever?

All of us agreeing with each other is not the problem, nor the goal. People disagreeing is normal in society: we have different perspectives on what's important, different views on what the most likely cause of something is, and even different views about what is even good. Those sorts of disagreements are normal throughout history. They are not the problem here.

In 99.98% of cases, a person's sex is physically unambiguous and externally verifiable to everybody with sufficient access to observe. Those are the classic benchmarks for defining what is true, what is real about the world. To declare that the person is in fact of the opposite sex is a direct frontal charge into the pricks of those two conditions. The question then bifurcates. Are we going to ignore truth entirely, or are we going to redefine a set of fundamental human categories around which our society is indispensably constructed?

These are not routine disagreements. The answers to these questions are existential. To pursue compassion and love does and must always walk hand-in-hand with a desire to act according to the truth. This is made all the more true when there are real societal and material ramifications down the line, as @smac97 notes.

Edited by OGHoosier
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Obehave said:
Quote

 

Seems so, given that Analytics has asserted that "What is a woman?" is an "ambiguous question," with the answer depending upon whether we use "an outwardly definition" or "an inwardly definition."

By Analytics' logic, a "cat" is, depending on the defintion we use, either A) "a small domesticated carnivore, Felis domestica or F. catus, bred in a number of varieties / any of several carnivores of the family Felidae, as the lion, tiger, leopard or jaguar, etc.," or else B) anything else.  Literally anything.  

Today, my "inwardly definition" of "cat" is "a Chinese form of fermented tofu that has a strong odor" (synonymous with "stinky tofu").

I know that sounds ridiculous, but that is where Analytics' reasoning takes us.  Such as it is.

 

I haven't seen Analytics take that position but if you can point me to a quote from him where he said that then I will believe it.

Here you go:

Quote

For me, if a man identified as a woman and kindly requested that I use she/her pronouns, I would ... recognize that whether she is a woman depends on the definition of "woman" we are using. According to an outwardly definition, she is "really" a man. According to an inwardly definition, she is "really" a woman.

Let's apply this reasoning to cats:

Quote

For me, if a man identified {cats} as {a Chinese form of fermented tofu that has a strong odor} and kindly requested that I {join him in defining cats in this way}, I would ... recognize that whether {cats are 'a Chinest form of fermented tofu'} depends on the definition of {"cat"}  we are using. According to an outwardly definition, {a cat is 'a small domesticated carnivore, Felis domestica or F. catus, bred in a number of varieties / any of several carnivores of the family Felidae, as the lion, tiger, leopard or jaguar, etc.'}.  According to an inwardly definition, {cats are} 'really' {a Chinest form of fermented tofu'}.

Now, is it reasonable for me to adopt "a Chinese form of fermented tofu" as an "inwardly definition" of the word "cat?"

Alternatively, is is reasonable for me to resist adopting "a Chinese form of fermented tofu" as an "inwardly definition" of the word "cat?"

And further, is my resistance to accepting such a radical re-definition of the word "cat" evidence of me being bigoted towards cats?  Or tofu?

10 minutes ago, Obehave said:

I did see him talk about what it means when a person "identifies" as whatever, which would mean someone who identifies as a cat thinks he or she is a cat.  And that is what it would mean. 

I didn't see him say a person who "identifies" as a cat would actually be a cat, though.  People are not cats even if some of them/us think they are.

I agree.  And Caitlyn Jenner is not "actually" a woman, even if some think she is, and even though he accepted a "Woman of the Year Award," and so on.

Similarly, Lia Thomas is not "actually" a woman, and yet UPenn is asking as if she is "actually a woman."

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, Analytics said:
Quote

Not so.  I did not originate any of these statements.  They are all coming from your side of the debate.

They are coming from people who agree with me that it's ironic for a Mormon to attack the belief that gender is something that exists on a spiritual level and that you can learn about this spiritual truth through spiritual means? 

What?

19 minutes ago, Analytics said:

You are the one who is taking their definition, applying it in a context that you chose, for the expressed purpose of conflating it. 

Nope.  Lia Thomas is a pitch-perfect example of the conflation of which I speak.  He is being treated as a biological female, even though he is not.

19 minutes ago, Analytics said:

A link to a Daily Caller article where Dennis Prager says "Men can menstruate" doesn't support your claim that this is coming from "my" side of the debate.

Yes, Men Can Have Periods and We Need to Talk About Them

Transgender Activist Freebleeds to Show Men Can Menstruate Too: It's 'Harmful to Equate Periods with Womanhood'

Men Can Have Periods Too, And We Need To Normalize This

Who Menstruates? People Menstruate

Yes, some men bleed: Why JK Rowling is wrong that only women get periods.

No, Acknowledging That All Genders Can Menstruate Doesn’t ‘Erase Women’

This is equivocation and conflation on a grand scale.

19 minutes ago, Analytics said:

 

Quote

 

"Women can have penises."

Again: "I am somebody who would say that a trans woman is an adult human female."  

This is the sort of equivocation and conflation that is problematic.

 

She isn't equivocating.

She most certainly is.

19 minutes ago, Analytics said:

She is clearly defining terms.

She is doing nothing of the sort.

"Do I think some women were born with penises? Yes. But they are now women and I respect that."

"I am somebody who would say that a trans woman is an adult human female."

A biological male (a "trans woman") is, by definition, not "an adult human female."

19 minutes ago, Analytics said:
Quote

"A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman."

He provided definition of woman

He did nothing of the sort.  "Water is anything that identifies as water" does not define "water."  Likewise, "{a} woman is anyone who identifies as a woman" does not define "woman."

19 minutes ago, Analytics said:

in the context of a woman studies program at a university.

And boy, did he go a long way is diminishing the reputation of that program!

19 minutes ago, Analytics said:
Quote

And I again note that in all your posts you have not answered the question "What is a woman?"  I think it is because answering that question is, for people like you, dangerous.  

I don't answer the question because I think it is a stupid question that is being asked in a disingenuous way. 

There is nothing disingenuous in the question.  I think you and yours are trying to radically re-define the word "woman."  However, the reasoning you and yours have adopted is so incoherent, so utterly vapid, that it falls apart an the slightest scrutiny.  Here, that "slight scrutiny" begins with "What is a woman?"

You and yours are refusing to answer this question because answering it exposes the incoherence of your position.

19 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The word "woman" means what the speaker of the word intends it to mean. Depending on the context, it might mean an adult human female. Or it might mean somebody who can safely and appropriately use a women's restroom. Or it might mean somebody who is welcomed as a member of the women's rights movement. If somebody defines the word the way they are using it and then uses it consistently, or if the definition is clear from the context, then they aren't equivocating. If you don't like their definition and take it out of context, then you are the one who is equivocating. Not them.

You are only proving my point.  For you and yours, "woman" means . . . anything you want it to mean.  Literally anything.

Humpty Dumpty has nothing on what you are trying to do.

I am not re-defining terms, nor am I using ambiguous language so as to conceal the truth or avoid committing myself.

"Woman" means "adult human female."  

19 minutes ago, Analytics said:

It isn't a matter of whether you agree with the definitions or not. It's a matter of understanding the definitions people use when speaking.

It's a matter of accepting the definitions, including radical re-definitions.

understand that you and yours want to re-define the meaning of "woman" to mean anything you want it to mean, but I do not accept that re-definition.  Surely you see the difference?

19 minutes ago, Analytics said:
Quote

The number of humans born with something other than two legs is likewise small, and yet nobody points to that small number as a refutation of humans being bipedal hominids.

Yet if somebody were to say "some people don't have two legs" you would go ballistic and mock them for saying such self-contradictory thing. 

I would not.  There is nothing contradictory between saying that humans are bipedal hominids and "some people don't have two legs."  Both statements are true.

19 minutes ago, Analytics said:
Quote

The same goes with people who are intersex.  There are exceedingly rare instances of intersex persons, but that does not give rise to a third sex.

Using your classification system then, Emily Quinn isn't intersex; she is a woman. Yet she was born with testicles. Will you admit that? Will you say, "yes, some women are born with testicles"? Why do you mock people who say true things like that?

I haven't mocked anyone.  And ambiguous genitalia does equate with there being a third sex.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Vanguard said:

Too much to read! Sorry to go back to what appears the basics for many of you but is the transgender movement saying the term 'woman' is a socially constructed term and 'female' is what our chromosomes indicate?

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Seems so, given that Analytics has asserted that "What is a woman?" is an "ambiguous question," with the answer depending upon whether we use "an outwardly definition" or "an inwardly definition."

By Analytics' reckoning, a "cat" is, depending on the definition I choose, either A) "a small domesticated carnivore, Felis domestica or F. catus, bred in a number of varieties / any of several carnivores of the family Felidae, as the lion, tiger, leopard or jaguar, etc.," or else B) anything else.  Literally anything.  

Today, my "inwardly definition" of "cat" is "a Chinese form of fermented tofu that has a strong odor" (synonymous with "stinky tofu").  

I know that sounds ridiculous, but that is where Analytics' reasoning takes us.  Such as it is.

Thanks,

-Smac

Ok. Assuming this is indeed how they would define it (I think you're right in how you characterize it), why then do we call it women's sports and not female sports? Isn't that what we meant all along by using the term woman? Should we now call it female sports in order to keep the males out? In that way, a male could call 'himself' a woman and still not be a member of the female club thereby keeping said woman out of female sports. Where am I going off the reservation? Absolutely, honest question.   

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. : )

Edited by Vanguard
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Obehave said:

Word games.  Analytics was talking about people who choose to play word games with each other.

I agree.  That is my point.  These are word games.  Re-defining "woman" is a word game.  Diluting it so that it can mean anything and everything is a word game.  

Analytics is not just "talking about people who choose to play word games," he is actively advancing and advocating for those word games.

1 hour ago, Obehave said:

Let's you and I choose to call wrong "right", just for now, while we play this game.  Will you play this game with me?  Just for about 5 minutes, maybe?  Wait, nevermind, I'm really not interested in playing that game, so I won't play it.

You can do whatever you want to do, though.  There isn't anything I can do to stop you.

I'm trying to clarify what folks like Analytics are trying to obscure.  I don't like these word games, which is why I use disparaging characterizations like "Orwellian."  I am speaking against these things.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
47 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Ok. Assuming this is indeed how they would define it (I think you're right in how you characterize it), why then do we call it women's sports and not female sports?

I'm not sure.  Perhaps because "female" is both a noun and an adjective, where as "women" is strictly a noun.  In the phrase "female sports," "female" modifies "sports," and so may be construed as referencing the nature of the sport rather than the identity of the participants.  "Women's sports," on the other hand, is an unequivocale reference to the players/participants.

47 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Isn't that what we meant all along by using the term woman? Should we now call it female sports in order to keep the males out?

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

47 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

In that way, a male could call 'himself' a woman and still not be a member of the female club thereby keeping said woman out of female sports. Where am I going off the reservation? Absolutely, honest question.   

I doubt that people like Lia Thomas would be satisfied with that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...