gw
Junior Member
@gw
Posts: 1,519
Likes: 557
|
Post by gw on Nov 30, 2020 0:27:35 GMT
It's a little bit complicated. Freedom of choice is real in a way because you can clearly steer yourself to do something new even if it is all predetermined. There are, of course, choices that we make without deliberating very much but I'm thinking more of the ones where we do. I didn't mean to make it sound deep but I have a very formal way of talking. My idea is basically the philosophical equivalent of a goldilocks zone. The first thing I meant was that if it were necessary to always have a perfect choice then our reality wouldn't exist. The reason I was referring to the 'material' reality and not the 'social' one is that all of our social predicaments are a reflection of the underlying material reality. If you want to see where I'm coming from when I say that if it weren't for imperfect choices then our reality wouldn't exist, read Stanislaw Lem's Golem XIV story. Our whole human and animal existence is a chemical response to the overabundance of oxygen created as waste by photosynthesizing bacteria. if we lived in a more just ecosystem we would get our energy from the sun and our bodies would be made from minerals gotten directly from the soil. Our whole existence is a result of life evolving to adapt to the limitations set by previous life on Earth which evolved without the intellect to shape the earth's ecosystem on the whole . I don't know if there is another actual reality where things work out easier than ours but I need to make a comparison to something. All I wanted to say is that IF there is a more orderly existence without tough choices like between preserving wildlife's habitat or mining metals from a mountain, that we would either be forced to choose only an ideal choice or we would choose between equally fine choices such as picking between life on one of two different identical star systems which have different geographies but both support life and no matter which place you chose to live you'd be happy all the time and live an equally long time. Can I say for certain that such a thing is somehow 'wrong'? No, only that from a perspective of choice that it seems rather boring because there's either a right way to do something and thus an ideal state of being that one can only disobey or there's no significant choices to be made at all and thus that our reality being so non-ideal makes it more appealing to live in in a certain dis-attached ironic way because it gives our life a character that only imperfection can. There was something else I wanted to say but it slipped my mind and this seems to cover it about as well as I can manage. When I said "many possible worlds to live in" take it like this: There would only be a universe where everything worked out fine and we wouldn't exist, and just about everything we know wouldn't either. This is over my head to the point where it has my eyes glazing over. I tried my best to explain my POV but I guess my thought process is a little too abstract for some. I figured somebody with Asperger's might get it. Perhaps my thought process is a bit too complex on the subject for me to explain it easily enough to the average person.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 30, 2020 0:36:08 GMT
This is over my head to the point where it has my eyes glazing over. I tried my best to explain my POV but I guess my thought process is a little too abstract for some. I figured somebody with Asperger's might get it. Perhaps my thought process is a bit too complex on the subject for me to explain it easily enough to the average person. I am good with the abstract, but only to a point. Like basic abstract. Generally it is said that people with Asperger's have a harder time with abstract concepts than the average person. Movies have done a lot to help me better understand the abstract over the years. It also depends on interest level. This just goes a bit past my interest level. It would help if you broke it down in sections btw. I can't stand giant paragraphs. It causes me to lose focus.
|
|
gw
Junior Member
@gw
Posts: 1,519
Likes: 557
|
Post by gw on Nov 30, 2020 0:54:14 GMT
I tried my best to explain my POV but I guess my thought process is a little too abstract for some. I figured somebody with Asperger's might get it. Perhaps my thought process is a bit too complex on the subject for me to explain it easily enough to the average person. I am good with the abstract, but only to a point. Like basic abstract. Generally it is said that people with Asperger's have a harder time with abstract concepts than the average person. Movies have done a lot to help me better understand the abstract over the years. It also depends on interest level. This just goes a bit past my interest level. It would help if you broke it down in sections btw. I can't stand giant paragraphs. It causes me to lose focus. I'd do that but I don't think that it would help much. Maybe it would make more sense if I did a video with diagrams.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 30, 2020 1:01:14 GMT
I am good with the abstract, but only to a point. Like basic abstract. Generally it is said that people with Asperger's have a harder time with abstract concepts than the average person. Movies have done a lot to help me better understand the abstract over the years. It also depends on interest level. This just goes a bit past my interest level. It would help if you broke it down in sections btw. I can't stand giant paragraphs. It causes me to lose focus. I'd do that but I don't think that it would help much. Maybe it would make more sense if I did a video with diagrams. I'd watch it if you did. I am better with visual presentation on these subjects.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 30, 2020 1:13:36 GMT
The world is what it is and we can only act according to the facts of reality. You were talking about "other worlds" or something and that is where I get lost. I would argue that many of our "choices" aren't actually choices, but are pre-determined. My view is that you are trying to make this sound more deep than it actually is. It's a little bit complicated. Freedom of choice is real in a way because you can clearly steer yourself to do something new even if it is all predetermined. There are, of course, choices that we make without deliberating very much but I'm thinking more of the ones where we do. I didn't mean to make it sound deep but I have a very formal way of talking. My idea is basically the philosophical equivalent of a goldilocks zone. The first thing I meant was that if it were necessary to always have a perfect choice then our reality wouldn't exist. The reason I was referring to the 'material' reality and not the 'social' one is that all of our social predicaments are a reflection of the underlying material reality. If you want to see where I'm coming from when I say that if it weren't for imperfect choices then our reality wouldn't exist, read Stanislaw Lem's Golem XIV story. Our whole human and animal existence is a chemical response to the overabundance of oxygen created as waste by photosynthesizing bacteria. if we lived in a more just ecosystem we would get our energy from the sun and our bodies would be made from minerals gotten directly from the soil. Our whole existence is a result of life evolving to adapt to the limitations set by previous life on Earth which evolved without the intellect to shape the earth's ecosystem on the whole . I don't know if there is another actual reality where things work out easier than ours but I need to make a comparison to something. All I wanted to say is that IF there is a more orderly existence without tough choices like between preserving wildlife's habitat or mining metals from a mountain, that we would either be forced to choose only an ideal choice or we would choose between equally fine choices such as picking between life on one of two different identical star systems which have different geographies but both support life and no matter which place you chose to live you'd be happy all the time and live an equally long time. Can I say for certain that such a thing is somehow 'wrong'? No, only that from a perspective of choice that it seems rather boring because there's either a right way to do something and thus an ideal state of being that one can only disobey or there's no significant choices to be made at all and thus that our reality being so non-ideal makes it more appealing to live in in a certain dis-attached ironic way because it gives our life a character that only imperfection can. There was something else I wanted to say but it slipped my mind and this seems to cover it about as well as I can manage. When I said "many possible worlds to live in" take it like this: There would only be a universe where everything worked out fine and we wouldn't exist, and just about everything we know wouldn't either. Okay, I read it over again. Is all you are saying is that the way reality is in this universe makes it more interesting than if we lived in a non-existent "perfect" world? And that if the world had came about in a different way, then this reality wouldn't exist? I would agree with that obviously. What would a perfect world even be? If we lived in this imaginary world wouldn't even know it was boring or that we were missing anything? It might be impossible that a world like that could even exist. Am I glad we don't live in a world like that? Yes, but only because it sounds very boring from the perception of someone living in a non-perfect world. If this is what you are talking about then you wrote it out way more complicated than it needed to be.
|
|
gw
Junior Member
@gw
Posts: 1,519
Likes: 557
|
Post by gw on Nov 30, 2020 4:05:13 GMT
It's a little bit complicated. Freedom of choice is real in a way because you can clearly steer yourself to do something new even if it is all predetermined. There are, of course, choices that we make without deliberating very much but I'm thinking more of the ones where we do. I didn't mean to make it sound deep but I have a very formal way of talking. My idea is basically the philosophical equivalent of a goldilocks zone. The first thing I meant was that if it were necessary to always have a perfect choice then our reality wouldn't exist. The reason I was referring to the 'material' reality and not the 'social' one is that all of our social predicaments are a reflection of the underlying material reality. If you want to see where I'm coming from when I say that if it weren't for imperfect choices then our reality wouldn't exist, read Stanislaw Lem's Golem XIV story. Our whole human and animal existence is a chemical response to the overabundance of oxygen created as waste by photosynthesizing bacteria. if we lived in a more just ecosystem we would get our energy from the sun and our bodies would be made from minerals gotten directly from the soil. Our whole existence is a result of life evolving to adapt to the limitations set by previous life on Earth which evolved without the intellect to shape the earth's ecosystem on the whole . I don't know if there is another actual reality where things work out easier than ours but I need to make a comparison to something. All I wanted to say is that IF there is a more orderly existence without tough choices like between preserving wildlife's habitat or mining metals from a mountain, that we would either be forced to choose only an ideal choice or we would choose between equally fine choices such as picking between life on one of two different identical star systems which have different geographies but both support life and no matter which place you chose to live you'd be happy all the time and live an equally long time. Can I say for certain that such a thing is somehow 'wrong'? No, only that from a perspective of choice that it seems rather boring because there's either a right way to do something and thus an ideal state of being that one can only disobey or there's no significant choices to be made at all and thus that our reality being so non-ideal makes it more appealing to live in in a certain dis-attached ironic way because it gives our life a character that only imperfection can. There was something else I wanted to say but it slipped my mind and this seems to cover it about as well as I can manage. When I said "many possible worlds to live in" take it like this: There would only be a universe where everything worked out fine and we wouldn't exist, and just about everything we know wouldn't either. Okay, I read it over again. Is all you are saying is that the way reality is in this universe makes it more interesting than if we lived in a non-existent "perfect" world? And that if the world had came about in a different way, then this reality wouldn't exist? I would agree with that obviously. What would a perfect world even be? If we lived in this imaginary world wouldn't even know it was boring or that we were missing anything? It might be impossible that a world like that could even exist. Am I glad we don't live in a world like that? Yes, but only because it sounds very boring from the perception of someone living in a non-perfect world. If this is what you are talking about then you wrote it out way more complicated than it needed to be. You got most of it. As for the 'perfect world' I don't know for sure whether it exists or not. I do know, or at least assume through observation, that by the standards of perfection that we live a very imperfect world. If there is a multiverse with universes of varying degrees of perfection then we'd likely not be anywhere near the top. If we assume that there is a multiverse then if one were to take out the imperfect ones then most of the possibilities would not exist. And yes, the choices one could make would be very limiting to us because there's not any alternatives to an ideal choice or that there's multiple choices but each one is essentially meaningless in a way. That would be also because we need imperfection but in limited amounts, just enough so that we don't need to worry about failure to be perfect since complete perfection is unachievable so we needn't strive for it, but also varied degrees of imperfection so that one choice is better than the alternative and we thus have a reason to make the best decision we can. A perfect universe would be like the town in the movie Interstate 60 where there's a drug that makes you blissfully happy but you just end up craving the drug and don't have the freedom to feel happy as a result of good choices. I'm having trouble expressing an important thought but I'll give it a try: There is an importance of choice that exists due to the complexity of the outcomes due to compromise in a less than ideal universe, and that lack of ideality gives us a purpose beyond mere abstraction by giving us a sort of sensory and conscious quality that allows us a perspective that a more perfect one needn't have. I'm not sure that I phrased that well enough, and I suspect that it may be a very flawed idea even if phrased correctly.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 30, 2020 4:17:54 GMT
Okay, I read it over again. Is all you are saying is that the way reality is in this universe makes it more interesting than if we lived in a non-existent "perfect" world? And that if the world had came about in a different way, then this reality wouldn't exist? I would agree with that obviously. What would a perfect world even be? If we lived in this imaginary world wouldn't even know it was boring or that we were missing anything? It might be impossible that a world like that could even exist. Am I glad we don't live in a world like that? Yes, but only because it sounds very boring from the perception of someone living in a non-perfect world. If this is what you are talking about then you wrote it out way more complicated than it needed to be. You got most of it. As for the 'perfect world' I don't know for sure whether it exists or not. I do know, or at least assume through observation, that by the standards of perfection that we live a very imperfect world. If there is a multiverse with universes of varying degrees of perfection then we'd likely not be anywhere near the top. If we assume that there is a multiverse then if one were to take out the imperfect ones then most of the possibilities would not exist. And yes, the choices one could make would be very limiting to us because there's not any alternatives to an ideal choice or that there's multiple choices but each one is essentially meaningless in a way. That would be also because we need imperfection but in limited amounts, just enough so that we don't need to worry about failure to be perfect since complete perfection is unachievable so we needn't strive for it, but also varied degrees of imperfection so that one choice is better than the alternative and we thus have a reason to make the best decision we can. A perfect universe would be like the town in the movie Interstate 60 where there's a drug that makes you blissfully happy but you just end up craving the drug and don't have the freedom to feel happy as a result of good choices. I'm having trouble expressing an important thought but I'll give it a try: There is an importance of choice that exists due to the complexity of the outcomes due to compromise in a less than ideal universe, and that lack of ideality gives us a purpose beyond mere abstraction by giving us a sort of sensory and conscious quality that allows us a perspective that a more perfect one needn't have. I'm not sure that I phrased that well enough, and I suspect that it may be a very flawed idea even if phrased correctly. I understand all that. Meaning that after I figured out your initial point, the response above makes sense. The disconnect between me and you is that you find more meaning in it than I do. I often make bad choices, knowing they are bad choices and just not caring. There is of course reasons for why I do this, but I am not willing to get into that right now. I am hanging on to the little bit in this life that I give a shit about. Maybe I am off base here and this has nothing to do with what you are talking about.
|
|
gw
Junior Member
@gw
Posts: 1,519
Likes: 557
|
Post by gw on Nov 30, 2020 5:29:01 GMT
You got most of it. As for the 'perfect world' I don't know for sure whether it exists or not. I do know, or at least assume through observation, that by the standards of perfection that we live a very imperfect world. If there is a multiverse with universes of varying degrees of perfection then we'd likely not be anywhere near the top. If we assume that there is a multiverse then if one were to take out the imperfect ones then most of the possibilities would not exist. And yes, the choices one could make would be very limiting to us because there's not any alternatives to an ideal choice or that there's multiple choices but each one is essentially meaningless in a way. That would be also because we need imperfection but in limited amounts, just enough so that we don't need to worry about failure to be perfect since complete perfection is unachievable so we needn't strive for it, but also varied degrees of imperfection so that one choice is better than the alternative and we thus have a reason to make the best decision we can. A perfect universe would be like the town in the movie Interstate 60 where there's a drug that makes you blissfully happy but you just end up craving the drug and don't have the freedom to feel happy as a result of good choices. I'm having trouble expressing an important thought but I'll give it a try: There is an importance of choice that exists due to the complexity of the outcomes due to compromise in a less than ideal universe, and that lack of ideality gives us a purpose beyond mere abstraction by giving us a sort of sensory and conscious quality that allows us a perspective that a more perfect one needn't have. I'm not sure that I phrased that well enough, and I suspect that it may be a very flawed idea even if phrased correctly. I understand all that. Meaning that after I figured out your initial point, the response above makes sense. The disconnect between me and you is that you find more meaning in it than I do. I often make bad choices, knowing they are bad choices and just not caring. There is of course reasons for why I do this, but I am not willing to get into that right now. I am hanging on to the little bit in this life that I give a shit about. Maybe I am off base here and this has nothing to do with what you are talking about. My ideas are pretty general and every situation is different. I hope you find something else to care about.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 30, 2020 5:35:56 GMT
I understand all that. Meaning that after I figured out your initial point, the response above makes sense. The disconnect between me and you is that you find more meaning in it than I do. I often make bad choices, knowing they are bad choices and just not caring. There is of course reasons for why I do this, but I am not willing to get into that right now. I am hanging on to the little bit in this life that I give a shit about. Maybe I am off base here and this has nothing to do with what you are talking about. My ideas are pretty general and every situation is different. I hope you find something else to care about. It would seem that way. I appreciate the effort.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Nov 30, 2020 9:56:40 GMT
My view was based off of chromosomes and the ability to procreate. But you have chosen to define gender in that narrow way. There's no scientific evidence that obliges you to define it that way - it's a judgement call on your part. The ability to procreate is a bit problematic too. Plenty of people are born without the ability to procreate - what gender would they be?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 30, 2020 12:53:45 GMT
My view was based off of chromosomes and the ability to procreate. But you have chosen to define gender in that narrow way. There's no scientific evidence that obliges you to define it that way - it's a judgement call on your part. The ability to procreate is a bit problematic too. Plenty of people are born without the ability to procreate - what gender would they be? Biology deals in facts. Although psychology and elements of psychiatry are often considered "science" they can deal in far less readily measured parameters. Basing a definition of gender on biology is in fact a very scientific and practical way of doing things.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 30, 2020 13:03:31 GMT
But you have chosen to define gender in that narrow way. There's no scientific evidence that obliges you to define it that way - it's a judgement call on your part. The ability to procreate is a bit problematic too. Plenty of people are born without the ability to procreate - what gender would they be? Biology deals in facts. Although psychology and elements of psychiatry are often considered "science" they can deal in far less readily measured parameters. Basing a definition of gender on biology is in fact a very scientific and practical way of doing things. gender /ˈdʒɛndə/ noun 1. either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female. sex /sɛks/ ... 2. 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. "adults of both sexes"
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 30, 2020 13:35:53 GMT
Biology deals in facts. Although psychology and elements of psychiatry are often considered "science" they can deal in far less readily measured parameters. Basing a definition of gender on biology is in fact a very scientific and practical way of doing things. gender /ˈdʒɛndə/ noun 1. either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female. sex /sɛks/ ... 2. 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. "adults of both sexes" 1) I am not in elementary school, I graduated that and much more. 2) My words mean what I tell you they mean, and if you had any sense, graduated elementary school yourself, and could think clearly and precisely you would use words the way I do. 3) I explained why using "cultural" determinants of gender is error prone. You do that a lot. You depend on definitions that have no precise or standard criteria. Thus you are a hopeless muddle brain. We noticed this before with your concepts of "gnostic and agnostic." 4) Using a biological determinant is far less error prone, has far more wide agreement, and is thus more useful. That is my point here. 5) Since no dictionary listing is based on anything but usage and sometimes usage is muddled, you may not use a dictionary to argue any facts in question. Only people as seriously brain damaged as you argue facts with a dictionary.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Nov 30, 2020 15:51:12 GMT
Basing a definition of gender on biology is in fact a very scientific and practical way of doing things. Biology is more than just chromosomes though. Plus the question is how should transgender people be treated in society so the social elements of gender are perhaps more pertinent than chromosomes.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 30, 2020 17:32:50 GMT
gender /ˈdʒɛndə/ noun 1. either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female. sex /sɛks/ ... 2. 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. "adults of both sexes" 2) My words mean what I tell you they mean, I am pleased that here you echo my oft-repeated assertion that we ought take what religious people say at face value. That of course does not mean they are right. Given the number of times I have had cause to correct you on such matters, this is ironic. Please quote where I have done this, or indeed why we should take you as a guide to the 'right' cultural determinants. Evasion will be noted. I simply go by what one can find easily in the dictionary as standard definitions - in this case, distinguishing between related terms. Your criteria often appears to depend on whether such accord with your prejudices. In the case of 'gender' against 'sex', the former is more often used in reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. Fact. I hope that helps but if not, as newly-appointed expert on sex and gender, feel to argue with the dictionary over these standard criteria, and win again. Where you said "... agnosticism, which is a lack of belief" even though it is more specifically the view that the existence of God is unknown or unknowable? Still stings, huh? Another time when a standard dictionary definition proved inconvenient. Thank you for your opinion, but you specifically referred to " basing a definition of gender on biology" whereas I have shown that it is sex that is the more common biological determinant rather than gender - which is my point here. Don't tell me what I can do, although I fully agree usage is muddled as you say, just as the WHO (below) also recognises. This since, well, you have lately demonstrated it lol. You appeared to blur, or muddle, an essential and useful difference between the different concepts of sex and gender, presumably for reasons of your usual rhetoric. Simple as that. If you deny this muddlement, please make it clear. As usual, evasion will be noted here as well. For everyone else here, is the case in a nutshell, from the World Health Organisation:
|
|
gw
Junior Member
@gw
Posts: 1,519
Likes: 557
|
Post by gw on Nov 30, 2020 21:30:09 GMT
My view was based off of chromosomes and the ability to procreate. But you have chosen to define gender in that narrow way. There's no scientific evidence that obliges you to define it that way - it's a judgement call on your part. The ability to procreate is a bit problematic too. Plenty of people are born without the ability to procreate - what gender would they be? If they have the organs of a specific gender even though they don't work, that would decide their gender I suppose or maybe we just refer to people by their sex. I'm sort of mixed on how the term gender is used because I think it boxes people in based on their eccentricities and often seems like it's just an easy way to sidestep the norms of being a man or a woman without challenging the social order. I can't say that that is true for all cases because of the mental differences and all, but once it gets to the point where people start making up their own gender identities instead of being male, female, or intersex saying things like "I'm genderfluid" or "I'm nonbinary" it becomes an impractical carnival where people feel that they can define themselves as anything they want to without any justification other than "That's what I want to be." and ruins the whole simplicity that makes gender so socially useful.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 30, 2020 22:22:56 GMT
Basing a definition of gender on biology is in fact a very scientific and practical way of doing things. Biology is more than just chromosomes though. Plus the question is how should transgender people be treated in society so the social elements of gender are perhaps more pertinent than chromosomes. I think you don't want my opinion, which is that if a person's biological gender and fantasy gender do not match, it is the problem of that individual, not society's. I believe the "fantasy" gender can be changed (proofs are sketchy). There are still professionals who "cure" people whose biological and fantasy genders do not match. Attempting to change the biological gender to suit the fantasy gender is far less successful. Since the fantasy gender is ill defined can change, I don't believe the public need concern itself with any fantasy genders.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 30, 2020 23:01:32 GMT
Biology is more than just chromosomes though. Plus the question is how should transgender people be treated in society so the social elements of gender are perhaps more pertinent than chromosomes. I think you don't want my opinion, which is that if a person's biological gender and fantasy gender do not match, it is the problem of that individual, not society's. I believe the "fantasy" gender can be changed (proofs are sketchy). There are still professionals who "cure" people whose biological and fantasy genders do not match. Presumably of the same school who 'cure' homosexuals. 'Fantasy genders'. As sensitive as ever, I see.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Nov 30, 2020 23:09:40 GMT
I believe the "fantasy" gender can be changed (proofs are sketchy). There are still professionals who "cure" people whose biological and fantasy genders do not match. Attempting to change the biological gender to suit the fantasy gender is far less successful. If I understand your terminology correctly, the opposite is true. Conversion therapies have a well-documented link to suicide, homelessness and addiction.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 30, 2020 23:35:01 GMT
FilmFlaneur said: [ full text here] < clips >
- you echo my oft-repeated assertion that we ought take what religious people say at face value.
- I have had cause to correct you on such matters
- why [should we] take you as a guide to the 'right' cultural determinants [?]
- For everyone else here, is the case in a nutshell, from the World Health Organisation:
- I have tried to explain to you that because the Bible is written beyond your rudimentary reading level, it is also often the case that the attempts of people to explain their beliefs to you are just as beyond your level of understanding. Try as you might to "accept" their definitions, those remain beyond your reach. It might serve your understanding to have clear definitions from an expert on English. A list is here.
- You have never successfully shown that I was, am, or ever will be in any error.
- That is a very good question since I never offered any criteria. What I did was point out that you have none, and thus your meaning is imprecise. The meaning of "fantasy" gender is very precise because it simply means based on criteria that are not obviously biological or that are merely mental.
- That would mean so much more if the "World Health Organization" spoke English or had any cause or right to set definitions in English.
What happened that you failed to notice is that in the past "gender" was used rather strictly to refer to grammatical gender. You should readily notice that grammatical gender is very different and requires a different word. The difference between sex, the biological state, and sex, the activity, was something people solved by examining the context. Later when people like you obliterated context, the need for a different word for the state and the activity become apparent and "gender" was stolen for the state.
The obvious precise solution is to use biological gender, fantasy gender, and grammatical gender for the three needful definitions. There should be no confusion. Also the attempts to use "cultural" determinants of anything are useless (definitions are useful or not) since every culture is different.
You and the W.H.O. are very obviously not making anything more clear. I suspect it is because you do not want to see the truth.
|
|