|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Mar 20, 2017 21:36:33 GMT
We're living in an age of such entitled narcissism that people desperately want to conflate individuality with biological distinctiveness. They've dyed their hair, they've got the tats, they've got the piercings and yet the world still isn't noticing them. What else can they do to demand that the world acknowledges their uniqueness? Well, they can be so unique as to deserve their own gender. That's top trumps for biological distinctiveness. There are two genders. This is a biological fact. That individuals may deviate from them does not mean we send them to the gulag or the concentration camps, it simply means there are biological norms. Human beings have two eyes. If someone is born with one or three (or even born with two but identifies as a three eyed person), this does not result in a new biologically distinct life-form -- it results in a deviation from the biological norm. That doesn't mean we hate them or want to stop them from working in the local green grocers. It simply means that there are deviations from the norm. The zealous ideology that we must create a society where every single unique individual is scientifically recognised for their uniqueness is ludicrous. If you want to identify as zeeba and reject the biological norm of your existence, that's fine (no-one's stopping you) but please... for the love of God, do not expect (or demand) that the rest of society adhere to that identity lest it be branded hateful and bigoted. Your individuality is not the same as biological distinctiveness. Anyone who says otherwise does not understand (and is a threat to) science. You've confused gender (a social construct) with sex (a biological construct). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2017 22:34:14 GMT
We're living in an age of such entitled narcissism that people desperately want to conflate individuality with biological distinctiveness. They've dyed their hair, they've got the tats, they've got the piercings and yet the world still isn't noticing them. What else can they do to demand that the world acknowledges their uniqueness? Well, they can be so unique as to deserve their own gender. That's top trumps for biological distinctiveness. There are two genders. This is a biological fact. That individuals may deviate from them does not mean we send them to the gulag or the concentration camps, it simply means there are biological norms. Human beings have two eyes. If someone is born with one or three (or even born with two but identifies as a three eyed person), this does not result in a new biologically distinct life-form -- it results in a deviation from the biological norm. That doesn't mean we hate them or want to stop them from working in the local green grocers. It simply means that there are deviations from the norm. The zealous ideology that we must create a society where every single unique individual is scientifically recognised for their uniqueness is ludicrous. If you want to identify as zeeba and reject the biological norm of your existence, that's fine (no-one's stopping you) but please... for the love of God, do not expect (or demand) that the rest of society adhere to that identity lest it be branded hateful and bigoted. Your individuality is not the same as biological distinctiveness. Anyone who says otherwise does not understand (and is a threat to) science. You've confused gender (a social construct) with sex (a biological construct). A meaningless distinction. You could just as easily say I've confused black people with imaginary black people. Semantics will no doubt play a big role in the coming debate though. |
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Mar 20, 2017 22:39:26 GMT
Incorrect. It's a very meaningful distinction. Saying gender is a scientific fact is the equivalent of saying English is a biological fact.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2017 23:17:10 GMT
Incorrect. It's a very meaningful distinction. Saying gender is a scientific fact is the equivalent of saying English is a biological fact. No, it really isn't. They're currently interchangeable but I do realise there is a concerted effort to change that (which I have no problem with as it serves to further separate the issue between scientific fact and cultural interpretation). |
|
|
|
Post by woozlewuzzle on Mar 21, 2017 4:15:22 GMT
No no Spanky, let's see that source for 49 genders existing. Go on: we're waiting. Do you have reading comprehension issues? As I said, you're asking me to support a statement I haven't made or said I believe. But you have said that according to science there's only two. Why won't you provide a scientific source for your claim? Still waiting, champ. Show us scientific proof there are 18 genders. |
|
|
|
Post by woozlewuzzle on Mar 21, 2017 4:21:36 GMT
Incorrect. It's a very meaningful distinction. Saying gender is a scientific fact is the equivalent of saying English is a biological fact. Why am I not surprised you would have idiotic things to say on this subject? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2017 11:51:05 GMT
Do you have reading comprehension issues? As I said, you're asking me to support a statement I haven't made or said I believe. But you have said that according to science there's only two. Why won't you provide a scientific source for your claim? Still waiting, champ. Show us scientific proof there are 18 genders. So you can't actually read. |
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Mar 21, 2017 13:37:26 GMT
Incorrect. It's a very meaningful distinction. Saying gender is a scientific fact is the equivalent of saying English is a biological fact. No, it really isn't. They're currently interchangeable but I do realise there is a concerted effort to change that (which I have no problem with as it serves to further separate the issue between scientific fact and cultural interpretation). Yes, it is. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2017 14:24:13 GMT
No, it really isn't. They're currently interchangeable but I do realise there is a concerted effort to change that (which I have no problem with as it serves to further separate the issue between scientific fact and cultural interpretation). Yes, it is. That's not an argument; that's a demonstration of stupidity. Have another bash at it. |
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Mar 21, 2017 14:35:58 GMT
My argument was already made. Gender is cultural and sex is biological. They're not the same thing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2017 15:18:40 GMT
My argument was already made. Gender is cultural and sex is biological. They're not the same thing. Then all you're doing is strengthening the word sex as a scientific term and diluting the word gender. This seems like an empty gesture designed to placate those with a political agenda. I'm not against it but it really does feel like a rather pointless endeavour. |
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Mar 21, 2017 16:26:34 GMT
Not at all. Saying gender is cultural is no more diluting than saying language and gestures are cultural.
The point of the endeavor is to just allow people to be comfortable in their gender identities. There's nothing wrong with that, nor is it pointless.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2017 22:50:57 GMT
Not at all. Saying gender is cultural is no more diluting than saying language and gestures are cultural. The point of the endeavor is to just allow people to be comfortable in their gender identities. There's nothing wrong with that, nor is it pointless. It's an obvious compromise. There is a political agenda being pushed by one group and a scientific agenda being pushed by another. Throwing gender out as a scientific, biological term (to be firmly replaced by sex) is an attempt by the latter to appease the former. It's a very dangerous game to play. What scientific words will we redefine or abandon next to make a portion of society feel better about themselves? Gender being appropriated as a social construct only reaffirms that it isn't scientific. For the purposes of this debate, I'm happy to use sex if it calms the ideological zealots down. There are two sexes. |
|
|
|
Post by Nostalgias4Geeks🌈 on Mar 22, 2017 6:23:54 GMT
Gender is a social construct. "Men" wear pants. "Women wear dresses". Sex is biological. In that case there is male, female, and intersexed. Pretty simple. Not at all. Saying gender is cultural is no more diluting than saying language and gestures are cultural. The point of the endeavor is to just allow people to be comfortable in their gender identities. There's nothing wrong with that, nor is it pointless. It's an obvious compromise. There is a political agenda being pushed by one group and a scientific agenda being pushed by another. Throwing gender out as a scientific, biological term (to be firmly replaced by sex) is an attempt by the latter to appease the former. It's a very dangerous game to play. What scientific words will we redefine or abandon next to make a portion of society feel better about themselves? Gender being appropriated as a social construct only reaffirms that it isn't scientific. For the purposes of this debate, I'm happy to use sex if it calms the ideological zealots down. There are two sexes. Incorrect. There are people born "intersex" which are people with variations of different male/female chromosomes, sex hormones, genitals, etc. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 14:35:14 GMT
Gender is a social construct. "Men" wear pants. "Women wear dresses". Sex is biological. In that case there is male, female, and intersexed. Pretty simple. It's an obvious compromise. There is a political agenda being pushed by one group and a scientific agenda being pushed by another. Throwing gender out as a scientific, biological term (to be firmly replaced by sex) is an attempt by the latter to appease the former. It's a very dangerous game to play. What scientific words will we redefine or abandon next to make a portion of society feel better about themselves? Gender being appropriated as a social construct only reaffirms that it isn't scientific. For the purposes of this debate, I'm happy to use sex if it calms the ideological zealots down. There are two sexes. Incorrect. There are people born "intersex" which are people with variations of different male/female chromosomes, sex hormones, genitals, etc. And there are people born with extra fingers. That means they have deviated from the biological norm, not that they're a unique third option for what constitutes normal fingerage. And the gender/sex argument is indeed semantics. You want to subvert the word gender (because hey, it was definitely invented to specify clothing and hair length, right?) then you go ahead. There is no obligation for the rest of us to take you seriously. |
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Mar 22, 2017 15:27:15 GMT
Gender defines social roles and traditions. None of which are biological.
So, yes, it is semantics because that's what the word gender means: "the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones)."
It'd be like arguing that no one has to take the definition of evolution seriously.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 18:52:33 GMT
So, yes, it is semantics because that's what the word gender means: " the state of being male or female Yes. No. The definition of gender that you're using (social roles) is a bastardisation of the word gender meaning biological sex. The word has been politicised entirely and the idea that it always referred to a cultural understanding of sex is disingenuous to say the least. It very much referred to ones biological gender (sex). I'm more than happy to see it redefined but 1) let's not pretend it always had that meaning and 2) let's acknowledge that if words can be redefined when it suits you, they can also be redefined when it doesn't. Additionally, if we are to run with the gender bender interpretation then what are the other genders? If they go beyond male and female, then what are they? |
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Mar 22, 2017 19:30:21 GMT
So, yes, it is semantics because that's what the word gender means: " the state of being male or female Yes. No. Yes. That wasn't a definition I made up. That's from an updated dictionary. So, it is correct. I don't think you are happy considering how much you're fighting against it. Besides, it's not being refined to suit me. It's being refined to suit many, many other people. And yes, words are refined all the time. Cool used to just mean "cooler in temperature." So it would definitely make sense to refine as we learn more about human psychology. There's literally no reason to fight against increase in knowledge. Homosexuality was once considered a mental disorder. But no, words are never refined when it doesn't suit people. That just doesn't make sense. "Cool will now be refined to mean terrible." No. That'd be like saying gay is a bastardization because it used to mean happy. I have not done the research on that. But when I do, I'll be more than happy to answer. However, for now, I'm not arguing they go beyond male/female. I'm saying what we define as male/female genders is cultural. Not biological. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 19:47:45 GMT
Words are redefined endlessly in cultural terms but not in scientific. That requires a strong political motivation. The dictionary definition has indeed been politicised. Wikipedia - Gender |
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Mar 22, 2017 20:14:42 GMT
Well, that's not correct either. Science is all about refining as we learn more. Just look at what happened as scientists refined the definition of a planet.
Bingo. And not just feminist theory, but also failing to realize that gender roles/traditions/norms/etc are cultural constructs and not some biological imperative. History proves that.
This is no different than people who would argue homosexuality is a mental disorder. That scientists' understanding of gay people is nothing more than a political agenda.
|
|
