The Gender Non-binary debate.
Discussion
desolate said:
neil1jnr said:
I'd assume that most commenting would, but people have a different idea as to what 'gender' is. Personally I won't differentiate gender from sex. However, I accept that my opinion won't be shared by others, and the way language works, I am not saying my view on that is absolutely correct.
It's pretty evident that in your world yours is the only opinion that matters so crack on girlfriend.You missed my point completely and rather than debating you are going for cheap remarks. What's your opinion or argument against what I had said? We are all adult and you can surely rationalise your point of view?
gregs656 said:
neil1jnr said:
but I won't refer to someone biologically male as a female because as a matter of fact they aren't.
How do you know their biology? Do you ask to see every ones sexual organs?Indeed, how on earth would you know their medical history?
How well do you understand the studies around this topic? What have you taken away from them? How did they impact your understanding of sex?
So, you are telling me you never assume, you ask everyone when speaking to them what if they are biologically male or female, or worst still, you ask everyone what pronoun they wish to be referred to as? Give me a break you hypocrite.
In regard to any debate or topic, you can come out with the weak argument of 'how many studies have you read', 'what are your credentials' etc. This sort of response makes you look a bit of an idiot. Are you unable to rationalise your point of view or provide some counter argument to what I said.
I'll repeat again, I won't refer to someone as something they aren't. This goes for males and females that want to be referred to by the pronouns of the opposite sex and for those that identify as neither, they have no chance of me ever playing along with their delusion. I may ask them to seek help though.
Edited by neil1jnr on Thursday 17th January 15:45
_dobbo_ said:
xjay1337 said:
If you think posting a load of emojis gains you some moral high ground you are sorely mistaken.
If I claimed I was a polar bear people would call me insane.
neil1jnr said:
Where have you came to that conclusion when I literally just said that my own view on it is not absolutely correct?
You missed my point completely and rather than debating you are going for cheap remarks. What's your opinion or argument against what I had said? We are all adult and you can surely rationalise your point of view?
I haven't missed the point I have weighed up the evidence from various threads and decided I don't want to discuss the matter with you.You missed my point completely and rather than debating you are going for cheap remarks. What's your opinion or argument against what I had said? We are all adult and you can surely rationalise your point of view?
If we were in a pub I'd move tables or turn my back on you, but we're not.
neil1jnr said:
I'll repeat again, I won't refer to someone as something they aren't. This goes for males and females that want to be referred to by the pronouns of the opposite sex and for those that identify as neither, they have no chance of me ever playing along with their delusion. I may ask them to seek help though.
So if you introduce yourself to someone as Neil, and they say "You look more like a Dave to me, so I'm going to call you Dave" that you'd be totally cool with that? If someone is introduced to you with a female name, presenting as female, and the person introducing the person uses female pronouns for that person whilst doing so, are you really going to bullishly override that and start using male pronouns instead?
We should just refer to everyone as 'they' anyway. Gendered pronouns are useless, plenty of languages manage just fine without them. Regardless of any trans issues, there's no point in the way we arbitrarily distinguish between men and women in our language when not specifically talking about matters related to people's sex/gender. Addressing a room with "ladies and gentlemen" or "boys and girls" is a strange thing we do when you think about it - why bother? We don't say "brunettes and blondes" or "straights and queers" - why draw a dividing line between groups of people anyway?
neil1jnr said:
I don't, I assume, like everybody else does every single day .Although jaw line, shoulder width, hip width, neck/throat, elbows, facial hair, muscle mass, deepness of voice, (and I could go on) give it away most of the time.
So, you are telling me you never assume, you ask everyone when speaking to them what if they are biologically male or female, or worst still, you ask everyone what pronoun they wish to be referred to as? Give me a break you hypocrite.
In regard to any debate or topic, you can come out with the weak argument of 'how many studies have you read', 'what are your credentials' etc. This sort of response makes you look a bit of an idiot. Are you unable to rationalise your point of view or provide some counter argument to what I said.
I'll repeat again, I won't refer to someone as something they aren't. This goes for males and females that want to be referred to by the pronouns of the opposite sex and for those that identify as neither, they have no chance of me ever playing along with their delusion. I may ask them to seek help though.
Many of those things are heavily influenced by hormones.So, you are telling me you never assume, you ask everyone when speaking to them what if they are biologically male or female, or worst still, you ask everyone what pronoun they wish to be referred to as? Give me a break you hypocrite.
In regard to any debate or topic, you can come out with the weak argument of 'how many studies have you read', 'what are your credentials' etc. This sort of response makes you look a bit of an idiot. Are you unable to rationalise your point of view or provide some counter argument to what I said.
I'll repeat again, I won't refer to someone as something they aren't. This goes for males and females that want to be referred to by the pronouns of the opposite sex and for those that identify as neither, they have no chance of me ever playing along with their delusion. I may ask them to seek help though.
I assume all the time, I am not sure how you can assume though, I assume if someone is presenting as female they are female, or if they introduce them selves as so and sos boyfriend or girlfriend etc that is a useful indicator also. If you are going off sex organs alone that seems like a higher standard - how can you be sure you aren't doing something you 'won't' do?
You haven't said anything that is an argument; there is no structure to it. Your opinions are not arguments. My question about what you have read wasn't an argument either, it was a question. Arguments have premises and conclusions.
You say it is a delusion, but the science and medicine disagree with you, and there is some quite fascinating research.
And, as I have pointed out, the standard you are holding your self to you actually can't achieve.
Start here, maybe? https://www.the-scientist.com/features/are-the-bra...
or here: http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/gender-line...
desolate said:
neil1jnr said:
Where have you came to that conclusion when I literally just said that my own view on it is not absolutely correct?
You missed my point completely and rather than debating you are going for cheap remarks. What's your opinion or argument against what I had said? We are all adult and you can surely rationalise your point of view?
I haven't missed the point I have weighed up the evidence from various threads and decided I don't want to discuss the matter with you.You missed my point completely and rather than debating you are going for cheap remarks. What's your opinion or argument against what I had said? We are all adult and you can surely rationalise your point of view?
If we were in a pub I'd move tables or turn my back on you, but we're not.
But no, on you go mate, be a child and let me know that even in reality, not just on a forum, you would refuse to discuss this matter with me.
xjay1337 said:
How is it anti trans??? I am not against anyone. I just don't agree with it and don't believe I should have to either.
If I claimed I was a polar bear people would call me insane.
You're dismissing it out of hand - you don't see how to a trans person that would put you pretty much completely against them? If I claimed I was a polar bear people would call me insane.
Nobody is claiming to be a polar bear, that's a silly hypothetical. This thread is about gender.
xjay1337 said:
_dobbo_ said:
xjay1337 said:
If you think posting a load of emojis gains you some moral high ground you are sorely mistaken.
If I claimed I was a polar bear people would call me insane.
king insane and does nothing to further the conversation beyond, "I am a fool who lacks the mental capacity to distinguish between different species of animal"neil1jnr said:
Good for you. You have done the same as I have to an extent; weighed up evidence, formed an opinion on the matter, but the difference between us is that you refuse to debate the topic of discussion. Typical liberal attitude, you simply can't rationalise your own views and opinions. I'll happily change and alter my points of view if I see fit during discussion, you may actually have some argument or point of view that I have missed or have a point of view I agree on.
But no, on you go mate, be a child and let me know that even in reality, not just on a forum, you would refuse to discuss this matter with me.
God you are a self-righteously smug tBut no, on you go mate, be a child and let me know that even in reality, not just on a forum, you would refuse to discuss this matter with me.
t. The only 'evidence' you have weighed up is your own opinion, and no amount of rational argument will cause you to change your mind, so do us a favour and stop presenting your prejudice and bias as something that is a) rational and b) open for discussion.Frankly everything you wrote above is a lie, and you call them the delusional ones.
Clockwork Cupcake said:
If someone is introduced to you with a female name, presenting as female, and the person introducing the person uses female pronouns for that person whilst doing so, are you really going to bullishly override that and start using male pronouns instead?
I suspect only from behind a keyboard. gregs656 said:
To frame this as a problem around language is to ignore why our language has changed around this area. If you accept trans people exist, and have the same rights as you and I, then it makes sense to accommodate them within our language. Changing how we use the word gender is a convenient way of doing it as any. The terminology is not the problem, it is the reasons people either chose to ignore the change in use that is the problem.
I accept that, but equally it must be accepted that the term 'gender' for many still refers to the traditional science terminology referring to classification of between the two sexes.It may take time for the re-definition to settle in to society, and there must be acknowledgement from the 'offended' on that issue.
Straying away from the term 'gender, there is another aspect to this topic that may not sit well with society, in that if it is such that identifying as something that one is biologically/socially not, and is not seen as a mental health issue, then society may have a lot of problems ahead of it.
I think there needs to be some clear boundaries set within society so that everyone knows the 'game' so to speak.
If it is to be acceptable (without cause for concern over mental health) that a male identifies as a female, is it also acceptable that an old man can identify as a young girl? Or that a man can identify as the Queen with full expectation that society should treat them as such? Or that a white man identifies as a black girl?
Going further down the extreme, should society accept a person who identifies as an animal or a plant or even as a fabricated object - with full expectation that society should address and treat them as such (and again without concern over mental health) ?
It all quickly becomes very absurd.
Many would say that in order to accept a person who is identifying as something else, and deem there not to be a mental health issue, is a problem for society, and a missed opportunity to help out people with issues.
Clockwork Cupcake said:
neil1jnr said:
I'll repeat again, I won't refer to someone as something they aren't. This goes for males and females that want to be referred to by the pronouns of the opposite sex and for those that identify as neither, they have no chance of me ever playing along with their delusion. I may ask them to seek help though.
So if you introduce yourself to someone as Neil, and they say "You look more like a Dave to me, so I'm going to call you Dave" that you'd be totally cool with that? If someone is introduced to you with a female name, presenting as female, and the person introducing the person uses female pronouns for that person whilst doing so, are you really going to bullishly override that and start using male pronouns instead?
No, in that instance I wouldn't. If I believe they are female based on the above scenario then yes I'd refer to that person as female. If I thought that they were in fact male; in a social situation I'd ask them politely if they were biologically male or female and if male I'd from then on refer to him as a he. In a professional work situation it would depend, if it was someone I wouldn't be in contact regularly I wouldn't really care less if they identified as male or female, I am not jeopardising my job over it. However, if they were going to end up being a close work colleague, if they were biologically male, I'd refer to them as 'he', because that would be correct.
Davos123 said:
We should just refer to everyone as 'they' anyway. Gendered pronouns are useless, plenty of languages manage just fine without them. Regardless of any trans issues, there's no point in the way we arbitrarily distinguish between men and women in our language when not specifically talking about matters related to people's sex/gender. Addressing a room with "ladies and gentlemen" or "boys and girls" is a strange thing we do when you think about it - why bother? We don't say "brunettes and blondes" or "straights and queers" - why draw a dividing line between groups of people anyway?
'Ladies and gentleman' has historical antecedent, we drew a line between ladies and gentlemen to some degree out of chivalrous intentions [it's not 'gentlemen and ladies' for a reason].Ladies and gentlemen also seems to be the first obvious split amongst a varied population, [if indeed splits are to be made]. It's the fundamental grouping of humans [although it is anachronistic perhaps] barring outliers.
As I said a while back, splitting people into 'good' and 'idiots' is for me the only valuable distinction, albeit rather clumsy for after-dinner speaking.
For the chap not wanting to use preferred pronouns [and I agree with some of what he said hitherto] I would agree that compelled speech (ie Govt. makes it mandatory) is wholly wrong, however for daily use, a bit of politeness works magic and to spool up a beef about what someone prefers to identify as seems disproportionate and rude.
Edited by andy_s on Thursday 17th January 16:12
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff