Devolution
Member
Gender isn't immutable. There's your problem right there.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
- Status
Gender isn't immutable. There's your problem right there.
We have a winner.
Tell me, how is a woman supposed to think, act, and dress?
You're presenting an emotional argument, not a rational one.
That does seem to be the central point of disagreement, yes. But as I spent considerable time explaining, I don't think you can argue for legally protecting the female gender if it is not an immutable characteristic unless you create a more subjective (and therefore more dangerous) criteria by which to select protected traits. I think that gender is as immutable as race and just as worthy of protection. That is the bottom line.
You're Being Hostile
You're Just Oversensitive
Don't You Have More Important Issues To Think About
I don't have a trope for you, but you're consistently detestable.
If You Won't Educate Me How Can I Learn
You're Just Oversensitive
You're Being Hostile, You're Taking Things Too Personally, You're Just Oversensitive, If You Won't Educate Me How Can I Learn
You Have A False Consciousness
You Have A False Consciousness, You're Arguing With Opinions Not Fact
You Have A False Consciousness, You're Arguing With Opinions Not Fact, I'm Just Saying What Other People Believe
I'm Just Saying What Other People Believe, I Never Said I Agree
You Are Damaging Your Cause By Being Angry
You're Just Being Oversensitive
I'm Just Saying What Other People Believe
You're Not Being a Team Player
It's Only The Internet
It's Only The Internet
If You Cared About These Matters You'd Be Willing to Educate Me, But You're Different From The Others
But You're Different From The Others, You Have a False Consciousness
A In B Situation Is Not Equivalent to X in Y Situation, You Have a False Consciousness
You Are As Bad As They Are, You Have a False Consciousness
You Have a False Consciousness
You Have a False Consciousness, You're Not Being Intellectual Enough/You're Being Overly Intellectual
The more you know !
Devolution
Member
It can be but I don't see your hang up about those who feel as though they are women becoming women. GiD is a real issue that affects the mental health of the individual and if it's something within the realm of possible things to change in someone for the better I don't understand the hang ups here. I can't imagine what daily tortures someone who identifies as a woman goes through in a prison meant for men.
Gender hasn't ever been immutable by any standards. It changes just as the definition for man or woman changes. We've decided as a society (despite the presence of gender queer individuals) that there are basically men and there are women. We've endowed each with their own set of characteristics, fashion styles, and even police their behavior. These standards though overlap more and more with time. So to declare gender immutable isn't quite true.
Now we're starting to see where our own discrimination doesn't let us more forward and recognize more genders because we're still trying to get women to catch up. And we still have generations upon generations of baggage and the idea that women act like x and men act like y. Then enter in the individuals who feel like they were given y physically but would rather be x (and vice versa). And who is anyone to deny them this? Maybe it's our fault, that despite all of our knowledge and knowing better by this point we still hold on to these old tired traditional narratives about gender. Or maybe science/biology got it wrong and they have a brain that doesn't align with their physical outside. Either way I don't think it's beyond the scope of anyone to understand if they try.
Silver_key
Neo Member
I'd be interested in knowing if these prison sex changes have a significant effect on the behavior and rehabilitation of those inmates. Part of the deal of prison is losing one's freedoms, but I do believe that another part should be the rehab of prisoners.
If this can change a monster into a maiden, then I think it's worth considering.
If this can change a monster into a maiden, then I think it's worth considering.
I don't mean to offend anybody. My opinion is the operation changes the sex, not when the person identifies differently. Think of me what you will but that's the definition I've known for my entire life.
JeTmAn81
Member
They really need an entry on that page for "No, you're derailing!".
You Have a False Concsiousness, You're Arguing With Opinions Not Fact
I'm done with that for now. But seriously. Before you post, pretend you have a sibling or child who's trans and see if you could recite it to them while looking them in the eye.
You keep throwing out "rational", so I'm going to try and make this as rational as possible so you can't try and claim otherwise.
We previously agreed upon the following definition of the term gender, no?
Let us focus on the middle concept of cultural traits, as it is the one that gives clarity to the relevance of behavioral and psychological traits in regards to determining gender. While culture is a complex concept that could otherwise take an entire lifetime's worth of study to determine the meaning of, let's just take a look at the Webster definition of the term again.
By that definition, gender, as an offshoot of culture, is a collection of traits that define how a culture separates people of different sex. Obviously, the discussion involves western/globalized culture, so we can easily acknowledge that there are very specific traits our culture has bestowed up on the idea of being a man or a woman.
Since it is culturally accepted for clothing stores to either section themselves off by gender or even dedicate themselves to clothing for just specific genders, obviously clothing, a material trait, represents one trait that portrays a person's gender.
We also have other traits that our culture has also ascribed to our behavior and psychology that relates to gender. These include things such as vocal pitch, ways of thinking, and even the way a person walks.
I present the argument that, rationally speaking, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and ultimately calls itself a duck, then it is a rational, not emotional, statement to just accept it as a duck, even if it is really a goose.
Ya, I hope you're done with that forever. What a shitty and disrespectful way to make posts. Never said I wasn't open for change or wouldn't listen to experience or any of that. I don't see what your goal was with sending me to that site.
As I mentioned before, it's not something I really feel strongly enough about to fight for in my daily life. It poses an intellectual challenge to me, but as I mentioned from the beginning, I generally pretend that it doesn't out of simple courtesy. It matters to them more than it matters to me, and they are often on my side on most other issues in America. I am not a Republican; I do not actively seek to shun or offend them because we disagree on one issue. Liberals cannot afford to be divided in this country. That does not, however, mean that I hang critical thought at the door.
The perception and baggage attached to race has also been subject to change over time; at one point in our history we viewed blacks as decrepit and feeble, prone to disease, a lesser physical specimen of humanity. Nowadays we are more likely to prejudge them as athletic and physically capable. What has not changed is the categories themselves. Contrary to Nairume's suggestion, women are not defined by how they like to walk, talk, think, act, and dress. What ties them together is the immutable social construct that they are a part of--just like race.
I think we're very much on the same page here.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Wound up making a post. Try again
I'm sorry, that must have been really difficult to have someone be shitty and disrespectful to you in a trans thread. I bet nobody else in this topic can even imagine how you feel.
Ah, the best of both worlds!
If you do not accept examples of the social construct of which they are a part, then what do you define as the social construct of which they are a part?
You could easily substitute race in your question and receive the same answer; society will judge and view individuals differently based on biological aspects like the melatonin in your skin or the chromosomes in your DNA. Those variables you named are subject to change, expansion, and challenge. The fact that people are categorized has not been.
Since we're in a trans thread I have no right to feel disrespected. Got it.
Someone asked GAF a question and I answered it honestly. Target your rage at them instead of me.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Your condescending tone is such a great way to attract people to your argument...
I really think he's missing a good opportunity to be an ambassador for his cause to an audience that is more in agreement with him than not; unfortunately his determination to antagonize instead of engage will probably consume sympathy instead of creating it. I know I've put him on my ignore list.
No, you couldn't easily substitute race in this questions. The major traits our culture ascribe to gender are behavioral and psychological. The major traits we associate with race are biological.
I will leave you with a picture of this person and allow you to decide what they are.
Or you could just do the reasonable thing and allow them to define themselves.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Typical victim passive-aggressive nonsense imo. I think most people agree with the general decision of the judge, and many of those who don't are clearly open to discussion on the how/why, and are even coming to his position.
Of course, there's no room for compromise or discussion when you decide to call everyone who doesn't agree with you 100% a bigot.
Devolution
Member
It's probably fatigue dude. I get the same way in rape discussions.
Quite the opposite; there is no biological basis for race, and I already gave an example of how society's perceptions of black biology has changed over time. Societal constructions have been built around certain physiological traits. This is how our notions of gender and race were and are constructed.
T.M. MacReady
NO ONE DENIES MEMBER
Why do you think you're allowed to put words in other people's mouths? This is the kind of thing that stops people from wanting to post in controversial threads, it's not right to talk down to or make assumptions about anyone because they state that they can see this thread becoming a mess (which it did). You acting like this is no better than someone being ignorant or saying something that would upset the people in this thread.
You two are really tempting me to label more of your concern trolling after I said I was done
On the first page of this thread, 50ppp, seven people for the ruling and fifteen against it.
You have yet to say why they're relevant. Which is why I'm dismissing them.
I mean, we are talking about pronoun usage. Legal protections don't matter in that context. Whether or not it's "immutable" shouldn't matter. It's about respect for a certain demographic of people, who are of a certain demographic through no fault of their own.
By saying that you only use proper terms for that demographic on conditional terms is insulting to the whole demographic.
It's one thing to say "this thread will be a graveyard," not that that's constructive either. It's completely different to say "I'D BETTER KEEP MY MOUTH SHUT (because those trans-loving moderators will inevitably ban me if i don't)!" I don't see how saying you want to say something hateful but can't is much more noble than actually saying something hateful. If that's the position you find yourself in, just don't post.
I think there's some semantics going on here. Isn't physiology a subset of biology?
T.M. MacReady
NO ONE DENIES MEMBER
Nobody said they wanted to say something hateful. You're making completely unfair assumptions AND being huge dick about it. No wonder people don't want to post in this thread.
I've provided, at considerable length, my rationale for not actually acknowledging that the pronoun shift is legitimate for anyone. When I do change the pronouns, it is simply out of politeness. I travel a lot, I respect local customs when they cost me nothing, and that same common courtesy is what I generally extend to transgendered individuals. I don't agree with their beliefs, but if I have no reason not to, then I will observe them. What I will not do is suspend critical thought and change my beliefs to conform with theirs; not without rational justification. And I certainly do not feel obligated to be polite to absolutely everyone.
Melatonin is a biological phenomenon, but the idea of race has no biological basis as any gene in any given human can be found in other individuals in any other population. Traits like skin color or sex can be explained in scientific terms, but the way we perceive them is a social construct.
Devolution
Member
There are ways of asking questions if you have general ignorance on an issue rather than insulting transfolk which is what many people do in various statements. At this point people on GAF, at least, should know it's respectful to use the pronoun of the gender the subject identifies with. I'm surprised this is still an issue with folks.
T.M. MacReady
NO ONE DENIES MEMBER
None of what I'm referring to involves pronouns, completely unrelated.
This happens in every trans thread, so I think we all know exactly what they mean by now. You're blaming me for keeping people out of the thread when a half dozen posts are explicitly "warning" people to stay away?
yn-neko hates a cat
Banned
You have a really bad attitude.
Pristine_Condition
Member
It's real important for the state to give people who ruthlessly strangle women any costly procedure they feel they need so these murderers can feel good about themselves.
Because it's so cruel and unusual that a murderer who strangled another human being to death should feel bad about themselves for any reason.
Personally, when you climb on top of someone and choke them to death, I stop giving a shit about what you think of yourself, so I disagree with this judge's stupid decision.
Because it's so cruel and unusual that a murderer who strangled another human being to death should feel bad about themselves for any reason.
Personally, when you climb on top of someone and choke them to death, I stop giving a shit about what you think of yourself, so I disagree with this judge's stupid decision.
T.M. MacReady
NO ONE DENIES MEMBER
Ever consider that maybe people stay away from posting in these threads (even if they have positive things to contribute) because they're afraid of getting attacked by posters like yourself with your terrible attitude? You're not adding anything to the discussion or helping anyone learn, you're just being cruel.
Practice what you preach.
Dude Abides
Banned
Immutability is not a necessary condition for a trait to receive legal protection in this country.
You also don't seem to grasp the distinction between gender and sex.
I'm saying your rationale isn't very rational.
You made an argument about immutable characteristics, but you have also previously agreed that it is social construct, which means that it can mutate (based on society, or else it is not a social construct.)
Which is the same as gender. Society has general expectations of men and women. Given those expectations, it is easy to see how's someone's physiology (ie, the brain) would lead someone to act in a way matching expectations of the gender opposite of their physically apparent gender.
You appealed to some other legal stuff, which is irrelevant, given the moral nature of the conversation.
This isn't about "feeling good".
This is about the suicides and castration. That, and the fact that it's illogical to not treat this mental disorder like any other mental disorder (ie, give treatment.)
SousedLouse
Member
Wow, that's a pretty obnoxious post. I Still Have To Listen To You, but it's like you threw a plastic bag of fetid shit and hyperlinks into the thread.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
If someone cut off your dick, you would biologically no longer be considered a man, but wouldn't you still consider yourself one?
Gender identity is very strong with all of us. It's important to be respectful and understanding of this with everyone, not just with straight cis people.
It is to be a "Protected Class" and receive the highest level of consideration, as it should be.
Actually I've addressed this many times over several posts.
Again, your unwillingness to actually engage my argument doesn't make me hopeful that we'll get anywhere in a discussion. There is a very good reason that immutability is used as a criteria for protection; it is objective and it makes sense that the law acknowledges people who have been disadvantaged by traits that cannot be changed.
Physiology is about function of organs and other stuff that make up our body. Melatonin production is a physiological process. And for race to be constructed on physiological traits, bodily functions should be different in different races. But they are not.
Dude Abides
Banned
Religion, disability, and pregnancy are three mutable characteristics that are protected just as strongly as immutable characteristics.
The phrasing here sounds like you're conflating all anti-discrimination law with the equal protection clause, but even then you'd still be wrong since religious discrimination also receives strict scrutiny.
I'm missing the part where we disagree.
I absolutely disagree with religion receiving strict scrutiny. I don't think you'll find me arguing that the status quo is perfect. You have seen me arguing that immutable characteristics are the best and most logical criteria to operate on.
This thread makes me really glad both trans people I know have both explicitly said "fuck people who get upset about pronouns, just use my name or you/they and don't worry about people who worry more about pronouns than legal rights".
That said both of them joke about a certain term/joke that would get me banned here despite the fact that both of us find it hilarious whenever we are out at a party/bar and the particular situation arises. My old black roommate would also call me the n word/other slurs in an old white man voice whenever I did something he deemed "black" to which I found hilarious as well. Maybe my friends are all just crazy fuckers I guess.
That said both of them joke about a certain term/joke that would get me banned here despite the fact that both of us find it hilarious whenever we are out at a party/bar and the particular situation arises. My old black roommate would also call me the n word/other slurs in an old white man voice whenever I did something he deemed "black" to which I found hilarious as well. Maybe my friends are all just crazy fuckers I guess.
Legal arguments != moral arguments.
It doesn't make sense to use a legal argument in a moral argument. Why would I engage it? Justify it to me.
For ease, why not do it in this format?
Premise 1
Premise 2
..
Premise n
----
Conclusion
Dude Abides
Banned
Putting aside the fact that you blithely ignored the other two examples, you've just conceded that your "immutability is why we protect things" is incorrect as an empirical matter. You'll have to come up with some other rationale for why transgenders are less worthy of protection than latinos.
I've seen you asserting it is the best and most logical criteria. I haven't seen you establish it except by reference to legal practice that, it turned out, you did not accurately grasp.
- Status