Total Posts:62|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Triggered

TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 9:30:08 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 9:27:39 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
http://prntscr.com...

I think I will add a gender selection to my poll. How many options can we add?
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 9:46:10 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 9:30:08 PM, TBR wrote:
At 4/21/2016 9:27:39 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
http://prntscr.com...

I think I will add a gender selection to my poll. How many options can we add?

16777216 because that's all the genders that the genderologists at tumblr have discovered.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 9:58:48 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 9:46:10 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 4/21/2016 9:30:08 PM, TBR wrote:
At 4/21/2016 9:27:39 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
http://prntscr.com...

I think I will add a gender selection to my poll. How many options can we add?

16777216 because that's all the genders that the genderologists at tumblr have discovered.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 12:20:42 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 12:15:01 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/21/2016 9:27:39 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
http://prntscr.com...

Yeah, it is too bad that Jack a$$ is not a selection.

And that Tumblr and SJWs aren't behind the realization that gender is a spectrum, not a binary.
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 12:27:54 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 12:20:42 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 4/22/2016 12:15:01 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/21/2016 9:27:39 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
http://prntscr.com...

Yeah, it is too bad that Jack a$$ is not a selection.

And that Tumblr and SJWs aren't behind the realization that gender is a spectrum, not a binary.

At 4/22/2016 12:15:01 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/21/2016 9:27:39 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
http://prntscr.com...

Yeah, it is too bad that Jack a$$ is not a selection.

http://l.wigflip.com...
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 2:10:57 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 9:27:39 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
http://prntscr.com...

With all due respect to the humour, there are people who are genuinely not biological male or female. For example, androgynous people. Is it really that unreasonable that there is not at least an "other" option?
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 2:13:06 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 2:10:57 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/21/2016 9:27:39 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
http://prntscr.com...

With all due respect to the humour, there are people who are genuinely not biological male or female. For example, androgynous people. Is it really that unreasonable that there is not at least an "other" option?

If you're not biologically male or female, you have gender dysphoria/you're transgender. The concept of an androgynous gender is BS.
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 2:17:18 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 2:13:06 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 4/22/2016 2:10:57 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/21/2016 9:27:39 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
http://prntscr.com...

With all due respect to the humour, there are people who are genuinely not biological male or female. For example, androgynous people. Is it really that unreasonable that there is not at least an "other" option?

If you're not biologically male or female, you have gender dysphoria/you're transgender. The concept of an androgynous gender is BS.

Your argument is self-defeating. You've just conceded that there should be another option, due to "gender dysphoria" and "transgender[ism]".

Also, androgyny isn't necessarily a "gender", as genders are social constructs. Since you're making fun of the fluidity that gender gives, you should know this.
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 2:57:41 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 2:17:18 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/22/2016 2:13:06 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 4/22/2016 2:10:57 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/21/2016 9:27:39 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
http://prntscr.com...

With all due respect to the humour, there are people who are genuinely not biological male or female. For example, androgynous people. Is it really that unreasonable that there is not at least an "other" option?

If you're not biologically male or female, you have gender dysphoria/you're transgender. The concept of an androgynous gender is BS.

Your argument is self-defeating. You've just conceded that there should be another option, due to "gender dysphoria" and "transgender[ism]".

Also, androgyny isn't necessarily a "gender", as genders are social constructs. Since you're making fun of the fluidity that gender gives, you should know this.

Gender isn't a social construct, masculinity and femininity are. Transgenders/gender dysphoric peoplell fit into a binary. Also, hermaphrodites eventually identify as a male or female.
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 3:03:45 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 2:57:41 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 4/22/2016 2:17:18 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/22/2016 2:13:06 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 4/22/2016 2:10:57 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/21/2016 9:27:39 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
http://prntscr.com...

With all due respect to the humour, there are people who are genuinely not biological male or female. For example, androgynous people. Is it really that unreasonable that there is not at least an "other" option?

If you're not biologically male or female, you have gender dysphoria/you're transgender. The concept of an androgynous gender is BS.

Your argument is self-defeating. You've just conceded that there should be another option, due to "gender dysphoria" and "transgender[ism]".

Also, androgyny isn't necessarily a "gender", as genders are social constructs. Since you're making fun of the fluidity that gender gives, you should know this.

Gender isn't a social construct, masculinity and femininity are.

"Gender describes the characteristics that a society or culture delineates as masculine or feminine." http://www.med.monash.edu.au...

Masculinity and femininity are sub-categories of gender; you've implictly conceded that gender is a social construct.

Transgenders/gender dysphoric peoplell fit into a binary.

"If you're not biologically male or female, you have gender dysphoria/you're transgender."

The above quote is where you argue that they do not fit into the binary. This contradicts your comment saying that they do not fit into the binary.

Also, hermaphrodites eventually identify as a male or female.

Completely unreferenced.

Your arguments are utterly woeful. Please come back to me when you're capable of making worthwhile arguments.
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 3:07:06 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 3:03:45 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/22/2016 2:57:41 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 4/22/2016 2:17:18 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/22/2016 2:13:06 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 4/22/2016 2:10:57 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/21/2016 9:27:39 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
http://prntscr.com...

With all due respect to the humour, there are people who are genuinely not biological male or female. For example, androgynous people. Is it really that unreasonable that there is not at least an "other" option?

If you're not biologically male or female, you have gender dysphoria/you're transgender. The concept of an androgynous gender is BS.

Your argument is self-defeating. You've just conceded that there should be another option, due to "gender dysphoria" and "transgender[ism]".

Also, androgyny isn't necessarily a "gender", as genders are social constructs. Since you're making fun of the fluidity that gender gives, you should know this.

Gender isn't a social construct, masculinity and femininity are.

"Gender describes the characteristics that a society or culture delineates as masculine or feminine." http://www.med.monash.edu.au...

Masculinity and femininity are sub-categories of gender; you've implictly conceded that gender is a social construct.

Transgenders/gender dysphoric peoplell fit into a binary.

"If you're not biologically male or female, you have gender dysphoria/you're transgender."

The above quote is where you argue that they do not fit into the binary. This contradicts your comment saying that they do not fit into the binary.

Also, hermaphrodites eventually identify as a male or female.

Completely unreferenced.

Your arguments are utterly woeful. Please come back to me when you're capable of making worthwhile arguments.

When you destroy someone in an argument you're supposed to go "#successfulstump".
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 3:10:18 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 3:07:06 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 4/22/2016 3:03:45 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/22/2016 2:57:41 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 4/22/2016 2:17:18 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/22/2016 2:13:06 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 4/22/2016 2:10:57 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/21/2016 9:27:39 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
http://prntscr.com...

With all due respect to the humour, there are people who are genuinely not biological male or female. For example, androgynous people. Is it really that unreasonable that there is not at least an "other" option?

If you're not biologically male or female, you have gender dysphoria/you're transgender. The concept of an androgynous gender is BS.

Your argument is self-defeating. You've just conceded that there should be another option, due to "gender dysphoria" and "transgender[ism]".

Also, androgyny isn't necessarily a "gender", as genders are social constructs. Since you're making fun of the fluidity that gender gives, you should know this.

Gender isn't a social construct, masculinity and femininity are.

"Gender describes the characteristics that a society or culture delineates as masculine or feminine." http://www.med.monash.edu.au...

Masculinity and femininity are sub-categories of gender; you've implictly conceded that gender is a social construct.

Transgenders/gender dysphoric peoplell fit into a binary.

"If you're not biologically male or female, you have gender dysphoria/you're transgender."

The above quote is where you argue that they do not fit into the binary. This contradicts your comment saying that they do not fit into the binary.

Also, hermaphrodites eventually identify as a male or female.

Completely unreferenced.

Your arguments are utterly woeful. Please come back to me when you're capable of making worthwhile arguments.

When you destroy someone in an argument you're supposed to go "#successfulstump".

I'm not interested in your silly political memes.
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 3:11:01 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 3:10:18 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/22/2016 3:07:06 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 4/22/2016 3:03:45 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/22/2016 2:57:41 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 4/22/2016 2:17:18 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/22/2016 2:13:06 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 4/22/2016 2:10:57 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/21/2016 9:27:39 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
http://prntscr.com...

With all due respect to the humour, there are people who are genuinely not biological male or female. For example, androgynous people. Is it really that unreasonable that there is not at least an "other" option?

If you're not biologically male or female, you have gender dysphoria/you're transgender. The concept of an androgynous gender is BS.

Your argument is self-defeating. You've just conceded that there should be another option, due to "gender dysphoria" and "transgender[ism]".

Also, androgyny isn't necessarily a "gender", as genders are social constructs. Since you're making fun of the fluidity that gender gives, you should know this.

Gender isn't a social construct, masculinity and femininity are.

"Gender describes the characteristics that a society or culture delineates as masculine or feminine." http://www.med.monash.edu.au...

Masculinity and femininity are sub-categories of gender; you've implictly conceded that gender is a social construct.

Transgenders/gender dysphoric peoplell fit into a binary.

"If you're not biologically male or female, you have gender dysphoria/you're transgender."

The above quote is where you argue that they do not fit into the binary. This contradicts your comment saying that they do not fit into the binary.

Also, hermaphrodites eventually identify as a male or female.

Completely unreferenced.

Your arguments are utterly woeful. Please come back to me when you're capable of making worthwhile arguments.

When you destroy someone in an argument you're supposed to go "#successfulstump".

I'm not interested in your silly political memes.

):
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 3:31:34 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 3:03:45 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/22/2016 2:57:41 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 4/22/2016 2:17:18 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/22/2016 2:13:06 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 4/22/2016 2:10:57 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/21/2016 9:27:39 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
http://prntscr.com...

With all due respect to the humour, there are people who are genuinely not biological male or female. For example, androgynous people. Is it really that unreasonable that there is not at least an "other" option?

If you're not biologically male or female, you have gender dysphoria/you're transgender. The concept of an androgynous gender is BS.

Your argument is self-defeating. You've just conceded that there should be another option, due to "gender dysphoria" and "transgender[ism]".

Also, androgyny isn't necessarily a "gender", as genders are social constructs. Since you're making fun of the fluidity that gender gives, you should know this.

Gender isn't a social construct, masculinity and femininity are.

"Gender describes the characteristics that a society or culture delineates as masculine or feminine." http://www.med.monash.edu.au...

Masculinity and femininity are sub-categories of gender; you've implictly conceded that gender is a social construct.
Nice job at quoting a propaganda study. But to be serious, it would be quite silly to change our understanding of gender because of a few "special snowflakes." Most people do in fact associate gender as male/female. The SJW concept of having hundreds of different genders, is quite ridiculous.

Transgenders/gender dysphoric peoplell fit into a binary.

"If you're not biologically male or female, you have gender dysphoria/you're transgender."

The above quote is where you argue that they do not fit into the binary. This contradicts your comment saying that they do not fit into the binary.
I never said that transgenders don't fit into the binary. Also, I apologize for how I worded it. If your gender contradicts with your sex, you're a transgender. XX transgender = male, and XY transgender = female. So transgenders still are male or female.

Also, hermaphrodites eventually identify as a male or female.

Completely unreferenced.

Your arguments are utterly woeful. Please come back to me when you're capable of making worthwhile arguments.

Nice ad hominem there, you had to use insults to discredit my argument? Get some common f*cking sense and actually address my arguments if you would like to dispute my point of view.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 3:34:23 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 2:13:06 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 4/22/2016 2:10:57 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/21/2016 9:27:39 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
http://prntscr.com...

With all due respect to the humour, there are people who are genuinely not biological male or female. For example, androgynous people. Is it really that unreasonable that there is not at least an "other" option?

If you're not biologically male or female, you have gender dysphoria/you're transgender. The concept of an androgynous gender is BS.

Biologically, there is a lot of grey area. It's rare, but it exists. For example, what do you call it when the gene which codes for a crucial element of testicular development (SRY) is cut out of the Y chromosome during meiosis? When this happens, the person never develops male genitalia or other sex characteristics, but also never develops a fully functioning set of female genitalia and ends up infertile. They cannot go through puperty without hormone therapy, because they do not possess ovaries. The reverse can happen, where this gene is transferred to the X chromosome during crossover, though the difference between these 'XX' males and normal males is not as pronounced. (Swyer syndrome and de la Chapelle syndrome)
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 3:38:32 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 12:15:01 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/21/2016 9:27:39 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
http://prntscr.com...

Yeah, it is too bad that Jack a$$ is not a selection.

Huh, sure sure. Facts are hurtful.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 3:38:54 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 2:10:57 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/21/2016 9:27:39 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
http://prntscr.com...

With all due respect to the humour, there are people who are genuinely not biological male or female. For example, androgynous people. Is it really that unreasonable that there is not at least an "other" option?

That is a physical deformity, meaning it's not normal.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 3:42:17 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 3:38:54 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 4/22/2016 2:10:57 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/21/2016 9:27:39 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
http://prntscr.com...

With all due respect to the humour, there are people who are genuinely not biological male or female. For example, androgynous people. Is it really that unreasonable that there is not at least an "other" option?

That is a physical deformity, meaning it's not normal.

This doesn't refute my argument. "Not normal" does not exclude itself from creating a third option to the male/female dichotomy. You're actually agreeing with me.
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 3:45:18 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 3:34:23 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/22/2016 2:13:06 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 4/22/2016 2:10:57 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/21/2016 9:27:39 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
http://prntscr.com...

With all due respect to the humour, there are people who are genuinely not biological male or female. For example, androgynous people. Is it really that unreasonable that there is not at least an "other" option?

If you're not biologically male or female, you have gender dysphoria/you're transgender. The concept of an androgynous gender is BS.

Biologically, there is a lot of grey area. It's rare, but it exists. For example, what do you call it when the gene which codes for a crucial element of testicular development (SRY) is cut out of the Y chromosome during meiosis? When this happens, the person never develops male genitalia or other sex characteristics, but also never develops a fully functioning set of female genitalia and ends up infertile. They cannot go through puperty without hormone therapy, because they do not possess ovaries. The reverse can happen, where this gene is transferred to the X chromosome during crossover, though the difference between these 'XX' males and normal males is not as pronounced. (Swyer syndrome and de la Chapelle syndrome)

This is an excellent post -- it really destroys the biological male-female dichotomy. It's a shame that it's wasted in a response to triangle, given that he appears to prefer mingling in his own contradictory arguments, rather than consider other arguments like this.
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 4:01:41 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 3:45:18 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/22/2016 3:34:23 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/22/2016 2:13:06 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 4/22/2016 2:10:57 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/21/2016 9:27:39 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
http://prntscr.com...

With all due respect to the humour, there are people who are genuinely not biological male or female. For example, androgynous people. Is it really that unreasonable that there is not at least an "other" option?

If you're not biologically male or female, you have gender dysphoria/you're transgender. The concept of an androgynous gender is BS.

Biologically, there is a lot of grey area. It's rare, but it exists. For example, what do you call it when the gene which codes for a crucial element of testicular development (SRY) is cut out of the Y chromosome during meiosis? When this happens, the person never develops male genitalia or other sex characteristics, but also never develops a fully functioning set of female genitalia and ends up infertile. They cannot go through puperty without hormone therapy, because they do not possess ovaries. The reverse can happen, where this gene is transferred to the X chromosome during crossover, though the difference between these 'XX' males and normal males is not as pronounced. (Swyer syndrome and de la Chapelle syndrome)

This is an excellent post -- it really destroys the biological male-female dichotomy. It's a shame that it's wasted in a response to triangle, given that he appears to prefer mingling in his own contradictory arguments, rather than consider other arguments like this.

I don't buy into the whole 'gender is a spectrum' thing, I just think that there is distinct male, distinct female, and a bunch of fuzzy 'others'. A lot of 'genders' are total bullsh!t ('genderfluid' being the most prominent example).
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 4:07:52 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 4:01:41 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/22/2016 3:45:18 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/22/2016 3:34:23 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/22/2016 2:13:06 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 4/22/2016 2:10:57 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/21/2016 9:27:39 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
http://prntscr.com...

With all due respect to the humour, there are people who are genuinely not biological male or female. For example, androgynous people. Is it really that unreasonable that there is not at least an "other" option?

If you're not biologically male or female, you have gender dysphoria/you're transgender. The concept of an androgynous gender is BS.

Biologically, there is a lot of grey area. It's rare, but it exists. For example, what do you call it when the gene which codes for a crucial element of testicular development (SRY) is cut out of the Y chromosome during meiosis? When this happens, the person never develops male genitalia or other sex characteristics, but also never develops a fully functioning set of female genitalia and ends up infertile. They cannot go through puperty without hormone therapy, because they do not possess ovaries. The reverse can happen, where this gene is transferred to the X chromosome during crossover, though the difference between these 'XX' males and normal males is not as pronounced. (Swyer syndrome and de la Chapelle syndrome)

This is an excellent post -- it really destroys the biological male-female dichotomy. It's a shame that it's wasted in a response to triangle, given that he appears to prefer mingling in his own contradictory arguments, rather than consider other arguments like this.

I don't buy into the whole 'gender is a spectrum' thing, I just think that there is distinct male, distinct female, and a bunch of fuzzy 'others'. A lot of 'genders' are total bullsh!t ('genderfluid' being the most prominent example).

I am quite surprised that this time you actually give a relatively reasonable response, as opposed to age discrimination as you did earlier. (Since that was your only f!cKing way of arguing)
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 4:12:51 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 4:01:41 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/22/2016 3:45:18 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/22/2016 3:34:23 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/22/2016 2:13:06 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 4/22/2016 2:10:57 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/21/2016 9:27:39 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
http://prntscr.com...

With all due respect to the humour, there are people who are genuinely not biological male or female. For example, androgynous people. Is it really that unreasonable that there is not at least an "other" option?

If you're not biologically male or female, you have gender dysphoria/you're transgender. The concept of an androgynous gender is BS.

Biologically, there is a lot of grey area. It's rare, but it exists. For example, what do you call it when the gene which codes for a crucial element of testicular development (SRY) is cut out of the Y chromosome during meiosis? When this happens, the person never develops male genitalia or other sex characteristics, but also never develops a fully functioning set of female genitalia and ends up infertile. They cannot go through puperty without hormone therapy, because they do not possess ovaries. The reverse can happen, where this gene is transferred to the X chromosome during crossover, though the difference between these 'XX' males and normal males is not as pronounced. (Swyer syndrome and de la Chapelle syndrome)

This is an excellent post -- it really destroys the biological male-female dichotomy. It's a shame that it's wasted in a response to triangle, given that he appears to prefer mingling in his own contradictory arguments, rather than consider other arguments like this.

I don't buy into the whole 'gender is a spectrum' thing,

Okay.

I just think that there is distinct male, distinct female, and a bunch of fuzzy 'others'.

But if gender is a social construct, meaning that it created rather than innate, then why couldn't people define themselves as a different gender?

A lot of 'genders' are total bullsh!t ('genderfluid' being the most prominent example).

Why?
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 4:20:47 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 4:07:52 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 4/22/2016 4:01:41 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/22/2016 3:45:18 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/22/2016 3:34:23 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/22/2016 2:13:06 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 4/22/2016 2:10:57 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/21/2016 9:27:39 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
http://prntscr.com...

With all due respect to the humour, there are people who are genuinely not biological male or female. For example, androgynous people. Is it really that unreasonable that there is not at least an "other" option?

If you're not biologically male or female, you have gender dysphoria/you're transgender. The concept of an androgynous gender is BS.

Biologically, there is a lot of grey area. It's rare, but it exists. For example, what do you call it when the gene which codes for a crucial element of testicular development (SRY) is cut out of the Y chromosome during meiosis? When this happens, the person never develops male genitalia or other sex characteristics, but also never develops a fully functioning set of female genitalia and ends up infertile. They cannot go through puperty without hormone therapy, because they do not possess ovaries. The reverse can happen, where this gene is transferred to the X chromosome during crossover, though the difference between these 'XX' males and normal males is not as pronounced. (Swyer syndrome and de la Chapelle syndrome)

This is an excellent post -- it really destroys the biological male-female dichotomy. It's a shame that it's wasted in a response to triangle, given that he appears to prefer mingling in his own contradictory arguments, rather than consider other arguments like this.

I don't buy into the whole 'gender is a spectrum' thing, I just think that there is distinct male, distinct female, and a bunch of fuzzy 'others'. A lot of 'genders' are total bullsh!t ('genderfluid' being the most prominent example).

I am quite surprised that this time you actually give a relatively reasonable response, as opposed to age discrimination as you did earlier. (Since that was your only f!cKing way of arguing)

Lol, I was joking. I think 'ageism' is silly, so I just made b!tchy comments about age in that whole thread.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 4:22:59 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 4:12:51 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/22/2016 4:01:41 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/22/2016 3:45:18 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/22/2016 3:34:23 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/22/2016 2:13:06 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
If you're not biologically male or female, you have gender dysphoria/you're transgender. The concept of an androgynous gender is BS.

Biologically, there is a lot of grey area. It's rare, but it exists. For example, what do you call it when the gene which codes for a crucial element of testicular development (SRY) is cut out of the Y chromosome during meiosis? When this happens, the person never develops male genitalia or other sex characteristics, but also never develops a fully functioning set of female genitalia and ends up infertile. They cannot go through puperty without hormone therapy, because they do not possess ovaries. The reverse can happen, where this gene is transferred to the X chromosome during crossover, though the difference between these 'XX' males and normal males is not as pronounced. (Swyer syndrome and de la Chapelle syndrome)

This is an excellent post -- it really destroys the biological male-female dichotomy. It's a shame that it's wasted in a response to triangle, given that he appears to prefer mingling in his own contradictory arguments, rather than consider other arguments like this.

I don't buy into the whole 'gender is a spectrum' thing,

Okay.

I just think that there is distinct male, distinct female, and a bunch of fuzzy 'others'.

But if gender is a social construct, meaning that it created rather than innate, then why couldn't people define themselves as a different gender?

It's not. Gender is rooted in neurology, and social constructs surround it, but it is not just a social construct. If it were, then 'transexualism' wouldn't be immutable.

A lot of 'genders' are total bullsh!t ('genderfluid' being the most prominent example).

Why?

Because you can't change 'genders' on a day to day basis, which are partly inborn and rooted in neurological patterns which can't change rapidly.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 4:27:11 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 4:22:59 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/22/2016 4:12:51 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/22/2016 4:01:41 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/22/2016 3:45:18 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/22/2016 3:34:23 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/22/2016 2:13:06 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
If you're not biologically male or female, you have gender dysphoria/you're transgender. The concept of an androgynous gender is BS.

Biologically, there is a lot of grey area. It's rare, but it exists. For example, what do you call it when the gene which codes for a crucial element of testicular development (SRY) is cut out of the Y chromosome during meiosis? When this happens, the person never develops male genitalia or other sex characteristics, but also never develops a fully functioning set of female genitalia and ends up infertile. They cannot go through puperty without hormone therapy, because they do not possess ovaries. The reverse can happen, where this gene is transferred to the X chromosome during crossover, though the difference between these 'XX' males and normal males is not as pronounced. (Swyer syndrome and de la Chapelle syndrome)

This is an excellent post -- it really destroys the biological male-female dichotomy. It's a shame that it's wasted in a response to triangle, given that he appears to prefer mingling in his own contradictory arguments, rather than consider other arguments like this.

I don't buy into the whole 'gender is a spectrum' thing,

Okay.

I just think that there is distinct male, distinct female, and a bunch of fuzzy 'others'.

But if gender is a social construct, meaning that it created rather than innate, then why couldn't people define themselves as a different gender?

It's not. Gender is rooted in neurology, and social constructs surround it, but it is not just a social construct.

I think that this is conventionally defined as 'biological sex.'

If it were, then 'transexualism' wouldn't be immutable.

Biologically, it might not be immutable. However, if given that gender is a social construct, it is possible to gender identify as transexual, and yet be biologically male, for example.


A lot of 'genders' are total bullsh!t ('genderfluid' being the most prominent example).

Why?

Because you can't change 'genders' on a day to day basis, which are partly inborn and rooted in neurological patterns which can't change rapidly.

Our disagreement, I think, is purely semantical, in regards to definition for the word 'gender'.
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 4:43:14 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 4:27:11 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/22/2016 4:22:59 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/22/2016 4:12:51 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/22/2016 4:01:41 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/22/2016 3:45:18 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/22/2016 3:34:23 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/22/2016 2:13:06 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
If you're not biologically male or female, you have gender dysphoria/you're transgender. The concept of an androgynous gender is BS.

Biologically, there is a lot of grey area. It's rare, but it exists. For example, what do you call it when the gene which codes for a crucial element of testicular development (SRY) is cut out of the Y chromosome during meiosis? When this happens, the person never develops male genitalia or other sex characteristics, but also never develops a fully functioning set of female genitalia and ends up infertile. They cannot go through puperty without hormone therapy, because they do not possess ovaries. The reverse can happen, where this gene is transferred to the X chromosome during crossover, though the difference between these 'XX' males and normal males is not as pronounced. (Swyer syndrome and de la Chapelle syndrome)

This is an excellent post -- it really destroys the biological male-female dichotomy. It's a shame that it's wasted in a response to triangle, given that he appears to prefer mingling in his own contradictory arguments, rather than consider other arguments like this.

I don't buy into the whole 'gender is a spectrum' thing,

Okay.

I just think that there is distinct male, distinct female, and a bunch of fuzzy 'others'.

But if gender is a social construct, meaning that it created rather than innate, then why couldn't people define themselves as a different gender?

It's not. Gender is rooted in neurology, and social constructs surround it, but it is not just a social construct.

I think that this is conventionally defined as 'biological sex.'

Like any system of classification, biological sex and gender are approximations.

If it were, then 'transexualism' wouldn't be immutable.

Biologically, it might not be immutable. However, if given that gender is a social construct, it is possible to gender identify as transexual, and yet be biologically male, for example.

It isn't just a construct. Gender and sex are a complicated intersection of genetics, physiology, environment, and society. Drawing a line between 'biological sex' and 'societal gender' doesn't reflect the actual situation. There are XY and XX chromosomes, there are genitals, there are endocrine distinctions, there are differences in brain morphology and neurology in general, and their are societal constructs which revolve around all of that. So what is a transexual? Most studies show that they are born as one gender, genetically, but various tweaks make it so that their brains develop in a way which is more typical of the other gender. This means that society tells these people that they are male, for example, they have male genitalia and male hormones, but they feel like and identify as female. We can measure all of that.

Genderfluid people are, basically, people who claim that they fluctuate between genders. But we have this model of gender-typical brains which explains transexuals, homosexuals (they have similar profiles, just in different areas), and trends between both sexes. So what do we do when we apply this model to genderfluid people? Do we say that their brains are changing every day, on a macro level (which is completely unfeasible)? Or do we just, you know, not take what people say at face value and apply a critical eye to their claims? If homosexuality and transexuality are immutable, even through intensive therapy (which we are finding is more and more likely), then there is a direct contradiction between allllll of that research, and the claim of some random person which has no research baking it.

A lot of 'genders' are total bullsh!t ('genderfluid' being the most prominent example).

Why?

Because you can't change 'genders' on a day to day basis, which are partly inborn and rooted in neurological patterns which can't change rapidly.

Our disagreement, I think, is purely semantical, in regards to definition for the word 'gender'.

Nope, genderfluid is a complete fabrication.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 4:56:18 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 4:43:14 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/22/2016 4:27:11 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/22/2016 4:22:59 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:

It's not. Gender is rooted in neurology, and social constructs surround it, but it is not just a social construct.

I think that this is conventionally defined as 'biological sex.'

Like any system of classification, biological sex and gender are approximations.

If it were, then 'transexualism' wouldn't be immutable.

Biologically, it might not be immutable. However, if given that gender is a social construct, it is possible to gender identify as transexual, and yet be biologically male, for example.

It isn't just a construct. Gender and sex are a complicated intersection of genetics, physiology, environment, and society. Drawing a line between 'biological sex' and 'societal gender' doesn't reflect the actual situation. There are XY and XX chromosomes, there are genitals, there are endocrine distinctions, there are differences in brain morphology and neurology in general, and their are societal constructs which revolve around all of that. So what is a transexual? Most studies show that they are born as one gender, genetically, but various tweaks make it so that their brains develop in a way which is more typical of the other gender. This means that society tells these people that they are male, for example, they have male genitalia and male hormones, but they feel like and identify as female. We can measure all of that.

Genderfluid people are, basically, people who claim that they fluctuate between genders. But we have this model of gender-typical brains which explains transexuals, homosexuals (they have similar profiles, just in different areas), and trends between both sexes. So what do we do when we apply this model to genderfluid people? Do we say that their brains are changing every day, on a macro level (which is completely unfeasible)? Or do we just, you know, not take what people say at face value and apply a critical eye to their claims? If homosexuality and transexuality are immutable, even through intensive therapy (which we are finding is more and more likely), then there is a direct contradiction between allllll of that research, and the claim of some random person which has no research baking it.


Our disagreement, I think, is purely semantical, in regards to definition for the word 'gender'.

Nope, genderfluid is a complete fabrication.

What is the definition of gender you are using?
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...