Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Just when I thought I'd seen everything...

medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2013 5:26:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...

A woman allowed to live as a man, has babies, and is suing to be listed as the birth father. For the LGBTQRST crowd, how far are you willing to go with this nonsense?? Are you going to defend this as behavior that is consistent with that of a mentally healthy individual??

People like this, as well as Octo-mom, should be spayed and their children taken away. In addition, the state should set some ethical standards that doctors must adhere to, and any that participate in this nonsense would lose their license to practice.

http://www.debate.org...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2013 6:42:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/17/2013 5:26:52 AM, medic0506 wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...

A woman allowed to live as a man, has babies, and is suing to be listed as the birth father. For the LGBTQRST crowd, how far are you willing to go with this nonsense?? Are you going to defend this as behavior that is consistent with that of a mentally healthy individual??

The Fool: it's definitely messed up, in the sense that referred to as a man, when it plainly isn't, but so what she wants to be called a man, and live like a man, like a woman. The problem is weirdness or abnormalness is not immoral. Who cares what name she is called. It's just a name. Without, any intentional cause of suffering, it's not a moral case.. It's just weird..

It would be a stronger case it was a type of adoption but to take somebody's kids away? the kids are in a way a part of their parents.

People like this, as well as Octo-mom, should be spayed and their children taken away. In addition, the state should set some ethical standards that doctors must adhere to, and any that participate in this nonsense would lose their license to practice.

Before says forces: http://www.debate.org...
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2013 9:30:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/17/2013 5:26:52 AM, medic0506 wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...

A woman allowed to live as a man, has babies, and is suing to be listed as the birth father. For the LGBTQRST crowd, how far are you willing to go with this nonsense?? Are you going to defend this as behavior that is consistent with that of a mentally healthy individual??

People like this, as well as Octo-mom, should be spayed and their children taken away. In addition, the state should set some ethical standards that doctors must adhere to, and any that participate in this nonsense would lose their license to practice.

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

I agree that it's stupid to lie on a legal document like it makes any sense. And for the government to condone such an act would be silly because it would call into question the government's integrity.

As for taking the kids away, I'm rarely an advocate because there is so much grey in people's logic as to when a child should be taken away, I'm quite sure certain people watching my life would make that claim and provide evidence.
Beverlee
Posts: 721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2013 11:25:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
First of all, this person is a man.

Second of all, he gave birth to the child.

There is no way that giving birth to a child makes you not the child's parent.

There is no way that being a male parent of a child makes you not the child's father.

I don't see the problem. There are people like this that exist. ....And?
AeneasPhebe
Posts: 213
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2013 11:32:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/17/2013 11:25:25 AM, Beverlee wrote:
First of all, this person is a man.

See below _>
Second of all, he gave birth to the child.

Only women can give birth, hence not a man. Just because you want to be called a man and act like a man does not mean you are a man. If I want to be called a God, does that mean I am now a God?

There is no way that giving birth to a child makes you not the child's parent.

I agree, though unhealthy, it is correct.

There is no way that being a male parent of a child makes you not the child's father.

True when you are actually a male.

I don't see the problem. There are people like this that exist. ....And?

It is them and the world living a lie because she is not a man.
Beverlee
Posts: 721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2013 11:35:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/17/2013 11:32:20 AM, AeneasPhebe wrote:
At 9/17/2013 11:25:25 AM, Beverlee wrote:
First of all, this person is a man.

See below _>
Second of all, he gave birth to the child.

Only women can give birth, hence not a man. Just because you want to be called a man and act like a man does not mean you are a man. If I want to be called a God, does that mean I am now a God?

That's not true! A lot of things that are not women can give birth.. like transgender people.

There is no way that giving birth to a child makes you not the child's parent.

I agree, though unhealthy, it is correct.

What isn't healthy about it?

There is no way that being a male parent of a child makes you not the child's father.

True when you are actually a male.


He is legally, actually a male.

I don't see the problem. There are people like this that exist. ....And?

It is them and the world living a lie because she is not a man.

And what are your criteria for being a male?
AeneasPhebe
Posts: 213
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2013 11:42:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/17/2013 11:35:28 AM, Beverlee wrote:

That's not true! A lot of things that are not women can give birth.. like transgender people.

They are women and men.

There is no way that giving birth to a child makes you not the child's parent.

I agree, though unhealthy, it is correct.

What isn't healthy about it?

Other than denying how you was born, you confuse the child completely. The child will not know what a man and woman actually is. Though this is the intent of society at large, to merge both sexes.

There is no way that being a male parent of a child makes you not the child's father.

True when you are actually a male.

He is legally, actually a male.

How is she a male? Just because someone says they are and someone else agrees still does not make it so... What makes her a male other than saying so?

I don't see the problem. There are people like this that exist. ....And?

It is them and the world living a lie because she is not a man.

And what are your criteria for being a male?

A male (a94;) organism is the physiological sex which produces sperm.
Beverlee
Posts: 721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2013 11:44:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago

A male (a94;) organism is the physiological sex which produces sperm.

If you came down with testicular cancer, and could no longer produce sperm, would you turn into a woman?
AeneasPhebe
Posts: 213
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2013 11:47:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/17/2013 11:44:04 AM, Beverlee wrote:

A male (a94;) organism is the physiological sex which produces sperm.

If you came down with testicular cancer, and could no longer produce sperm, would you turn into a woman?

This is a fallacy. Is a woman without breast not a woman? Or a mother? Is she still able to milk her child? I still have the means(though disabled) to produce sperm, a woman did never and could never produce it(disabled or not).
Beverlee
Posts: 721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2013 12:06:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/17/2013 11:47:58 AM, AeneasPhebe wrote:
At 9/17/2013 11:44:04 AM, Beverlee wrote:

A male (a94;) organism is the physiological sex which produces sperm.

If you came down with testicular cancer, and could no longer produce sperm, would you turn into a woman?

This is a fallacy. Is a woman without breast not a woman? Or a mother? Is she still able to milk her child? I still have the means(though disabled) to produce sperm, a woman did never and could never produce it(disabled or not).

I know it's a fallacy, that's why I asked like that. You are equating the whole with the part. You just said that a baby boy, born with a birth defect that prevents him from producing sperm later in life is a girl.

It's called a "sufficient condition." Not producing sperm is not enough to make someone a girl.
Beverlee
Posts: 721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2013 12:11:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think that what needs to happen is that people need to reevaluate gender concepts, and human sexuality. We need to accept that there are some people out there that are very different - and not place moral judgments on them.

To me, that is the exact same thing as saying that people that are born with birth defects were "disfavored by the gods" or people who got rich were "better" somehow. Different can just be different - and it doesn't have to be good or bad.
AeneasPhebe
Posts: 213
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2013 12:23:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/17/2013 12:06:12 PM, Beverlee wrote:
At 9/17/2013 11:47:58 AM, AeneasPhebe wrote:
At 9/17/2013 11:44:04 AM, Beverlee wrote:

A male (a94;) organism is the physiological sex which produces sperm.

If you came down with testicular cancer, and could no longer produce sperm, would you turn into a woman?

This is a fallacy. Is a woman without breast not a woman? Or a mother? Is she still able to milk her child? I still have the means(though disabled) to produce sperm, a woman did never and could never produce it(disabled or not).

I know it's a fallacy, that's why I asked like that. You are equating the whole with the part.

You just said that a baby boy, born with a birth defect that prevents him from producing sperm later in life is a girl.

Where, When? Is the boy born with the tool to produce? Yes. Is it faulty? Yes. The woman is never born with the tool, period.

It's called a "sufficient condition." Not producing sperm is not enough to make someone a girl.

Apparently it is since that is the main definition of male.
Beverlee
Posts: 721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2013 12:41:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/17/2013 12:23:31 PM, AeneasPhebe wrote:
At 9/17/2013 12:06:12 PM, Beverlee wrote:
At 9/17/2013 11:47:58 AM, AeneasPhebe wrote:
At 9/17/2013 11:44:04 AM, Beverlee wrote:

A male (a94;) organism is the physiological sex which produces sperm.

If you came down with testicular cancer, and could no longer produce sperm, would you turn into a woman?

This is a fallacy. Is a woman without breast not a woman? Or a mother? Is she still able to milk her child? I still have the means(though disabled) to produce sperm, a woman did never and could never produce it(disabled or not).

I know it's a fallacy, that's why I asked like that. You are equating the whole with the part.

You just said that a baby boy, born with a birth defect that prevents him from producing sperm later in life is a girl.

Where, When? Is the boy born with the tool to produce? Yes. Is it faulty? Yes. The woman is never born with the tool, period.

It's called a "sufficient condition." Not producing sperm is not enough to make someone a girl.

Apparently it is since that is the main definition of male.

You are still saying that young boys are girls because they are not producing sperm. For someone who seems so judgmental, you sure do have some unique views about transgender persons.

But, ok. That's you. That is your unique dharma, and it has a role in the world, too. I would just rather see these people exposed to less derision. There is nothing constructive happening with calling them names. Can we at least agree on that?
AeneasPhebe
Posts: 213
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2013 12:45:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/17/2013 12:41:50 PM, Beverlee wrote:
At 9/17/2013 12:23:31 PM, AeneasPhebe wrote:
At 9/17/2013 12:06:12 PM, Beverlee wrote:
At 9/17/2013 11:47:58 AM, AeneasPhebe wrote:
At 9/17/2013 11:44:04 AM, Beverlee wrote:

A male (a94;) organism is the physiological sex which produces sperm.

If you came down with testicular cancer, and could no longer produce sperm, would you turn into a woman?

This is a fallacy. Is a woman without breast not a woman? Or a mother? Is she still able to milk her child? I still have the means(though disabled) to produce sperm, a woman did never and could never produce it(disabled or not).

I know it's a fallacy, that's why I asked like that. You are equating the whole with the part.

You just said that a baby boy, born with a birth defect that prevents him from producing sperm later in life is a girl.

Where, When? Is the boy born with the tool to produce? Yes. Is it faulty? Yes. The woman is never born with the tool, period.

It's called a "sufficient condition." Not producing sperm is not enough to make someone a girl.

Apparently it is since that is the main definition of male.

You are still saying that young boys are girls because they are not producing sperm.

Not quite.

For someone who seems so judgmental, you sure do have some unique views about transgender persons.

But, ok. That's you. That is your unique dharma, and it has a role in the world, too. I would just rather see these people exposed to less derision. There is nothing constructive happening with calling them names. Can we at least agree on that?

You should love everyone and love includes correction.
Beverlee
Posts: 721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2013 12:57:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago

You are still saying that young boys are girls because they are not producing sperm.

Not quite.


Yes, you are - even if it's by accident. The most important part of gender identification is identification. We all know that girls can be born with boy genitalia and vise versa.

For someone who seems so judgmental, you sure do have some unique views about transgender persons.

But, ok. That's you. That is your unique dharma, and it has a role in the world, too. I would just rather see these people exposed to less derision. There is nothing constructive happening with calling them names. Can we at least agree on that?

You should love everyone and love includes correction.

You are right, but that doesn't mean that I need to contribute to creating an environment where people should be ridiculed for being who they are. I want everyone to follow their own path, and I even want to help most of them do that.

So I don't want to make life harder for people, especially when they already seem to have some extra burdens.

....ok. Because I care what you think (as a person you deserve a certain level of care and respect) I want to correct you. Because I think your opinion might be important somehow.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2013 1:16:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/17/2013 11:25:25 AM, Beverlee wrote:
First of all, this person is a man.

Men don't give birth, women do.

Second of all, he gave birth to the child.

Physically impossible.

There is no way that giving birth to a child makes you not the child's parent.

Right, SHE is the baby's MOTHER because, as you just said. SHE gave birth to the child.

There is no way that being a male parent of a child makes you not the child's father.

SHE is not male, SHE did not impregnate someone. SHE is female and was impregnated by a male's sperm. That means SHE cannot be the father, so SHE can only be the mother.

I don't see the problem. There are people like this that exist. ....And?

And they have issues that need to be dealt with before bringing children into the picture.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2013 2:51:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/17/2013 12:57:55 PM, Beverlee wrote:

You are still saying that young boys are girls because they are not producing sperm.

Not quite.


Yes, you are - even if it's by accident. The most important part of gender identification is identification.

The Fool: Really, and what do you base this on?

In fact, that is probably the least important part. For, I may Identify myself as wise, or a genius, or God, but what I identify myself as is irrelevant to what I am.

What I am, is what I am, and that can never change, no matter what I call myself or believe myself to be, as I could never Really fail to be myself.. Despite the plebeian idioms, in reference to not being yourself.

For I may say something like "I don't feel like myself," or "I was not myself last night", But of course what I really mean is that that is not how I normally act on average.
As it could really be anybody else but me.

Synonymously if I believe myself to be a fish, then of course I would be somebody who believes themselves to be a fish as opposed to somebody who believes himself to be a fool.

But belief in the sense is again a type of mental action that I myself, the conscious being, am doing. And what I'm doing is not necessary what I am, that is the thing, or subject, Mind, which is "doing something". And it is even less so, that I am whenever I call myself.

If I call myself the president, or the Dalai Lama I would be speaking falsely to say that I am now actually the Dalai Lama and/or the President, no matter how much I identify myself as them. It would be a false identification. No?

And I think we all clearly distinguish between labels and what a thing is, For if I have a jar of fecal matter, and I was to put a label on it saying honey, and then offered as a tasty treat, most people are not going to think it to be sweet.

Now I myself think it's trivial, and could not carry that much enough of what somebody wants to be called, as it is merely self-labeling, and synonymously self-limiting.

But there does come a problem when, it comes to communicating what things are,
That is, language is completely conventional. I mean it just sounds that we attribute to certain things, as a mark of reference, so that we can communicate with each other, and not be confused.

This communication depends upon, using terms consistently in the population. So if we establish that the term Water refers to H2O, And then somebody else comes around and then uses the term Water to refer to Rocks, it corrupts our ability to communicate these entities in society.

Now we don't have any problem with those kind of terms because they are not ones which refer to properties or traits of people. Notice how these ones never get confused.

We never have to say, "define what you mean by rock". Because these are not terms which we use to describe people.

Terms in reference to people tend to develop positive and negative evaluative connotations and associations.

To be continued"
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Beverlee
Posts: 721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2013 3:15:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/17/2013 2:51:28 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 9/17/2013 12:57:55 PM, Beverlee wrote:

You are still saying that young boys are girls because they are not producing sperm.

Not quite.


Yes, you are - even if it's by accident. The most important part of gender identification is identification.

The Fool: Really, and what do you base this on?

In fact, that is probably the least important part. For, I may Identify myself as wise, or a genius, or God, but what I identify myself as is irrelevant to what I am.

What I am, is what I am, and that can never change, no matter what I call myself or believe myself to be, as I could never Really fail to be myself.. Despite the plebeian idioms, in reference to not being yourself.


If you are saying that "what you are can never change" then you are claiming to be perfect and immortal. The truth is that we all change constantly, after identifying shortcomings, aging, learning, eroding, growing... and all of this is directed by our own prerogatives.
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2013 3:26:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/17/2013 5:26:52 AM, medic0506 wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...

A woman allowed to live as a man, has babies, and is suing to be listed as the birth father. For the LGBTQRST crowd, how far are you willing to go with this nonsense?? Are you going to defend this as behavior that is consistent with that of a mentally healthy individual??

People like this, as well as Octo-mom, should be spayed and their children taken away. In addition, the state should set some ethical standards that doctors must adhere to, and any that participate in this nonsense would lose their license to practice.

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

This is crazy. Men can not have children. If you want to have children, you should not be allowed to call yourself a man. I understad the government allowing people as individuals to mutilate their bodies if thats their choice, but that doesn't mean we should totally ignore mothe natures blueprint all together. What will become of this country if we allow the gender lines to be blurred so much. People need to learn to have more respect for humanity.
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2013 3:36:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/17/2013 3:26:12 PM, Df0512 wrote:
At 9/17/2013 5:26:52 AM, medic0506 wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...

A woman allowed to live as a man, has babies, and is suing to be listed as the birth father. For the LGBTQRST crowd, how far are you willing to go with this nonsense?? Are you going to defend this as behavior that is consistent with that of a mentally healthy individual??

People like this, as well as Octo-mom, should be spayed and their children taken away. In addition, the state should set some ethical standards that doctors must adhere to, and any that participate in this nonsense would lose their license to practice.

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

This is crazy. Men can not have children. If you want to have children, you should not be allowed to call yourself a man. I understad the government allowing people as individuals to mutilate their bodies if thats their choice, but that doesn't mean we should totally ignore mothe natures blueprint all together. What will become of this country if we allow the gender lines to be blurred so much. People need to learn to have more respect for humanity.

These impetuous born-differents are violating our rules, are they not? I am certain that we have voted that these persons shall not exist. Mother nature cannot be allowed to have the last word here; it is disrespectful to the cause of human diversity, since all persons should be the same persons.

It is with shame that I now realize that I am a man, and I have also born a child. My humiliation is near-complete; I wanted to have a child, and have now lost the right to call myself a "man." Woe.
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2013 3:44:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/17/2013 3:15:53 PM, Beverlee wrote:
At 9/17/2013 2:51:28 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 9/17/2013 12:57:55 PM, Beverlee wrote:

You are still saying that young boys are girls because they are not producing sperm.

Not quite.


Yes, you are - even if it's by accident. The most important part of gender identification is identification.

The Fool: Really, and what do you base this on?

In fact, that is probably the least important part. For, I may Identify myself as wise, or a genius, or God, but what I identify myself as is irrelevant to what I am.

What I am, is what I am, and that can never change, no matter what I call myself or believe myself to be, as I could never Really fail to be myself.. Despite the plebeian idioms, in reference to not being yourself.


If you are saying that "what you are can never change" then you are claiming to be perfect and immortal. The truth is that we all change constantly, after identifying shortcomings, aging, learning, eroding, growing... and all of this is directed by our own prerogatives.

What about gender? Isn't a persons gender usually "perfect". With the exception of the few, a person is either 100 male or 100 female. Perfection
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2013 3:46:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"All humans are either this, or they are that. People must be cataloged, or the result is unforgivable confusion."

If confusion will accompany those who might feel improved from a re-evaluation of their gender, then perhaps so should education. Here is a potential lesson. Humans are strange. This strangeness can be embraced as a part of the human condition, and we can live happily in this bizarre dark carnival.

Or not.

Why must we only acknowledge two genders? Isn't this unnecessarily tedious and uninspired?
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2013 4:05:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
And this is where things get messy. But I will just talk about sex, as I consider gender and ideological entity, that is like a religious entity. And thus absolutely false.

Now before the ideological label of gender were created about 80 ago.

we were not confused at all about what we meant by male or female, we would definitely say that somebody with XY chromosome, is male, and XX female.

And the phenotype for men would have a tendency for higher testosterone levels in relation to estrogen, With testicles and penis. With masculine tendencies.

In the phenotype for women, who have a tendency for more estrogen than testosterone
with ovaries breasts and vagina, with a tendency to be a child bearer.. With feminine tendencies.

And so these would be obviously the classic male-female biological makeup before social pressures, and social condition..

Now it's obvious that nature is not perfectly symmetrical, hormones will very within the sex men or women. Some men female are born with receptors that don't necessarily react to estrogen and testosterone's as they would in the average male or female. Male-female twins can result in masculine female as the testosterone in the womb from the male Y-chromosome may mix with the females development. There are other ways which the females can be exposed to testosterone in the womb but is less likely. These affect the organization stage of brain development.

We are all initially female phenotype, but in prenatal development, testosterone stimulates receptors in the Male brain which trigger it to rearrange itself, with more sexually dimorphic features. This is called the organization stage of brain development. This reorganization doesn't play major role until the activation stage which is of course around puberty, when the testosterone and estrogen release from the gonads to trigger receptors in the brain in relation to their prenatal organization with pituitary gland accentuating typical feminine or masculine tendencies depending on the combinations of brain organization and activation hormones.

And social conditioning would interact with all these factors, to create a diverse set of personalities and an orientation. Same-sex orientation still being at around less than 20%.
15% or less in male, 10% or less in female.

Where same-sex males are less than average to be bisexual in comparison to same sex woman who have a higher probability of switching back and forth.

There is the strict lesbian, and the more bisexual feminine woman. I'm sure it's more complex than that, but those are stereotypical.

It is not merely genetic factors but a combination with social factors that can make the difference from somebody who is more or less on the fence. It is taught in school as though you must have a distinction but the truth is some people can be on the fence. There just categories we create for ourselves. Which may have different outcomes of reading create them.

But all these factors can distinguish with good accuracy between males and females biologically.
Whether their same-sex or not.

Now where it gets confusing is when we start to account for XXX or XXY, And extreme hormonal differences, and of course, malfunctions. That is some people's genetics create phenotype protein receptors within the body which do not necessarily react with estrogen and testosterone as they are supposed to. But these are definitely rare, accidents. It's easy to forget that hermaphrodites are sterile and probably less than 2%

I couldn't care less about legal names, I don't recognize declarations or any speech acts, Gender or any ideological entities as true entities. Most of the population is completely confused and na"ve between the different between gender and sex anyways. It more confusion than it is practical or helpful, For the person who created gender didn't actually give a definition that can satisfy any possible criteria. I can be a woman gender right now or male gender if I feel like a later, they would all be valid. However I wouldn't get extra rights, or have my pain be as moral worthy as a woman' despite my identification of those who are worth more in such ways under this regime..
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2013 4:06:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/17/2013 3:46:21 PM, DeFool wrote:
"All humans are either this, or they are that. People must be cataloged, or the result is unforgivable confusion."

If confusion will accompany those who might feel improved from a re-evaluation of their gender, then perhaps so should education. Here is a potential lesson. Humans are strange. This strangeness can be embraced as a part of the human condition, and we can live happily in this bizarre dark carnival.

Or not.

Why must we only acknowledge two genders? Isn't this unnecessarily tedious and uninspired?

The Fool: fraud!!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2013 4:43:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/17/2013 3:46:21 PM, DeFool wrote:
"All humans are either this, or they are that. People must be cataloged, or the result is unforgivable confusion."

If confusion will accompany those who might feel improved from a re-evaluation of their gender, then perhaps so should education. Here is a potential lesson. Humans are strange. This strangeness can be embraced as a part of the human condition, and we can live happily in this bizarre dark carnival.

Or not.

Why must we only acknowledge two genders? Isn't this unnecessarily tedious and uninspired?

Tedious? Not at all. We aren't talking about petty stereotypes like flamboyant gay guys or something. I would side with you if the issue was that simple. We are talking about gender. The very thing that enables we as humans to reproduce and not die off as we are not A sexual. At what point can we draw the line. So what if I becaome a woman, does this mean I have a right to be seen at a all womans facility ,by a doctor who specializes in womans health? Can he get WIC and other benefits esclusive to women? And this is just the paper work. Personally, I can;t help but to think that this is another step in the wrong direction.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2013 5:00:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Beverlee: If you are saying that "what you are can never change" then you are claiming to be perfect and immortal.

The Fool: It does not follow from the fact that I could never fail to be myself, that I am perfect or immortal. The change was in regard to names or beliefs. Remember the honey jar example?

Beverlee: The truth is that we all change constantly, after identifying shortcomings, aging, learning, eroding, growing... and all of this is directed by our own prerogatives.

The Fool: Who's we?

By "I" I mean the center of conscious intuition, The mind; The Observer and The acting agent. Oh ha, I think I sometimes forget that I am not in the philosophy section.

My body may age and erode, and I may forget many things I know, and learn new ones. But any moment in time I can never failed to be myself.

For I can dress myself in terms, and define myself as wise but the more and more I try the more and more foolish I prove myself to be. For I am what I am, and I am The Fool.

I said nothing about my beliefs, I gave a deductive argument. Was it not just? if you do not think it was just let me know?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Beverlee
Posts: 721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2013 5:11:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/17/2013 5:00:09 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Beverlee: If you are saying that "what you are can never change" then you are claiming to be perfect and immortal.

The Fool: It does not follow from the fact that I could never fail to be myself, that I am perfect or immortal. The change was in regard to names or beliefs. Remember the honey jar example?


What I mean is that when you say that what we are - we are, and that this cannot change, that you are arguing that you are perfect and immortal. Only perfect things cannot change at all.

Beverlee: The truth is that we all change constantly, after identifying shortcomings, aging, learning, eroding, growing... and all of this is directed by our own prerogatives.

The Fool: Who's we?

By "I" I mean the center of conscious intuition, The mind; The Observer and The acting agent. Oh ha, I think I sometimes forget that I am not in the philosophy section.

I am down with philosophy. I just don't believe in an observer or acting agent. You are your environment, and that's it. You are your surroundings observing themselves and continuing momentum that were all set in motion long ago.

My body may age and erode, and I may forget many things I know, and learn new ones. But any moment in time I can never failed to be myself.

This is what I mean: you change... YOU change. The thing that you are changes into something else.

For I can dress myself in terms, and define myself as wise but the more and more I try the more and more foolish I prove myself to be. For I am what I am, and I am The Fool.

I said nothing about my beliefs, I gave a deductive argument. Was it not just? if you do not think it was just let me know?

.... I like the way you said that....
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2013 5:39:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Beverlee your strawmanning The Fool's arguments.
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2013 6:01:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/17/2013 3:46:21 PM, DeFool wrote:
"All humans are either this, or they are that. People must be cataloged, or the result is unforgivable confusion."

If confusion will accompany those who might feel improved from a re-evaluation of their gender, then perhaps so should education. Here is a potential lesson. Humans are strange. This strangeness can be embraced as a part of the human condition, and we can live happily in this bizarre dark carnival.

Or not.

Why must we only acknowledge two genders?

Simple, because there are only two genders. Why must society be expected to accept the absurd, and how far does it go??

Isn't this unnecessarily tedious and uninspired?
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2013 6:06:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/17/2013 3:15:53 PM, Beverlee wrote:
At 9/17/2013 2:51:28 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 9/17/2013 12:57:55 PM, Beverlee wrote:

You are still saying that young boys are girls because they are not producing sperm.

Not quite.


Yes, you are - even if it's by accident. The most important part of gender identification is identification.

The Fool: Really, and what do you base this on?

In fact, that is probably the least important part. For, I may Identify myself as wise, or a genius, or God, but what I identify myself as is irrelevant to what I am.

What I am, is what I am, and that can never change, no matter what I call myself or believe myself to be, as I could never Really fail to be myself.. Despite the plebeian idioms, in reference to not being yourself.


If you are saying that "what you are can never change" then you are claiming to be perfect and immortal. The truth is that we all change constantly, after identifying shortcomings, aging, learning, eroding, growing... and all of this is directed by our own prerogatives.

I think he means change drastically. Like i can't change to a fish. Biologically the guy is still a woman. And nature beats government. Fvck nature is bada$$. Cloning: something we have been trying to achieve, nature has already done and is still doing. He/she might have the equipment but not the resources. And technically the equipment is fake.
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.