Gender/Sex Labels

[Hue]

This is a subject that came up in Ree's recent posts, and I wanted to see outside opinions on this. I've talked to my professor about it and she couldn't give me a satisfying answer. Chase wrote,

This conversation is really about labeling: who gets what label and who doesn't.

and I think it's an extremely hard question to answer.


We had been studying how there's typical male/female morphology, and "male brains" or "female brains" organized and activated by hormones. The morphologies usually are congruent with the brain development, but sometimes, there are differences between the two. The research is in it's earlier stages, but there is evidence that show transgender brains are different than most other people's brains, which could explain why some men identify as a woman and vice versa.


To some belief systems, it's radical that a morphological man could be a gender-oriented women (or that it's "correctable"), to some it's not. The idea I'm drawing out is assumes that the incongruence of identity and biological sex is indeed a reality of nature, and the definitions of sex and gender (for the sake of the argument) is XX = female, XY = male, and masculine behaviors + preferences = man, feminine behaviors + prefernces = woman, respectively.

As I'm sure many of you know, there's a lot of talk going on about pronoun usage and same sex bathrooms. Personally, I don't give a fuck about the same sex bathrooms, people can do their thing inside of a stall, but think the pronoun usage thing is a bit more difficult to tackle.

People are subject to heuristics, and this is a pretty obvious one that a person looking like a man-->male. You don't even think about it. It's still a newer idea to some that there's complexities of sex and gender in people (although it there's many instances throughout history), while it becomes less rare to openly express oneself about their identification.

Even if the topic/idea became common sense, most people would still use the heuristics because of the majority of people have congruent morphologies and gender identities. The overall tendency is man like figure --> man, and our brains recognize the pattern, thus creating the heuristic. I mean, there's the english language that says gender = this, and sex = this, but the correlation between the two is so high they're synonymous.

The essence of what the individual is, is a XY male/ XX female that has female/male tendencies and preferences. But people label each other as well as themselves, and feel a strong sense of identity with that label, so there's problems that result of the conflicting ideas. There's been many reports of extreme psychological problems that result from "being mislabeled" by society, and elevated reports of suicide.

According to research by the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention and the Williams Institute, 50-54% of gender nonconforming and transgender individuals experience harassment and/or bullying at school. Suicide rates for gender nonconforming and transgender individuals are disproportionately high, outpacing other demographics with staggering margin. For comparison: when surveyed, 4.6% of individuals in the total U.S. population report a lifetime suicide attempt, compared to 41% of persons who are gender nonconforming or transgender.

It's a complicated issue and similar to something like, homosexual marriage, because it's not anyone's legal right to control what everyday people label them as in social environments. You could say it effects one's pursuit of happiness. The widespread use of a "flawed language" results in psychological issues, so therefore a change in the language should be enforced. But this can be issue to tackle in government because one's happiness can indirectly be another's misfortune/inconvenience. Correcting all the he/she's to they would be damn near impossible, how the hell would you even do that?

There are other areas where this becomes a problem as well, such as with professional athletes. Do you take the intersex female with hyperandrogenism and place her to compete with men, where her performance wouldn't match the top athletes in that division? That seems pretty unfair. Do you take testosterone blockers to level the playing field, literally making the person handicapped to their natural abilities? "She's" too good to compete, so therefore we must disallow the optimal performance in the field. The performance, keep in mind, the individual has committed most of their life to. Does that matter? The more "fair" it is for the community the less "fair" it is for the individual. How the hell do you handle something like that?


Is the trajectory of the sex/gender labeling issue to be a slow, natural growth of widespread understanding that sex and gender are less rigid than previously thought/defined, and an eventual redefining of gender and sex?

Does the redefining of gender and sex have to be enforced by a balanced set of rules?

Do gender and sex really have to be redefined and more thoroughly differentiated?

Tough ass questions. I would love to be surprised with a convincing answer / argument, because I can't come up with a solid answer myself.


Possibly an easier question to answer:

What would you guys say to an external male with a "more female brain" that believes the culture should adopt their use of pronouns for this minority? That is, enforcing use of "they" rather than "he" or "she", to remove the possibility of using a pronoun that doesn't fit the person's internal gender.




I understand this is a controversial topic, so I tried to spell out any definitions as clear as I could.

Curious to see what you guys think!

 

[Cacc]

I didn't read everything you said but,

The research is in it's earlier stages, but there is evidence that show transgender brains are different than most other people's brains, which could explain why some men identify as a woman and vice versa.

The transgenders I've seen who were born male act pretty masculine and still despite wanting to be women have tendencies to act like the man they were born to be. Vice versa with transgenders who were born women.

It's obvious that it has to do with testosterone. But being that testosterone has such a big effect in the way you act, I don't believe a man who believes he was born to be a woman should be taken seriously and vice versa.

 

[Hue]

Just to be clear, for the sake of the discussion,

The idea I'm drawing out assumes that the incongruence of identity and biological sex is indeed a reality of nature, and the definitions of sex and gender (for the sake of the argument) are XX = female, XY = male, and masculine behaviors + preferences = man, feminine behaviors + prefernces = woman, respectively.

It's obvious that it has to do with testosterone.

Yes, testosterone has organizational (creation of one's affinity to testosterone being created and affinity of testosterone having an effect on the person) and activational (testosterone in action, having an effect) purposes in morphology, brain structure, and behavior.

Here's an article explaining this in more detail.

But that testosterone has such a big effect in the way you act, I don't believe a man who believes he was born to be a woman should be taken seriously and vice versa.

I'm assuming your answer to the bolded question would be that you wouldn't adopt the use of "they", and would refer to the guy as "he", yes? Correct me if I'm wrong.

If you're in agreement with that, word. Power to you.

Why?

 

[Cacc]

Cus I've never seen a transgender actually fully act like "who they were born to be".

There's a reason people can easily tell who's a tranny most of the time.

So, it makes me believe, its only a way for that person to run away from their problems. They've got something internal going on, abd thats how they deal with it.

And lastly, I could give a hoot about the rights of transgenders, gays, or anyone that is not going to reproduce.

Here's how a male transgender acts i
a debate: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YgQy70_LPS4

So much for being a woman born in a man's body ey?

 

[Hue]

@Cacc,

Cus I've never seen a transgender actually fully act like "who they were born to be".

There's a reason people can easily tell who's a tranny most of the time.

While I can see why personal experience might guide your thoughts on this, that doesn't account for other transgenders that act more fit to your gender expectation. Then again I can't round up all the transgenders and show you that.

And lastly, I could give a hoot about the rights of transgenders, gays, or anyone that is not going to reproduce

Well, some transgenders can reproduce, but I don't understand why you wouldn't give a damn about person's rights if they weren't able to. There's also the option of Surrogacy for some.

I'll try to stray away from this being a moral issue. The psychological effects (or suicides) conflicting transgenders could blunt their ability or their family's ability to progress / help society. It creates a cost to both the individual, the society, and the economy if people or a subgroup has diminished contribution as a result of their issues. That's one reason to take some sort of action with this.

Here's how a male transgender acts i
a debate: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YgQy70_LPS4

So much for being a woman born in a man's body ey?

I'm a fan of Ben Shapiro, and he's correct in that facts don't care about your feelings.

Yea that reporter didn't have very good etiquette in debate.



@thread

The conversation I'm trying to start assumes that there is a difference between sex and gender, and that one can indeed have their sex and gender not match. There's problems that people confronted with this experience, and hopefully there's solutions. After wrestling with this in my head a bit, I found something that resonated with me a little bit on the pronoun issue.

Jordan Peterson makes great, and simple points in this video.

One thing mentioned in this is how if you give the english language a new word, people jump onto it pretty quickly. Pardon my french.

Retarded --> Developmental Disability
Nigger --> "The N Word" or African American
Stewardess --> Flight Attendant
Waiter --> Server

In some of these cases, it's a hate crime that gains social awareness and momentum , in some it's disrespect that gets the former and reinforced policy in the place of it's use, both leading to a slow adopting to the new term.

When it comes to pronouns, it's less simple because they aren't specific nouns. A server is a person who takes orders and delivers food to tables in restaurants. He is a singular male that could be shit ton of things and is used in abundance everyday. So when it comes to transgender, you would have to either make an entirely new pronoun or amend the usages of the older ones. The majority of people more than likely would never commit to this.

Peterson concludes that unless society reaches a consensus and thereby adopts some new system of language, he will continue usage of his freedom of speech rather than adopt "they" which neglects the singular or plural distinction or adopt new pronouns. I think this is a fair stance.


That still leaves the problem that there's psychological issues within the transgender subgroup and there's issues within athletics.

For lack of a better answer (I'll keep reading though), I would say that by attempting to spread awareness, and hopefully some level of empathy, about the many dynamics of the issue to non-transgender people, while providing transgender sub groups with possible outlets to find assistance in any psychological issue they may be experiencing with their gender identity might be the most practical solution at the moment.

As far as athletics, I'd have to dig into it more, that's beyond the scope of what I've already wrote down.

 

[Chase]

Possibly an easier question to answer:

What would you guys say to an external male with a "more female brain" that believes the culture should adopt their use of pronouns for this minority? That is, enforcing use of "they" rather than "he" or "she", to remove the possibility of using a pronoun that doesn't fit the person's internal gender.

Best not to get drawn into debate with anyone who insists you think/say things in the specific way he insists you think/say them.

This is someone who wants to control you for his comfort. All you do when you engage him is fuel his agitation.

Instead: smile, nod, continue on your way.

(I realize there is an argument in some circles that you have to indulge someone's feelings because otherwise he will feel bad and bad things might happen. As someone who has spent time around all manner of people who insist you indulge their feelings because otherwise you will lead them to harm, I can say with confidence no matter how much you indulge the person who asks this of you, it is never enough - there is never a point where such a person says "I feel complete now. Thank you." If someone requires the indulgence of others to feel this way or that, this is a black hole without end)

Chase

 

[Rain]

Possibly an easier question to answer:

What would you guys say to an external male with a "more female brain" that believes the culture should adopt their use of pronouns for this minority? That is, enforcing use of "they" rather than "he" or "she", to remove the possibility of using a pronoun that doesn't fit the person's internal gender.

This is someone who wants to control you for his comfort. All you do when you engage him is fuel his agitation.

Chase

Would it definitely always fuel agitation?

That sounds also like a highly sensitive person, but it's not exactly the same? For example a highly sensitive person may get told by others to "not take things so seriously" or "lighten up" or "we're just joking". If a highly sensitive person requested his friends to not make jokes at him or not to give him crap in his presence, that would be enough for him/her to feel comfortable and then they no longer feel agitated during the interaction.

I believe I'm a highly sensitive person and wonder between trying to have better coping mechanisms[trying to not feel offended so easily but it can be difficult] or get a bit dominant voice and telling others to get bent. But then telling them that over something they view as small/a joke makes you stand out in a negative way or an easy target? Then again standing up for yourself and being serious they might knock it off.

 

[Cacc]

Well, some transgenders can reproduce, but I don't understand why you wouldn't give a damn about person's rights if they weren't able to. There's also the option of Surrogacy for some.

I'll try to stray away from this being a moral issue. The psychological effects (or suicides) conflicting transgenders could blunt their ability or their family's ability to progress / help society. It creates a cost to both the individual, the society, and the economy if people or a subgroup has diminished contribution as a result of their issues. That's one reason to take some sort of action with this.

People that aren't fit to reproduce should not reproduce. Homosexuals, in my eyes, shouldn't reproduce. Neither should transsexuals, nor old people. It will create problems for the children.

Do you really think a boy will grow up strong if his father is a tranny? What if his father is gay? Weak, weak children. Not saying all gay men are weak, but for the most part they are. They are also incredibly hedonistic.

By letting gays or transsexuals raise children or reproduce you are creating more legions of children that will turn out gay or transsexuals themselves from enviromental causes and also, from dna.

So you'll have an increase in people who are for the most part weak, hedonistic, and over sensitive individuals who will not benefit society in any way. They will not reproduce and they will not create.

Trash of the earth... Existing for the sake of existing with their malformed brains.


Now, I don't really have any hate against trannys or gays. I'm just saying that on a big level, letting these people populate the Earth with more of them will not be good for society.


I mean, they are literally born without the need to reproduce. Because they like their own sex.

P.s: Can't say I've ever met a tranny that wasn't a self-absorbed leech.

 

[Sandman]

-Cacc

What's wrong with hedonism? You might want yourself, your children to be builders and achievers but others may be okay with just getting personal pleasure as much as possible throughout their lives. Even if what you allege is true (there are a lot of creative type bi or gay men) I don't believe people have a moral obligation to benefit society. By your reasoning countless straight men who play computer games and jerk off all day shouldn't reproduce either? Aren't you the one who said he had an addiction problem?

Trash of the earth... Existing for the sake of existing with their malformed brains.

Dudee, calm down... This is pretty heavy. You say you don't really have any hate for gays but your words speak otherwise.

EDIT: Rereading my post, it seems as if I'm attacking you. I'm not. I'm not a "gay rights activities" type of guy either. But this kind of judgemental thoughts are not beneficial for you. Every negative feeling you have against your fellow men harm you first. Having an open and liberal view towards gays is also more attractive.

 

[Hue]

Chase,

Best not to get drawn into debate with anyone who insists you think/say things in the specific way he insists you think/say them.

This is someone who wants to control you for his comfort. All you do when you engage him is fuel his agitation.

Instead: smile, nod, continue on your way.

Thanks for the input. Please correct me if I'm misusing anything you wrote.

You can not control what people do or how they think. Sure, you might have some influence on them, but that only extends so far.

By trying to have the majority of people change for you, rather than considering changing yourself (actions, outlook, etc), you may fall into a victim mentality. And in the issue of the pro-nouns stuff, it tries to make it a moral issue by suggesting people not adjusting to their demands is a hate crime when it isn't necessarily. And when considering morals, it should be totally up to the individual to decide, yes?

I read once that a lot of times when people disagree with one another they come up with reasons as to why the person is saying what they're saying. Most commonly, that they're uninformed, stupid, or they're malevolent (a development of trait assignment that usually happens progressively) I must admit I've fallen into this logical fallacy before (and recently!). Pointing the finger outward rather than inward or forgetting to just stopping to look around and see what's there is a self-limiting and potentially dangerous practice, and that appears to be going on in some instances with this issue.

(I realize there is an argument in some circles that you have to indulge someone's feelings because otherwise he will feel bad and bad things might happen. As someone who has spent time around all manner of people who insist you indulge their feelings because otherwise you will lead them to harm, I can say with confidence no matter how much you indulge the person who asks this of you, it is never enough - there is never a point where such a person says "I feel complete now. Thank you." If someone requires the indulgence of others to feel this way or that, this is a black hole without end)

Chase

I think I see. Similar to addiction, it's a bottomless pit that if you keep enabling the person they'll keep up the pattern..

Feeding off other people's emotions, or trying to have other people orient their behaviors to your emotions, is again a self-limiting and dangerous practice. This is why being outcome independent is important with women, too. You must take control of your own emotions (not to say you can't indulge peoples feelings when seen fit, though). Easier said than done though.


Side Note:

I was digging to reasons that certain things get me impassioned about making a change and still haven't resolved this: End of the day it's still up to the individuals to look at the information in front of them and receive it as they may, so I suppose the issue I have getting around things like this is an emotional attachment to problems I don't see getting resolved. My buddy is going into politics and I have a deceased family member who held a position so those serve as a near constant reminder of this to me when I find myself aligning on certain policies or ideas, because I feel that I'm not doing enough to accomplish progress in those areas (possibly as a result of comparing myself to other people who are doing shit) I realize it's a personal issue in that context. It comes full circle in that I feel the need to try to shine light to ideas and convince those with what I see as misconceptions otherwise. I get you need to have civil discourse but still find myself getting upset about certain topics, because emotion is a major component of fuel for why I give a fuck in the first place, and this gives me cognitive dissonance. Tempering this seems to be my current best course of action but there's still times where I fail at doing this. EDIT: I realize emotion =/= not having civil discourse, but it can obviously hinder it and attempts to approach things from a holistic view while still firmly wanting to implement what one believes hopefully in compromise with whoever is at the other end of the argument. This grows more frustrating as facts are increasingly ignored/neglected in what may be a result of postmodernism and other influences. Many people are plugging both ears singing in debates, and many people don't know where to turn for accurate information, which further complicates this.


Cacc,

A fan of eugenics, eh?

Now, I don't really have any hate against trannys or gays. I'm just saying that on a big level, letting these people populate the Earth with more of them will not be good for society.

P.s: Can't say I've ever met a tranny that wasn't a self-absorbed leech

Most data says differently on same sex marriages raising kids.
http://whatweknow.law.columbia.edu/topi ... n-parents/

Here's a transgender person who contributes to society, and is also skeptic of the current "transgender movements" state of affairs.
http://www.marriagealliance.com.au/cami ... ransgender

 

[Cacc]

I don't believe people have a moral obligation to benefit society.

Ok... So you're arguing with me on a moral level? What's the point?

By your reasoning countless straight men who play computer games and jerk off all day shouldn't reproduce either?

No... Not really. A straight man that does what you are saying will not get laid, or grow a business, or whatever. At that point, he is a leech. He needs to change however, in order to improve society or get laid and contribute to keeping humanity alive.

Dudee, calm down... This is pretty heavy. You say you don't really have any hate for gays but your words speak otherwise.

I just said that to piss people off . I don't have anything against anyone on a personal person to person level. I do, have a problem with the non heterosexual population growing.

A fan of eugenics, eh?

Never heard of it.

Most data says differently on same sex marriages raising kids.
http://whatweknow.law.columbia.edu/topi ... n-parents/

I think you misunderstood me. I'm not saying the kid will be retarded, or antisocial.


I'm saying the kid will be weak. He will most likely not have a strong father that teaches him good qualities. He won't have a mother to show him love and compassion and how it is that women act and behave.

He'll also have one of the father's act like the mother. So the kid will start to associate being caring, sensitive, and emotional with the traits of a man.

I sure do wish I didn't have a strong father and a caring mother to show me how it is men should treat women and how to handle relationships!

I fell off the wagon some time in my life, yes. But I was a pimp that by 2nd and 3rd grade who had a couple cute girlfriends at the same time. And that would never have happened without seeing my mom and dad behave with each other.


Now granted, most fathers aren't dominant nor strong. But same sex parenting will only exacerbate the issue.

We also have the issue of the kid having higher chances of being gay.

Here's a transgender person who contributes to society, and is also skeptic of the current "transgender movements" state of affairs.
http://www.marriagealliance.com.au/cami ... ransgender

Nice!! You showed me one article... You have proved me wrong and all trannys are the utmost contributors to society and keeping it alive... lol.


All I have to do is give you one name. Caitlyn Jenner. There u go.

Also, what do we know about social movements? What we know is, people follow them. Most of them. Let's face it, people are sheep.

 

[Hue]

Nice!! You showed me one article... You have proved me wrong and all trannys are the utmost contributors to society and keeping it alive... lol.

Nowhere did I say this.

I just said that to piss people off .

So you were trolling?



EDIT:

@Sidenote - There are better contexts in trying to shed light on facts and outlooks than online forums (as clashing personalities degrade them) in the attempt of a personally desired progress that hopes to employ holistic investigation and compromise. I'm still looking for a truth on dealing with the abundance of people who willingly put their heads in the sand uncompromisingly, in real life, which I'm yet to find and find frustration in that fact.

Chase's answer reminds me that you can't control what people think or do, and to walk away. This does seem to be the only viable option. That's unfortunate because it creates complacency to some extent. The existence of this in politics is maddening. If there were an easy, magic bullet answer to fixing complacency, whoever made a product out of that would be a millionaire.

 

[Hue]

I may have just swallowed another red pill, or at least part of one.

I made this post to feel smart and be right about something, because that feels good. I used it for external validation, and internal validation that I AM RIGHT. It feeds the ego, and for some reason my ego was hungry. In a way it's just hedonism.

I'm not special for realizing this either. Everyone wants to feel right, and have other people tell them good things about themselves. I would go as far to say that deep down that feeling some sense of comfort / good is the motivation behind nearly everything - I'm going to have to read up on this more. It's kind of dark actually.

Finding truths is still important to me, and I do like conversation and debate about ideas. But the motivation behind this post was for me to feel good. It's ego addiction, or something like that, really.

And I've been putting time and energy ruminating on this instead of studying for my last final tomorrow. I'm laughing at myself right now. For any who participated or continues to participate, thanks (;

Hue

 

[Cacc]

Nowhere did I say this.

No you didn't, but you insinuated it. Why else would you have linked the article? I said not all transsexuals are like that. But you proceeded to link the article anyways.

So you were trolling?

Ok. So you decided to skip over all the main points on why I feel the way that I feel, and just focused on what I said above? And no, I wasn't trolling. I was saying that I don't hate gays or think they're a disease, but I don't want the non heterosexual population to keep increasing.

Which I said in my last point but you chose to ignore it

I'm still looking for a truth on dealing with the abundance of people who willingly put their heads in the sand uncompromisingly, in real life, which I'm yet to find and find frustration in that fact.

The hypocrisy... Get of your high horse and think critically for a minute man. Don't your realize you're acting like pretty much everyone else who held a strong opinion?

You think you're right? Well, so does everyone else. Welcome to the club. But, does that make you right?

Here's another question. Does winning an argument make you right? Or does it simply mean you're better at arguing?


I don't get why some guys that follow Girlschase material still don't get the big picture. They're still too opinionated and focused on the small things. You need to look outside yourself.

Realize that everyone thinks they're right. This is shaped by many things. Realize how the world works. Words are simply vessels that transmit thoughts and feelings.


When you realize that the Christian thinks his way is right, the Sociopath thinks his way is right, The liberal thinks his way is right, the Conservative thinks his way is right, then you realize no one is right. And at the same time, everyone is .

Give it some thought

 

[Sandman]

I don't believe people have a moral obligation to benefit society.

Ok... So you're arguing with me on a moral level? What's the point?

By your reasoning countless straight men who play computer games and jerk off all day shouldn't reproduce either?

No... Not really. A straight man that does what you are saying will not get laid, or grow a business, or whatever. At that point, he is a leech. He needs to change however, in order to improve society or get laid and contribute to keeping humanity alive.

Dudee, calm down... This is pretty heavy. You say you don't really have any hate for gays but your words speak otherwise.

I just said that to piss people off . I don't have anything against anyone on a personal person to person level. I do, have a problem with the non heterosexual population growing.

Reproduction is one of the most fundamentals rights of everyone. And you are arguing that that right should be taken away from gays because you do find them weak, hedonistic and unable to benefit society.

So you have 3 premises:

1) People have a moral obligation to benefit society (otherwise the lack of it wouldn't be a problem)

2) Gays do not benefit society.

3) Gays shouldn't reproduce because their offspring will not benefit society.

So do not see the word "moral obligation" and claim I am arguing you over morality. I am not. I am arguing your whole point.

1) People have a moral obligation to benefit society

Every individual is a soverign to himself. No body knows you better than you, they did not share your pain, your joy. We are two separate beings. I am not bound to you nor any group and vice versa. People are individuals. Any group is a social construct, it is metaphysical. No body knows you better than you are, thus you are the only person who can decide what is best for you.

We are responsible for the choices we make. As an individual, you did not sign up for coming into existence. You did not agree that if you were to be born, you are to work towards the betterment of society.

So your fundemental premise is wrong. You might like to contribute to society but you have no reason to judge people who primarily want to seek their own benefit. You have no reason to label them as "leeches" and no reason to seek to prevent them from reproducing except maybe that you do not like gays which is an emotional argument masquerading as a logical one which is clear to anyone with two eyes to see from your post.

2) Gays do not benefit society

Okay, I think you have not been around gay people very much and your idea of a gay comes from watching gay pride on TV. Gays are not all flamboyant, frivolious people. Gays and bis are everywhere. They are lawyers, doctors, military men etc. They are fully functioning members of society. You would have to meet more people before you can see it though.

Just a few examples of successful gay people : (i) Tim Cook (CEO of Apple), (ii) Lorde Browne (Former CEO of British Petroleum), (iii) Jann Wenner (co-founder and publisher of Rolling Stone, owner of Men's Journal and US Weekly), (iv) Chris Hughes (one of the co-founders of Facebook) etc.

I asked you if you thought straight men who play computer games and jerk off all day (which is probably you evidenced by your addictive personality post) shouldn't reproduce either and you said no, they should change. Why are you not extending the same chance to gays and say they should do more for the bettermant of society? Why do you not say, "those regardless of sexual preference who do not benefit society should not reproduce" but limit it to gays? THE HYPOCRISY LOL

3) Gays shouldn't reproduce because their offspring will not benefit society

There is no evidence which suggests that their offspring will not benefit society. Yes there is a likelihood that the child will be gay but as I explained above that does not mean the child will not benefit society.

Again, you state yourself that most guys are not strong and dominant but when it comes to gays you get your feathers ruffled up. Hypocrisy. Have you looked at the divorce statistics? Almost half of the populstion grow up without a dad or mom or a traditional stable family. Maybe no one should reproduce because there is a chance the child will grow up without a strong father figure or a caring mother figure?

Just look at the study Hue posted, instead you flaunt your ideas as truths (daddies will be weak, so the child will be weak etc) without any factual evidence to back it up. I think you haven't even read them because these studies are not about whether a child will be a retard it is about the effects of nurturing. There are many studies posted there but for now just take a look at this: http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/w ... e-2012.pdf "Half of the adolescents had male role models; those with and those without male role models had similar scores on the feminine and masculine scales of the Bem Sex Role Inventory, as well as on the trait subscales of the State-Trait Personality Inventory (anxiety, anger, depression, and curiosity) and the Child Behavior Checklist (internalizing, externalizing, and total problem behavior)."

So again:

1) People do not have a moral obligation to benefit society.
2) Gays do benefit society.
3) Gays should reproduce if they choose so because their offspring will benefit society same as any straight couple.

I wrote this for the benefit of other readers as it is obvious you have not been around gays much and has hang ups around the whole issue (as to why I can only guess but I don't wanna go all ad hominem with you). You should strive to free yourself from this negative mindset. Otherwise you will suffer in higher quality circles and with most women. Be open minded, be sex positive, it is better for you.

If you reply to this, you better come up with facts and logic otherwise I won't even respond. Show me why people need to work for society and not just enjoy themselves. Show me any study where it is proven that gays do not benefit society or their offsprings won't and I will accede.

 

[Hue]

Cacc,


Here are some claims you make,

So, it makes me believe, its only a way for that person to run away from their problems. They've got something internal going on, abd thats how they deal with it.

They will not reproduce and they will not create.

Can't say I've ever met a tranny that wasn't a self-absorbed leech.

Here's how a male transgender acts i
a debate: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YgQy70_LPS4 So much for being a woman born in a man's body ey?

I ignored the first one, because I can't produce evidence of the exact mechanism to why and how a person becomes transgender, only factors in that mechanism that have already been addressed.

I show you that some transgenders can and do indeed procreate.

I show you an example of a transgender who appears not to be a self-absorbed leech, who frequently debates, and who actually criticizes the very individuals in the transgender community that you are criticizing. I could go find more, but the point was to show that NOT ALL transgenders are like this. Supposing that she is the ONLY transgender like this is a leap of logic, just like if I were to say that that reporter and Caitlyn Jenner are the ONLY possibly self-absorbed leeches (but let's keep opinion out of this, that's a pointless argument as to whether those two are self-absorbed or not) is a leap of logic.

I'm just saying that on a big level, letting these people populate the Earth with more of them will not be good for society. So you'll have an increase in people who are for the most part weak, hedonistic, and over sensitive individuals who will not benefit society in any way.

Enter Sandman.



I've also backed up most everything I've stated with data or single-cases which appeal to fallibility where as you have not. I think you tried to do this early on with the reporter, the claims associated with that were not clear in execution. If it was "transgenders aren't actually woman in men's bodies" or vice versa the video does not equate to that.

From your post it doesn't seem you understand or adhere to Falsifiability and what meaning a single instance of something has in context. You also didn't when we were talking about the possibility of those shootings being a conspiracy.

One notices a white swan. From this one can conclude:

At least one swan is white.
From this, one may wish to conjecture:

All swans are white.
It is impractical to observe all the swans in the world to verify that they are all white.

Even so, the statement all swans are white is testable by being falsifiable. For, if in testing many swans, the researcher finds a single black swan, then the statement all swans are white would be falsified by the counterexample of the single black swan.

You also start your involvement in the discussion with,

I didn't read everything you said but,

which leads me to assume that you will continue this trend. And as Sandman pointed out, it very much seems you didn't look at the link I posted about same-sex parents families.

Which I said in my last point but you chose to ignore it

Your last post is incongruent, non-self explanative, has no data of any of the claims backing it up, and doesn't make sense to me. I don't want to have to waste time covering new ground when the old ground hasn't been settled on both ends.

Nice!! You showed me one article... You have proved me wrong and all trannys are the utmost contributors to society and keeping it alive... lol.
All I have to do is give you one name. Caitlyn Jenner. There u go.

This screams being hypocritical in your approach. My claim was never saying all tranny's are utmost contributors to society, is was that not all tranny's are self-absorbed leeches that don't contribute to society. Two different things.

Also, what do we know about social movements? What we know is, people follow them. Most of them. Let's face it, people are sheep.

Yea see I don't even know where you're going with this or how it's relevant to the simple claim --> explanation --> evidence thing that happens in debates.

I just said that to piss people off

If you're aiming at pissing people off in debates, and not aiming towards a logical breakdown / arena of ideas, guess what? You're trolling.

Trolling: make a deliberately offensive or provocative online post with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.

Then I nearly had a psychological breakdown trying to figure out why people put their heads in the sand to facts and information that don't agree with their opinions, so I had to go deep into my most self-righteous self and find my thought processes (that's what the Sidenote is), find the cognitive dissonance, then go deeper to find that I just want to feel good about what I've done, but the difference is that people get motivations to win the argument misconstrued with motivations to be correct in their claims, both which produce intrinsically rewarding effects. After looking elsewhere for ideas like this I found Psychological Egoism which I plan to continue reading on. So you have people changing their arguments, side stepping, mudslinging their opponent, instead of employing practice to actually find the most holistically sound answer. Truth = Facts, but the facts aren't always practical in usage, even within the system they might be born in. Most people have never been given/taught the skills to navigate their way through a logically reasoned thought process, so you have people using logical fallacies and other methods of face validity to win arguments, whether the motivations be naiveness, stupidity, ego, power, manipulation of most people's fallacy's, etc., then that gets coupled with the belief that if you don't fight fair you'll never win.

But the light of all this is that I found myself as guilty of it too, and not just on a conceptual level. I UNDERSTAND why I do it, which was a very enlightening moment for me. People are quick and ready to call someone out on being narrow-minded, when it is also them to be the one who's being narrow-minded, and there you have the stagnation in western politics and the lack of critical assessment of one's own beliefs or their practices in expressing those beliefs. I'm going to go and try to find data on this, if it's out there. Hahaha I literally burst out laughing in the library when after hours of ruminating through thought loops that I came up for air.

 

[Cacc]

Yeah,

I'm just fucking with you guys. I don't know why, but I always have this tendency choose the opposite stance of what a group beliefs in. It's weird. It's like I get kicks out of arguing hard against other's opinions even if I believe in them. Some parts it's rebelliousness also.


The truth is, I don't have any strong beliefs. Maybe it's because I'm young, or fucked up, but I don't have any beliefs that I can feel with 100% conviction. No strong emotional, righteous beliefs. So I'm constantly adopting beliefs that are proven to be right.

Maybe that's why I argue against things people belief so much. I guess I'm like a woman, shit testing to find out why you think the way you do, and If I agree, I'll adopt it.


I somehow made this thread about me, so sorry about that


Thanks Sandman and Hue for the debate. And thank you Sandman especially, for looking out for me in regards to toxic beliefs.

Cacc

 

[Sandman]

Yeah,

I'm just fucking with you guys. I don't know why, but I always have this tendency choose the opposite stance of what a group beliefs in. It's weird. It's like I get kicks out of arguing hard against other's opinions even if I believe in them. Some parts it's rebelliousness also.


The truth is, I don't have any strong beliefs. Maybe it's because I'm young, or fucked up, but I don't have any beliefs that I can feel with 100% conviction. No strong emotional, righteous beliefs. So I'm constantly adopting beliefs that are proven to be right.

Maybe that's why I argue against things people belief so much. I guess I'm like a woman, shit testing to find out why you think the way you do, and If I agree, I'll adopt it.


I somehow made this thread about me, so sorry about that


Thanks Sandman and Hue for the debate. And thank you Sandman especially, for looking out for me in regards to toxic beliefs.

Cacc

It takes courage to admit when one is wrong. All is good and you are welcome.