mixed_biscuits
_________________________
Probably not what God had in mind when he started the universe eitherprobably not what padraig haad in mind when he started the thread o well
Probably not what God had in mind when he started the universe eitherprobably not what padraig haad in mind when he started the thread o well
Do you think we should make a separate thread? That will be the epic fight of the femboys: is sex binary or non-binary? Do you think the topic warrants its own thread? I bet Jenks does because he's a mark anthony and Mad maxipad does because he's sipping dat RAGEAHOL!!!!probably not what padraig haad in mind when he started the thread o well
Soaring T levels from a bullish malelesbianDo you think we should make a separate thread? That will be the epic fight of the femboys: is sex binary or non-binary? Do you think the topic warrants its own thread? I bet Jenks does because he's a mark anthony and Mad maxipad does because he's sipping dat RAGEAHOL!!!!
This debate has been a long time coming.
Remember, Thirdform is the referee.
LMAO it's those darned blasted red-pillers who defend ad populum arguments. I've argued againsst popular opinion my whole life, how do you think I came up with femboy feminism/male lesbianism? LOL@malelesbian you missed something out
Here are two fallacies to edit out too before I point them out: argumentum ad populum, begging the question
For the last time, I reject transracialism!
That's a pretty unprincipled exception you've got there!For the last time, I reject transracialism!
Of course, should your prorg masters issue an update to the firmware, you'll start finding post-hoc rationalisations lickety-split.
There is no fundamental difference: in both cases there is a feeling of the wrong body being inhabited. Take the progressive step that logic and justice demand.
The Prorg is the Progressive Borg. The members of the Borg are part of a hive mind and think no more or no less than what is directed.What in the world is a prorg?
Yo, brother, wassupmy brother
Transgender's only recently got traction. For quite a while anti-slavery didn't have much traction. You're literally appealing to the hive mind in saying that - don't act because there's traction, act because it's right!The idea of transracialism has been around for over a century and it never gained any traction
It's not about acting it's about how you feel inside. That's what self-identification suffices.It's not like Dolezal could change her white genes!
Dolezal is irrelevant. The pivotal cases are those who experience racial dysphoria. Dolezal is only important in that, as a society that respects gender dysphoria has opened up transgenderism for the non-dysphoric, her choice would be accepted by a society that catered for race dysphoria.Not even dude. Dolezal didn't claim she was born in the wrong body, she claimed that she contributed to black culture.
If you think that 'innate' is an arbitrary cultural label then there is no good reason not to help to hasten this shift in perception to your preferred system of cultural labelling.Maybe it shouldn't be, but if it ever does, I welcome the day when people can choose their own race
Amenwe should pursue gender equality, not gender abolitionism
Trans identity gained traction because of Judith Butler, baby! And yes, of course we should do what's right. I believe in universal morality, just like Butler. Sure, the popular opinion doesn't justify our opinions. But what justifies transracialism? Not the claim that we should respect all people's identifications, that's for sure. Why does that justification fail? Simply put, because an identification is a behavior, not an innate quality and innate qualities define race. That identifications partially define gender is simply a special rule when it comes to the ontological constitution of gender. Furthermore, you already denied that it's possible to act like a woman or man. You reject gendered behavior outright, meaning not even identifications can define my gender, since, according to you, no behavior can define my gender. So you would also need to deny racial behaviors as well, meaning no one could act black either. So racial self-identifications wouldn't matter to you either. Your view is radically self-undermining.Transgender's only recently got traction. For quite a while anti-slavery didn't have much traction. You're literally appealing to the hive mind in saying that - don't act because there's traction, act because it's right!
It's not about acting it's about how you feel inside. That's what self-identification suffices.
Genes are by the by: the whole point is that you feel that you're in the wrong body and genes are precisely part of that body!
LOL again, most biologists are anti essentialists and they don't believe a person's genes can change within their lifetime.Also, that's a super-essentialist thing to say.
Dolezal is irrelevant. The pivotal cases are those who experience racial dysphoria. Dolezal is only important in that, as a society that respects gender dysphoria has opened up transgenderism for the non-dysphoric, her choice would be accepted by a society that catered for race dysphoria.
This sentence is very unclear. I deny that innateness is an arbitrary cultural label. The race of my parents is not an arbitrary label, it is an empirical fact. I see no good reason to shift my perception to a preferred system of cultural labelling. Obviously I already prefer the system of cultural labelling that classifies people as members of their race based on their birth parents' race and classifies people as members of their gender based on their behavior. It's true that I lack an argument for basing race on innate qualities, but just because I don't have an argument doesn't mean there is no argument for my belief. On the other hand, you also lack an argument for basing race on behavior. If anything, I would just argue that alongside race we have a similar kind of racial or ethnic behaviors that don't define one's racial or ethnic identity. But I see no reason for behavior to define race.If you think that 'innate' is an arbitrary cultural label then there is no good reason not to help to hasten this shift in perception to your preferred system of cultural labelling.
You are using a moving target of an argument that alternates between saying that a) there are no decisive behaviours that define a gender and that self-identification suffices and b) its opposite.
You seem mightily confused as to what 'essentialism' means
This is totally ridiculous. Everyone, left or right or center, believes race is an innate quality. I affirm that race has a social reality, it is socially constructed. Social constructionism about race is a historically left-wing view.your views on what it takes to belong to a race - as well as the reality of the concept - are no different to the far right's.
As are your views on what constitutes male and female behaviour.
ie. very conventional/traditional
Which part of society? Or which society? If I decolonise and ask the people who wrote the Swahili wikipedia entry on these matters I'd get a very different response! This point of view is fundamentally anti-progressive anyway, because the whole point is to believe in one's own current minority position with a view to making it a majority position. 'Ask society' is pure conservatism.It's really quite simple. Society determines the behaviors that define a gender. If you want to know what behaviors define a gender, ask society
Your morality is just social etiquette, hence the 'ask society' stance. As for self-identification, you already problematised gender self-ID yourself, as well as rejected without principle other kinds of trans identification.What is more important is that for moral reasons, we should always trust a person to authentically identify as their own gender. Notice how your view cares very little for morals?
If you accept that their identification is authentic, then any of their behaviour belongs authentically to that gender...you'd be giving out gold stars to your daughter for making the effort to wear pink at this rate.we need to assume that a person at least tries to behave like the gender they identify as, because we trust the authenticity of the person's gender identification.
You still haven't told us what female behaviour a man can't perform or vice versa.You can't imagine such examples. I argue your theory suffers from its inability to account for such examples.
Just a few sentences ago you said that people's genders can be determined by their behaviour, against their own identification - this is essentialism.I define gender essentialism as the view that all members of the same gender must share the same quality in common. No one can find any citations of me claiming that all women must share the same commonality. On my view, even all feminine people need share no single feminine quality in common in order to count as feminine. So I never affirmed essentialism of any kind. NOT EVEN ESSENTIALISM ABOUT SEX.
You're a race realist because you just said race is an innate quality!This is totally ridiculous. Everyone, left or right or center, believes race is an innate quality. I affirm that race has a social reality, it is socially constructed. Social constructionism about race is a historically left-wing view.
Your failure to distinguish between social constructionism about race and race realism (which IS a far-right view) shows that you haven't thought through the metaphysics underlying identity politics.
No, you don't. You see them in extremely conventional terms, and where they coincide in a person you create an amalgam e.g. 'malelesbianism'the fact still remains that I constantly endorse non-traditional masculine and feminine behaviors. You don't.
In my opinion there is no behaviour that necessarily compromises one's status as a man or as a woman, whereas you think the opposite. Can't stay, it's Jane Austen on the phone - she's asking whether she can satirise your view on the sexes ;-)I am a non-traditional male. Always have been, always will be me. I like non-traditional females. I allow for the continual reinterpretation of feminine qualities. You don't. Let's say supportive behavior is traditionally considered feminine. Here's an example of a non-traditional reinterpretation of this quality: what if a feminine person supported their community, rather than their family? What if they supported they country through participation in government? Traditionally, feminine people don't participate in government. The point is you have never given any such non-traditional intepretation of masculine or feminine behavior.
Which part of society?
I tend to focus on America.Or which society?
African people act in accordance to gender norms...If I decolonise and ask the people who wrote the Swahili wikipedia entry on these matters I'd get a very different response!
This point of view is fundamentally anti-progressive anyway, because the whole point is to believe in one's own current minority position with a view to making it a majority position.
'Ask society' is pure conservatism.
Your morality is just social etiquette, hence the 'ask society' stance.
As for self-identification, you already problematised gender self-ID yourself, as well as rejected without principle other kinds of trans identification.
If you accept that their identification is authentic, then any of their behaviour belongs authentically to that gender
You still haven't told us what female behaviour a man can't perform or vice versa.
I already defined essentialism. The claim that behavior defines gender doesn't count as a essentialist argument on my definition of essentialism. Either provide an alternative definition of essentialism, or admit you're wrong. Again, I accept that only an essentialist can claim that actions define gender, then I render anti-essentialism an untenable position because I prohibit anti-essentialism from defining gender at all. I want an anti-essentialist definition of gender. Either give an alternative anti-essentialist definition of gender, or argue that anti-essentialists can't define gender.Just a few sentences ago you said that people's genders can be determined by their behaviour, against their own identification - this is essentialism.
You're a race realist because you just said race is an innate quality!
What's conventional about my views on masculinity and femininity?No, you don't. You see them in extremely conventional terms, and where they coincide in a person you create an amalgam e.g. 'malelesbianism'
Then can you just admit you reject gender altogether? If behavior flat out doesn't define identity in a way that yields distinct identity categories, the there are no men and women, there are only males and females and their actions.In my opinion there is no behaviour that necessarily compromises one's status as a man or as a woman, whereas you think the opposite.