LGBT Rights & Issues Thread, V4

[The V O I D]

So Arkansas supreme court says that LG couples cannot have both names on the birth certificate automatically.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... ge%2Fstory

Glad to know that some states still recognize fact over fiction.

Except marriage is marriage, always. You take the spouse's last name, too - not the last name of some guy or gal you don't even know.

[Vassenor]

If we take this to its logical conclusion, do we start declaring that any marriage not carried out in the Christian tradition is invalid?

[Jumalariik]

Transgender women are women. Transgender men are men. The reason for this classification is the use of gender identity, which is a measurable aspect of human neurology which is based in how a person's brain subconsciously recognizes itself. Thus it is the more accurate in day-to-day interaction and identification. In addition to this, we have gender identity because, simply put, no other category which we have defined within that binary is expansive enough to represent the vast diversity of human beings, in terms of sex characteristics.

In terms of bathroom usage, there is no logical reason for it not to be based off of gender identity. It is simply a non-issue, and hasn't been tied to any direct effect on...well anything, other than the mental health of transgender people, especially youth, and had remained such a non-issue up until an artificial problem was created by those opposed to it. In addition, the knowledge of gender identity is very well-founded and established, so there's no reason to not include it in basic education.

Regardless, transgender identities, regardless of the personal opinions of some, are recognized as valid by the medical and psychological community. The same with homosexuality or other sexual or gender orientations. Thankfully, the medical and psychological professionals, and their associations, look at the facts, and do not let themselves be dictated to by fiction, and recognize them as valid and naturally occurring parts of human diversity.

So let's say this:

If we use the word woman and man as purely identifications that are self-given, then yes, you are correct. But, my trusty Oxford dictionary says otherwise. The first deffiniton of man is
"man |man|
noun (pl. men |men| )
1 an adult human male."

My first deffiniton of woman is:
"woman |ˈwo͝omən|
noun (pl. women |ˈwimin| )
an adult human female."

So, according to English, you are wrong in that. If you identify as a male and are not, you are not a male. Simple. I suppose the question becomes, what does that mean? I'd say it means that gender identification doesn't matter much, but I do see it as possible that people who feel more like a woman or a man could try to incorporate the good things of the other gender into their behaviors and actions, however, to say that one can choose to be a man or woman is simply false given the dictionary's definition. I go by dictionaries because they are the standard by which we measure our language.

[Jumalariik]

If we take this to its logical conclusion, do we start declaring that any marriage not carried out in the Christian tradition is invalid?

That would be nice. One day.

[Philjia]

Transgender women are women. Transgender men are men. The reason for this classification is the use of gender identity, which is a measurable aspect of human neurology which is based in how a person's brain subconsciously recognizes itself. Thus it is the more accurate in day-to-day interaction and identification. In addition to this, we have gender identity because, simply put, no other category which we have defined within that binary is expansive enough to represent the vast diversity of human beings, in terms of sex characteristics.

In terms of bathroom usage, there is no logical reason for it not to be based off of gender identity. It is simply a non-issue, and hasn't been tied to any direct effect on...well anything, other than the mental health of transgender people, especially youth, and had remained such a non-issue up until an artificial problem was created by those opposed to it. In addition, the knowledge of gender identity is very well-founded and established, so there's no reason to not include it in basic education.

Regardless, transgender identities, regardless of the personal opinions of some, are recognized as valid by the medical and psychological community. The same with homosexuality or other sexual or gender orientations. Thankfully, the medical and psychological professionals, and their associations, look at the facts, and do not let themselves be dictated to by fiction, and recognize them as valid and naturally occurring parts of human diversity.

So let's say this:

If we use the word woman and man as purely identifications that are self-given, then yes, you are correct. But, my trusty Oxford dictionary says otherwise. The first deffiniton of man is
"man |man|
noun (pl. men |men| )
1 an adult human male."

My first deffiniton of woman is:
"woman |ˈwo͝omən|
noun (pl. women |ˈwimin| )
an adult human female."

So, according to English, you are wrong in that. If you identify as a male and are not, you are not a male. Simple. I suppose the question becomes, what does that mean? I'd say it means that gender identification doesn't matter much, but I do see it as possible that people who feel more like a woman or a man could try to incorporate the good things of the other gender into their behaviors and actions, however, to say that one can choose to be a man or woman is simply false given the dictionary's definition. I go by dictionaries because they are the standard by which we measure our language.

Dictionary definitions are merely a sign of the times. Take this one from Doctor Johnson's original English dictionary:
"Oats: A grain, which in England is generally given to horses, but in Scotland appears to support the people."

[The V O I D]

Transgender women are women. Transgender men are men. The reason for this classification is the use of gender identity, which is a measurable aspect of human neurology which is based in how a person's brain subconsciously recognizes itself. Thus it is the more accurate in day-to-day interaction and identification. In addition to this, we have gender identity because, simply put, no other category which we have defined within that binary is expansive enough to represent the vast diversity of human beings, in terms of sex characteristics.

In terms of bathroom usage, there is no logical reason for it not to be based off of gender identity. It is simply a non-issue, and hasn't been tied to any direct effect on...well anything, other than the mental health of transgender people, especially youth, and had remained such a non-issue up until an artificial problem was created by those opposed to it. In addition, the knowledge of gender identity is very well-founded and established, so there's no reason to not include it in basic education.

Regardless, transgender identities, regardless of the personal opinions of some, are recognized as valid by the medical and psychological community. The same with homosexuality or other sexual or gender orientations. Thankfully, the medical and psychological professionals, and their associations, look at the facts, and do not let themselves be dictated to by fiction, and recognize them as valid and naturally occurring parts of human diversity.

So let's say this:

If we use the word woman and man as purely identifications that are self-given, then yes, you are correct. But, my trusty Oxford dictionary says otherwise. The first deffiniton of man is
"man |man|
noun (pl. men |men| )
1 an adult human male."

My first deffiniton of woman is:
"woman |ˈwo͝omən|
noun (pl. women |ˈwimin| )
an adult human female."

So, according to English, you are wrong in that. If you identify as a male and are not, you are not a male. Simple. I suppose the question becomes, what does that mean? I'd say it means that gender identification doesn't matter much, but I do see it as possible that people who feel more like a woman or a man could try to incorporate the good things of the other gender into their behaviors and actions, however, to say that one can choose to be a man or woman is simply false given the dictionary's definition. I go by dictionaries because they are the standard by which we measure our language.

Then that means, even though I'm an atheist, because if we go by definitions for everything now... I'm technically not because

noun
1.
a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.

I received a Catholic Christian baptism, therefor I am Christian regardless of my choices or my personal identity with regards to religion.

I know this is all a semi-bad example, but this is what you are implying.

[Jumalariik]

So let's say this:

If we use the word woman and man as purely identifications that are self-given, then yes, you are correct. But, my trusty Oxford dictionary says otherwise. The first deffiniton of man is
"man |man|
noun (pl. men |men| )
1 an adult human male."

My first deffiniton of woman is:
"woman |ˈwo͝omən|
noun (pl. women |ˈwimin| )
an adult human female."

So, according to English, you are wrong in that. If you identify as a male and are not, you are not a male. Simple. I suppose the question becomes, what does that mean? I'd say it means that gender identification doesn't matter much, but I do see it as possible that people who feel more like a woman or a man could try to incorporate the good things of the other gender into their behaviors and actions, however, to say that one can choose to be a man or woman is simply false given the dictionary's definition. I go by dictionaries because they are the standard by which we measure our language.

Dictionary definitions are merely a sign of the times. Take this one from Doctor Johnson's original English dictionary:
"Oats: A grain, which in England is generally given to horses, but in Scotland appears to support the people."

Yes. It is merely a sign of what words actually mean at a certain time. Currently, the word "woman" or "man" refer to female and male respectively in general standard English usage. It's ok to speak non-standard English, this is a common thing around the world, however, do not claim that it's what the words mean when it's not. As of right now, a bunch of professors and youth use woman and man differently than everybody else, but until I see evidence that the liberal meaning is standard I feel no obligation to use it.

[Jumalariik]

So let's say this:

If we use the word woman and man as purely identifications that are self-given, then yes, you are correct. But, my trusty Oxford dictionary says otherwise. The first deffiniton of man is
"man |man|
noun (pl. men |men| )
1 an adult human male."

My first deffiniton of woman is:
"woman |ˈwo͝omən|
noun (pl. women |ˈwimin| )
an adult human female."

So, according to English, you are wrong in that. If you identify as a male and are not, you are not a male. Simple. I suppose the question becomes, what does that mean? I'd say it means that gender identification doesn't matter much, but I do see it as possible that people who feel more like a woman or a man could try to incorporate the good things of the other gender into their behaviors and actions, however, to say that one can choose to be a man or woman is simply false given the dictionary's definition. I go by dictionaries because they are the standard by which we measure our language.

Then that means, even though I'm an atheist, because if we go by definitions for everything now... I'm technically not because

noun
1.
a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.

I received a Catholic Christian baptism, therefor I am Christian regardless of my choices or my personal identity with regards to religion.

I know this is all a semi-bad example, but this is what you are implying.

Actually you are technically part of the Universal Church. Congrats! I mean you are not a believing Christian it sounds like from your post, but you are a Christian. And actually you are by virtue of Canon Law also a Catholic.

[The Princes of the Universe]

Then that means, even though I'm an atheist, because if we go by definitions for everything now... I'm technically not because

noun
1.
a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.

I received a Catholic Christian baptism, therefor I am Christian regardless of my choices or my personal identity with regards to religion.
I know this is all a semi-bad example, but this is what you are implying.

According to canon law, that makes you a Catholic.

[Jumalariik]

Then that means, even though I'm an atheist, because if we go by definitions for everything now... I'm technically not because

I received a Catholic Christian baptism, therefor I am Christian regardless of my choices or my personal identity with regards to religion.
I know this is all a semi-bad example, but this is what you are implying.

According to canon law, that makes you a Catholic.

Yep.

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/ ... arry-outsi

[Italios]

Dictionary definitions are merely a sign of the times. Take this one from Doctor Johnson's original English dictionary:
"Oats: A grain, which in England is generally given to horses, but in Scotland appears to support the people."

Yes. It is merely a sign of what words actually mean at a certain time. Currently, the word "woman" or "man" refer to female and male respectively in general standard English usage. It's ok to speak non-standard English, this is a common thing around the world, however, do not claim that it's what the words mean when it's not. As of right now, a bunch of professors and youth use woman and man differently than everybody else, but until I see evidence that the liberal meaning is standard I feel no obligation to use it.

Unfortunately, definitions from non-specialised dictionaries tend to be broad and often use two or word more interchangeably if that is also the current fashion. In casual conversation, people use "male" and "man" interchangeably because the conversation doesn't require a distinction. People often disagree on the definition of words used in controversial topics - for example, what "racism" really means. So all in all, taking the definition of man and woman out of Webster's dictionary and using that as the sole basis to your beliefs on gender issues doesn't make a lot of sense.

[The V O I D]

I must say that example wasn't a really good one, but you understand my point. Calling me a Christian when I don't even practice anymore and all I really did to have the title was be baptized, is just as bad as calling a transgender person by their biological sex rather than their gender identity because they aren't the definition of their gender identity.

EDIT: Well, actually, the latter (calling a transgender person the wrong thing) is worse.

[Jumalariik]

Yes. It is merely a sign of what words actually mean at a certain time. Currently, the word "woman" or "man" refer to female and male respectively in general standard English usage. It's ok to speak non-standard English, this is a common thing around the world, however, do not claim that it's what the words mean when it's not. As of right now, a bunch of professors and youth use woman and man differently than everybody else, but until I see evidence that the liberal meaning is standard I feel no obligation to use it.

Unfortunately, definitions from non-specialised dictionaries tend to be broad and often use two or word more interchangeably if that is also the current fashion. In casual conversation, people use "male" and "man" interchangeably because the conversation doesn't require a distinction. People often disagree on the definition of words used in controversial topics - for example, what "racism" really means. So all in all, taking the definition of man and woman out of Webster's dictionary and using that as the sole basis to your beliefs on gender issues doesn't make a lot of sense.

I guess we disagree on who should be running our language. I and most people would say that what a language is is based on what is said and spoken by the majority of people, not what a few academics want. Woman is the standard word that 90% of people use, womyn is not a word that people use much. I don't know why somebody can decide which we use due to a degree. They conform to our language. English is not like French where an academy exists to decide what is correct, ours is an organic language. Pushing gender and sex as distinctions is completely artificial. I mean if I'm in a conversation and we are talking, and they say "I'm a man" I will say "yes you are" if they actually are male because that's what English dictates. But hey, I guess the minority of English Speakers should always control the majority. (Though Shakespeare's english should not be the standard despite its' what many English teachers would love, because "language evolves organically")

[Jumalariik]

I must say that example wasn't a really good one, but you understand my point. Calling me a Christian when I don't even practice anymore and all I really did to have the title was be baptized, is just as bad as calling a transgender person by their biological sex rather than their gender identity because they aren't the definition of their gender identity.

EDIT: Well, actually, the latter (calling a transgender person the wrong thing) is worse.

Could you name an instance where something does not fit its standard definition where the standard definition is actually wrong?

[Elemordale]

In Elemordale, our only religion is Christianity. We are known as a Christian safe haven.

LGBT is banned in Elemordale and anyone who is LGBT will NOT get executed or put to jail, be we just deport them and ban them from Elemordale. Simple. Now if someone is born with both male and female organs, then we don't deport because it's a birth defect that can't really be cured unless through surgery after birth.

Also the way we execute people is we simply fly them to a small cay in the ocean, drop them off with nothing and let them starve, dehydrate, or get caught in the tide and get washed out to sea and die.

[The V O I D]

I must say that example wasn't a really good one, but you understand my point. Calling me a Christian when I don't even practice anymore and all I really did to have the title was be baptized, is just as bad as calling a transgender person by their biological sex rather than their gender identity because they aren't the definition of their gender identity.

EDIT: Well, actually, the latter (calling a transgender person the wrong thing) is worse.

Could you name an instance where something does not fit its standard definition where the standard definition is actually wrong?

Yes. Transgender people. Transwomen are women despite being born with male parts, and vice versa.

Welcome to the modern age.

[Jumalariik]

In Elemordale, our only religion is Christianity. We are known as a Christian safe haven.

LGBT is banned in Elemordale and anyone who is LGBT will NOT get executed or put to jail, be we just deport them and ban them from Elemordale. Simple. Now if someone is born with both male and female organs, then we don't deport because it's a birth defect that can't really be cured unless through surgery after birth.

Also the way we execute people is we simply fly them to a small cay in the ocean, drop them off with nothing and let them starve, dehydrate, or get caught in the tide and get washed out to sea and die.

FYI this is not an Rp forum this is for opinions not the nations.

[The Princes of the Universe]

*snip*

General is very strictly Out-Of-Character.

[Jumalariik]

Could you name an instance where something does not fit its standard definition where the standard definition is actually wrong?

Yes. Transgender people. Transwomen are women despite being born with male parts, and vice versa.

Welcome to the modern age.

That's a circular argument.

"Sometimes standard English is wrong, example: transgender people" "Other examples for precedent?" "Transgender people."

I don't see why I should stop believing in standard English definitions when the only example you can give is the correct use of standard English.

[The V O I D]

Yes. Transgender people. Transwomen are women despite being born with male parts, and vice versa.

Welcome to the modern age.

That's a circular argument.

"Sometimes standard English is wrong, example: transgender people" "Other examples for precedent?" "Transgender people."

I don't see why I should stop believing in standard English definitions when the only example you can give is the correct use of standard English.

You said it yourself, though - English evolves, and many people accept the fact that transgender people are, in fact, what they identify as.

[Jumalariik]

That's a circular argument.

"Sometimes standard English is wrong, example: transgender people" "Other examples for precedent?" "Transgender people."

I don't see why I should stop believing in standard English definitions when the only example you can give is the correct use of standard English.

You said it yourself, though - English evolves, and many people accept the fact that transgender people are, in fact, what they identify as.

Not most people and not the standard use of language. When that changes we can talk.

[The V O I D]

You said it yourself, though - English evolves, and many people accept the fact that transgender people are, in fact, what they identify as.

Not most people and not the standard use of language. When that changes we can talk.

>not most people
By that you mean, not most people you know, who are also likely conservative Christians like yourself. Therefor, you have confirmation bias.
>not the standard use
The fact that I use it and many people on this site use it and many people IRL use it means it is a standard use.

[Jumalariik]

Not most people and not the standard use of language. When that changes we can talk.

>not most people
By that you mean, not most people you know, who are also likely conservative Christians like yourself. Therefor, you have confirmation bias.
>not the standard use
The fact that I use it and many people on this site use it and many people IRL use it means it is a standard use.

I live in the liberal part of the northeast and nobody uses English that way.

[The V O I D]

>not most people
By that you mean, not most people you know, who are also likely conservative Christians like yourself. Therefor, you have confirmation bias.
>not the standard use
The fact that I use it and many people on this site use it and many people IRL use it means it is a standard use.

I live in the liberal part of the northeast and nobody uses English that way.

Weird, so do I, and I know of people up here who use it that way, and my family down south in Maryland and Tennessee use it this way, and my family out west uses it this way... as well as their friends and neighbors.

Huh. It's almost like you might not know enough people to be a judge of something.

[Arcturus Novus]

Honestly, language policing, especially wrt gender, seems kind of ridiculous in this day and age. Allow people to refer to themselves with the terminology that they believe best suits them. It is nobody's place to tell them that they can't.