Would you date a transgender?

[The Steel Magnolia]

Hmm, so the question remains, are there any real difference between the terms "gender" and "sex"? If so, is a person attracted to another person based on sex, or by gender?

The terms heterosexual and homosexual refer to gender, though sexual compatibility is a thing that you do need to consider.

[Minenotyours]

nope, It would just be a little weird / Not my cup of tea.

[Arglorand]

Kissing your girlfriend is exactly like giving a blowjob to her father.

that is honestly one of the sickest, most twisted, irresponsible thing to say on the internet that I have EVER heard...

How is this even remotely related to the topic?

It's amazing how the very moment you notice an argument building up against your statements you ignore them, zone out for a while, and then return and have the audacity to ask how it is even related to the topic.

It's just plainly amazing.

[Person012345]

that is honestly one of the sickest, most twisted, irresponsible thing to say on the internet that I have EVER heard...

How is this even remotely related to the topic?

It's amazing how the very moment you notice an argument building up against your statements you ignore them, zone out for a while, and then return and have the audacity to ask how it is even related to the topic.

It's just plainly amazing.

I tend to find it amusing when, upon reaching the conclusion of their own logic, someone states "that's sick and twisted man".

Yes, yes it is.

[New England and The Maritimes]

Gender is a social label for an arbitrary and vague series of external behaviors. It's not fundamentally relevant to who you are as a person.

Not really. Gender's a pretty integral part of identity of the self.

The characteristics behind the label are. Those are important. The label itself is meaningless without the context of what it means to you, which means your experiences and thoughts and behaviors. "I'm a woman" tells me nothing whatsoever about you other than that you prefer to use the word "woman" when self-describing. It is not defined externally and can't be because it is a self-identifier, so it is meaningless without your own personal context and that is what matters, not the word used to identify that context.

[Arglorand]

It's amazing how the very moment you notice an argument building up against your statements you ignore them, zone out for a while, and then return and have the audacity to ask how it is even related to the topic.

It's just plainly amazing.

I tend to find it amusing when, upon reaching the conclusion of their own logic, someone states "that's sick and twisted man".

Yes, yes it is.

Niiiiiiiiice.

[The Nuclear Fist]

May I ask a question about Transgendered people that has been bothering me for a while?

If a transgendered person gets a sexual reassignment surgery and becomes the sex that better reflects who they are, do they stop being transgendered?

[Arglorand]

May I ask a question about Transgendered people that has been bothering me for a while?

If a transgendered person gets a sexual reassignment surgery and becomes the sex that better reflects who they are, do they stop being transgendered?

Doesn't "transgendered" kind of mean that they got said sexual reassignment surgery?

[The Nuclear Fist]

May I ask a question about Transgendered people that has been bothering me for a while?

If a transgendered person gets a sexual reassignment surgery and becomes the sex that better reflects who they are, do they stop being transgendered?

Doesn't "transgendered" kind of mean that they got said sexual reassignment surgery?

I was under the impression that transgendered means they are born one sex but identify with another?

[Aurora Novus]

Not really. Gender's a pretty integral part of identity of the self.

The characteristics behind the label are. Those are important. The label itself is meaningless without the context of what it means to you, which means your experiences and thoughts and behaviors. "I'm a woman" tells me nothing whatsoever about you other than that you prefer to use the word "woman" when self-describing. It is not defined externally and can't be because it is a self-identifier, so it is meaningless without your own personal context and that is what matters, not the word used to identify that context.

Yup.

Integral to identifying the self, even if it were so, doesn't necessarily make it real. Imagined concepts can be very important to someone, especially when defining themselves and who they are. It makes them no less imagined however.

[Arglorand]

Doesn't "transgendered" kind of mean that they got said sexual reassignment surgery?

I was under the impression that transgendered means they are born one sex but identify with another?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgendered

Point for you.

It appears (or at least I assumed that) in this topic we were discussing the cases where an individual has, in fact, undergone such surgery, though, so at least by the terminology we've been using here they're still transgendered after such surgery.

[Linux and the X]

The characteristics behind the label are. Those are important. The label itself is meaningless without the context of what it means to you, which means your experiences and thoughts and behaviors. "I'm a woman" tells me nothing whatsoever about you other than that you prefer to use the word "woman" when self-describing. It is not defined externally and can't be because it is a self-identifier, so it is meaningless without your own personal context and that is what matters, not the word used to identify that context.

Yup.

Integral to identifying the self, even if it were so, doesn't necessarily make it real. Imagined concepts can be very important to someone, especially when defining themselves and who they are. It makes them no less imagined however.

Money is an imagined concept. If imagined concepts are not real, I'm sure you have no problem giving me all of yours.

[Arglorand]

Yup.

Integral to identifying the self, even if it were so, doesn't necessarily make it real. Imagined concepts can be very important to someone, especially when defining themselves and who they are. It makes them no less imagined however.

Money is an imagined concept. If imagined concepts are not real, I'm sure you have no problem giving me all of yours.

You misunderstand his statement: gender is an imagined concept, therefore it can be redefined.

If my country decides on a new currency (and assuming I cannot exchange my old cash into this new currency, what would be weird, but play along with me here), I'll gladly give all my old useless banknotes to you.

[Aurora Novus]

Money is an imagined concept. If imagined concepts are not real, I'm sure you have no problem giving me all of yours.

Don't be ridiculous. I agree money is an imagined concept, but unfortunately, we live in a world where people refuse to recognize that, and therefore, I will not survive if I give you my money. This doesn't make it any less imagined however, and therefore, not real. Your comparison falls flat due to it's inaccuracy.

[Linux and the X]

Money is an imagined concept. If imagined concepts are not real, I'm sure you have no problem giving me all of yours.

Don't be ridiculous. I agree money is an imagined concept, but unfortunately, we live in a world where people refuse to recognize that, and therefore, I will not survive if I give you my money. This doesn't make it any less imagined however, and therefore, not real. Your comparison falls flat due to it's inaccuracy.

If everyone considers it important, how is it not real?

[Des-Bal]

Nope.

[New England and The Maritimes]

Don't be ridiculous. I agree money is an imagined concept, but unfortunately, we live in a world where people refuse to recognize that, and therefore, I will not survive if I give you my money. This doesn't make it any less imagined however, and therefore, not real. Your comparison falls flat due to it's inaccuracy.

If everyone considers it important, how is it not real?

Its existence isn't observable outside of a unique human experience. Like ownership, it isn't an objectively verifiable fact. Nobody can look at a dollar bill under an electron microscope and say "This will buy you a candy bar" based on the alignment of its assorted particles. Nobody as far as I know can look at a human body and say "This is a woman" and have those words mean something.

[Aurora Novus]

Don't be ridiculous. I agree money is an imagined concept, but unfortunately, we live in a world where people refuse to recognize that, and therefore, I will not survive if I give you my money. This doesn't make it any less imagined however, and therefore, not real. Your comparison falls flat due to it's inaccuracy.

If everyone considers it important, how is it not real?

Because it has no objective meaning or value outside of human experience and subjectivity.

It's just paper.

And in fact, it's slowly becoming even less than that; just bits of electricity in a box.

That's all it is, objectively. The idea of it having some kind of economic power is a completely imagined human concept.

[New England and The Maritimes]

To get back on the subject of gender, ok let's do a basic exercise, using syllogisms.

Men, as the posterior term. Women in the anterior, and "has penis" in the middle. If we start from the proposition that "All men are NOT women", we get back "All women are NOT men." So A and C are mutually exclusive. Some women have penii. Some men do not have penii. Some of A is B, and some of C is B, therefore some of C is A? That doesn't follow with our proposition. We can do this with any number of characteristics in the middle place and we simply can't exclude one group from the others' characteristics. In that sense, then, as a classification the two are without specific objective meaning. Without specific objective meaning, they are functionally irrelevant.

[Des-Bal]

Because it has no objective meaning or value outside of human experience and subjectivity.

It's just paper.

And in fact, it's slowly becoming even less than that; just bits of electricity in a box.

That's all it is, objectively. The idea of it having some kind of economic power is a completely imagined human concept.

Value is imaginary.

[Aurora Novus]

To make it more clear, I could walk along the roadside, and pick up 16 pebbles, and say "Here this is money, now give me something in exchange for it!"

Of course, I would be laughed and and soundly dismissed. No one would look upon a pebble and thinnk "This is money, it has economic value and purchasing power."

But this is literally what we do, just with paper, or code, instead of pebbles. And actually, the pebbles should in theory be more valid than bits of electronic code, because at least pebbles are tangible.

[Person012345]

To make it more clear, I could walk along the roadside, and pick up 16 pebbles, and say "Here this is money, now give me something in exchange for it!"

Of course, I would be laughed and and soundly dismissed. No one would look upon a pebble and thinnk "This is money, it has economic value and purchasing power."

But this is literally what we do, just with paper, or code, instead of pebbles. And actually, the pebbles should in theory be more valid than bits of electronic code, because at least pebbles are tangible.

The paper, the code, isn't the thing with value. They are representative of things with value. If you were using those pebbles as an IOU for goods or services, that would be the same as money. And maybe people wouldn't accept them because they don't have to and you're a random who wouldn't necessarily deliver.

Of course, as said above, value is imaginary.

[Des-Bal]

To make it more clear, I could walk along the roadside, and pick up 16 pebbles, and say "Here's this is money, now give me something in exchange for it!"

Of course, I would be laughed and and soundly dismissed. No one would look upon a pebble and thinnk "This is money, it has economic value and purchasing power."

But this is literally what we do, just with paper, or code, instead of pebbles. And actually, the pebbles should in theory be more valid than bits of electronic code, because at least pebbles are tangible.

No they shouldn't. The value of money is that it is fairly lightweight , not easy to replicate, and the amount of it is fairly controlled. It's value further comes from the fact that it's agreed upon as a unit of trade. See I could go to the market with the intention of picking up a chicken but I'd have to find someone who 1, has a chicken to sell and 2, has a desire for the bag of turnips that I have to trade. With money I know that as long as I find someone ready to sell a chicken I have something that he's willing to take in exchange for it.

I could go on to explain the different forms of primitive commerce and the objective values of each one but it's pretty clear your being deliberately obtuse in an effort to sound profound.

[New England and The Maritimes]

To make it more clear, I could walk along the roadside, and pick up 16 pebbles, and say "Here this is money, now give me something in exchange for it!"

Of course, I would be laughed and and soundly dismissed. No one would look upon a pebble and thinnk "This is money, it has economic value and purchasing power."

But this is literally what we do, just with paper, or code, instead of pebbles. And actually, the pebbles should in theory be more valid than bits of electronic code, because at least pebbles are tangible.

The paper, the code, isn't the thing with value. They are representative of things with value. If you were using those pebbles as an IOU for goods or services, that would be the same as money. And maybe people wouldn't accept them because they don't have to and you're a random who wouldn't necessarily deliver.

Of course, as said above, value is imaginary.

Yes, it is. But unlike gender there is a universally-enforced definition of value and money. That said, I don't agree with using exchange mediums since I think mutual aid is a more important factor.

[Tsuntion]

Men, as the posterior term. Women in the anterior, and "has penis" in the middle. If we start from the proposition that "All men are NOT women", we get back "All women are NOT men." So A and C are mutually exclusive. Some women have penii. Some men do not have penii. Some of A is B, and some of C is B, therefore some of C is A? That doesn't follow with our proposition. We can do this with any number of characteristics in the middle place and we simply can't exclude one group from the others' characteristics. In that sense, then, as a classification the two are without specific objective meaning. Without specific objective meaning, they are functionally irrelevant.

The bolded is wrong. If three quarters of B are A and the final quarter is C, that doesn't lead to any of the quarters that are A being C. If I eat half a cake and my sister eats the other half of that cake, that doesn't mean we've eaten the same piece.