Would you date a transgender?

[New England and The Maritimes]

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.

Read Prior Analytics and understand what a syllogism is, because you completely don't understand what I am saying.

[Tsuntion]

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.

Read Prior Analytics and understand what a syllogism is, because you completely don't understand what I am saying.

Sorry, I replaced it with <difficult word> in my head and ignored it. :P I think I know what you mean now; consider my previous post retracted.

[Lemanrussland]

Too weird for me, but if it floats their boat, good for them.

[The Steel Magnolia]

This trend of cis people explaining how gender doesn't exist amuses the hell out of me.

It's a social construct. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it doesn't mean it's not relevant.

Perhaps it shouldn't be. But for fuck's sake, stop acting like if we suddenly stop acknowledging gender any problems will be solved.

Nor, for that matter, is it remotely feasible. Or desirable.

[EnragedMaldivians]

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.

Socially constructed things can be real. States are real. Laws are real. What words in languages mean are real (the letters comprising the word 'frustration' put together has no meaning beyond which English speakers give to it' for instance. It is socially constructed. Yet to argue that its meaning is imaginary, imbuing the word imaginary with the connotations you are placing upon it, would be absurd). Identities are real (or does one imagine oneself as a Muslim or a Christian or a Hindu?). These are all socially constructed/imagined realities, that are very much real. We can argue that gender binaries are silly and furthermore that mandatory gender roles are harmful, or even that the concept of gender has its flaws. But the argument that it can't be real because only tangible things can be real is a very bad one.

[Des-Bal]

This trend of cis people explaining how gender doesn't exist amuses the hell out of me.

It's a social construct. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it doesn't mean it's not relevant.

Perhaps it shouldn't be. But for fuck's sake, stop acting like if we suddenly stop acknowledging gender any problems will be solved.

Nor, for that matter, is it remotely feasible. Or desirable.

I blame the liberals. They seem to have a hard time drawing lines between "we're all equal and should be treated equally" and "there exist literally no distinctions between anything, the world is a blob of homogeneity."

[The Steel Magnolia]

This trend of cis people explaining how gender doesn't exist amuses the hell out of me.

It's a social construct. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it doesn't mean it's not relevant.

Perhaps it shouldn't be. But for fuck's sake, stop acting like if we suddenly stop acknowledging gender any problems will be solved.

Nor, for that matter, is it remotely feasible. Or desirable.

I blame the liberals. They seem to have a hard time drawing lines between "we're all equal and should be treated equally" and "there exist literally no distinctions between anything, the world is a blob of homogeneity."

Funnily enough, I do too.

[The Steel Magnolia]

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.

Socially constructed things can be real. States are real. Laws are real. What words in languages mean are real (the letters comprising the word 'frustration' put together has no meaning beyond which English speakers give to it' for instance. It is socially constructed. Yet to argue that its meaning is imaginary, imbuing the word imaginary with the connotations you are placing upon it, would be absurd). Identities are real (or does one imagine oneself as a Muslim or a Christian or a Hindu?). These are all socially constructed/imagined realities, that are very much real. We can argue that gender binaries are silly and furthermore that mandatory gender roles are harmful, or even that the concept of gender has its flaws. But the argument that it can't be real because only tangible things can be real is a very bad one.

Oh I certainly agree that gender roles are harmful, and I seek to create a world where there are no prejudices regardless of sex, gender, or gender identity.

That's not the same thing as abolishing gender. There's no need to throw the baby out with the wash.

[New England and The Maritimes]

This trend of cis people explaining how gender doesn't exist amuses the hell out of me.

It's a social construct. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it doesn't mean it's not relevant.

Perhaps it shouldn't be. But for fuck's sake, stop acting like if we suddenly stop acknowledging gender any problems will be solved.

Nor, for that matter, is it remotely feasible. Or desirable.

I guess making shit up about what I'm saying is preferable to actually listening to it.

Your identity is important. Assigning a word to the broad context of what defines you is a pointless exercise that conveys no information and only encourages the idea of arbitrary social division. If you don't want to have a conversation about what is being said, that's fine, but don't act high and mighty about your refusal to look at what is being said in favor of trotting out strawmen.

[EnragedMaldivians]

Socially constructed things can be real. States are real. Laws are real. What words in languages mean are real (the letters comprising the word 'frustration' put together has no meaning beyond which English speakers give to it' for instance. It is socially constructed. Yet to argue that its meaning is imaginary, imbuing the word imaginary with the connotations you are placing upon it, would be absurd). Identities are real (or does one imagine oneself as a Muslim or a Christian or a Hindu?). These are all socially constructed/imagined realities, that are very much real. We can argue that gender binaries are silly and furthermore that mandatory gender roles are harmful, or even that the concept of gender has its flaws. But the argument that it can't be real because only tangible things can be real is a very bad one.

Oh I certainly agree that gender roles are harmful, and I seek to create a world where there are no prejudices regardless of sex, gender, or gender identity.

That's not the same thing as abolishing gender. There's no need to throw the baby out with the wash.

I have no comment on that issue; I will neither advocate preserving or abolishing gender. I am a cis heterosexual male that does not grasp at the emotional or intellectual level what it means to be trans, and I've seen LGBT folks argue a number of positions with regard to the validity of the concept of gender. I don't have the knowledge or understanding or experience to adequately comment on the issue. My only relevant position is that no one should be discriminated against on the basis of gender identity. Beyond that, I feel that I should stay quiet.

In that instance I was just pointing out that his argument that socially constructed realities are somehow not real is very flawed.

[The Steel Magnolia]

I guess making shit up about what I'm saying is preferable to actually listening to it.

Your identity is important. Assigning a word to the broad context of what defines you is a pointless exercise that conveys no information and only encourages the idea of arbitrary social division. If you don't want to have a conversation about what is being said, that's fine, but don't act high and mighty about your refusal to look at what is being said in favor of trotting out strawmen.

In a perfect world where social division wasn't necessary, and discrimination didn't exist you'd be more than right.

Unfortunately that's not actually the case.

I fail to see how assigning a word to define yourself is anything but convenient though. I mean, I can explain every facet about myself every time I talk to someone if I want, or use a word to express broad concepts.

I identify myself as a social democrat. If I really wanted, I could instead describe in detail all my positions on a variety of political topics. Instead, for the sake of not spending hours on end when I try and explain what I believe, I say social democrat.

If that enforces divisions so be it. Humanity isn't some homogeneous blob.

[Aurora Novus]

This trend of cis people explaining how gender doesn't exist amuses the hell out of me.

It's a social construct. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it doesn't mean it's not relevant.

Actually, yes, it does. It means precisely that. If something is a social construct, it has no objective meaning or value. Which makes it no more real than the delusion a schizophrenic dreams up in their head.

Perhaps it shouldn't be. But for fuck's sake, stop acting like if we suddenly stop acknowledging gender any problems will be solved.

Mistreatment of individuals is almost exclusively caused by looking upon them as "different" or "others". Blacks were oppressed by whites because, hey, "them niggers is different". NAtions go to war with one another, for petty reasons, using group identification as a means to encourage people to blindly support them. I could go on and on. The segregation of ourselves, by ourselves, is the main source of conflict between ourselves.

Are you denying that, by removing the thinking that two people are "part of different groups", would remove a lot of the bias, bigotry, and wrongs perpetuated by people, against people?

[Great Jordan]

idk.

[Nadkor]

This trend of cis people explaining how gender doesn't exist amuses the hell out of me.

It's a social construct. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it doesn't mean it's not relevant.

Actually, yes, it does. It means precisely that. If something is a social construct, it has no objective meaning or value. Which makes it no more real than the delusion and schizophrenic dreams up in their head.

Do you apply the same standard to, say, the law?

[New England and The Maritimes]

Actually, yes, it does. It means precisely that. If something is a social construct, it has no objective meaning or value. Which makes it no more real than the delusion and schizophrenic dreams up in their head.

Do you apply the same standard to, say, the law?

I do. It's not an objective reality. It exists due to general consensus and when the consensus changes so does the conceptualization of what the law is. It's not that hard to wrap your head around when you don't try to define what our argument is for us.

[Imperiatom]

42% of those that voted would date a transgender!! im not a religious man but that is fucked up.
The human race is going to slowly die out.

[The Majestic Empire of Edwardia]

No.

[The Steel Magnolia]

I have no comment on that issue; I will neither advocate preserving or abolishing gender. I am a cis heterosexual male that does not grasp at the emotional or intellectual level what it means to be trans, and I've seen LGBT folks argue a number of positions with regard to the validity of the concept of gender. I don't have the knowledge or understanding or experience to adequately comment on the issue. My only relevant position is that no one should be discriminated against on the basis of gender identity. Beyond that, I feel that I should stay quiet.

In that instance I was just pointing out that his argument that socially constructed realities are somehow not real is very flawed.

I don't think that just because you're a cis hetero male you can't argue one way or another on an issue. It means you may lack some experience, but you're pretty fantastic at acknowledging that lack of experience, and that's more than most people can do.

But yeah there's plenty of division within the movement, and honestly advocating a lack of discrimination on the basis of gender identity is pretty great as is.

[Akadia North]

No.

[Polinikia]

No. No way.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Actually, yes, it does. It means precisely that. If something is a social construct, it has no objective meaning or value. Which makes it no more real than the delusion a schizophrenic dreams up in their head.

Why haven't I blocked you yet?

Mistreatment of individuals is almost exclusively caused by looking upon them as "different" or "others". Blacks were oppressed by whites because, hey, "them niggers is different". NAtions go to war with one another, for petty reasons, using group identification as a means to encourage people to blindly support them. I could go on and on. The segregation of ourselves, by ourselves, is the main source of conflict between ourselves.

Are you denying that, by removing the thinking that two people are "part of different groups", would remove a lot of the bias, bigotry, and wrongs perpetuated by people, against people?

Obviously I deny that? You can't work on the substantive problems people face without actually trying to implement equity in a substantive manner.

Your formalistic, Aristotelian equality is a travesty.

[The Steel Magnolia]

42% of those that voted would date a transgender!! im not a religious man but that is fucked up.
The human race is going to slowly die out.

How quaint.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Do you apply the same standard to, say, the law?

I do. It's not an objective reality. It exists due to general consensus and when the consensus changes so does the conceptualization of what the law is. It's not that hard to wrap your head around when you don't try to define what our argument is for us.

Which again. Doesn't actually make it not real.

[Arglorand]

42% of those that voted would date a transgender!! im not a religious man but that is fucked up.
The human race is going to slowly die out.

Because all those orphans in Africa totally don't need love and care.

[Person012345]

42% of those that voted would date a transgender!! im not a religious man but that is fucked up.
The human race is going to slowly die out.

Would you take the time to explain why you feel it's fucked up?