Would you date a transgender?

[New England and The Maritimes]

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.

It isn't any more real than the blue gorilla I see in the corner of my bedroom.

[Aurora Novus]

Socially constructed things can be real. States are real.

In what sense? All you call the "State" is an organization of people who, for various reasons, have given themselves a fancy label, and seek to exert power and authority over you. In that sense any street gang of teenagers is a "State" as well.

Laws are real.

Laws are nothing more than the recorded desires of a group of people. The law itself, as a piece of paper, is meaningless. Paper can do nothing to do. Paper cannot wrong you, nor can you do wrong by paper's standards.

What words in languages mean are real

Words can mean anything, and have multiple meanings at the same time.

But the argument that it can't be real because only tangible things can be real is a very bad one.

It's not that it's lacking in tangibility that makes in unreal, it's the fact that it has no objective meaning or value. I could possess all the sam traits as the person next to me, and they call themselves a "woman", and I call myself a "man". It's a completely meaningless distinction. It has no objective value. It's imaginary. Anything observing the two of us from an outsider's perspective would say "these two are the same".

Yet we somehow claim we are different, by virtue of giving ourselves arbitrary, meaningless labels, based on an imaginary concept, that's not even consistent across the globe.

[Pillea]

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.

Assuming you aren't just a troll, you do realize that many trans* people have children that are biologically theirs? So we aren't exactly killing of the species.....

[Nadkor]

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.

Oh, no, I understand what you're trying to argue, but it's nonsense to argue that just because something isn't an objective reality it isn't real. Just because something is a social construct doesn't mean that doesn't exist.

Law is entirely subjective, it is a social construct, yet it is clearly also real. Law exists.

The same, more or less, is the case for gender.

You appear to be confusing 'constructed' with 'imaginary'. The words are not interchangeable.

[The Steel Magnolia]

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

It isn't any more real than the blue gorilla I see in the corner of my bedroom.

How cute. And irrelevant.

Just because it ain't a literal physical thing doesn't actually mean it's not real.

[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.

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?

Both meaning and value are imaginary. "If we stop acknowledging our differences we will cease to have differences" you don't seem to understand the concept of object permanence. Pretending we're not different doesn't make us not different.

[New England and The Maritimes]

Socially constructed things can be real. States are real.

In what sense? All you call the "State" is an organization of people who, for various reasons, have given themselves a fancy label, and seek to exert power and authority over you. In that sense any street gang of teenagers is a "State" as well.

Laws are real.

Laws are nothing more than the recorded desires of a group of people. The law itself, as a piece of paper, is meaningless. Paper can do nothing to do. Paper cannot wrong you, nor can you do wrong by paper's standards.

What words in languages mean are real

Words can mean anything, and have multiple meanings at the same time.

But the argument that it can't be real because only tangible things can be real is a very bad one.

It's not that it's lacking in tangibility that makes in unreal, it's the fact that it has no objective meaning or value. I could possess all the sam traits as the person next to me, and they call themselves a "woman", and I call myself a "man". It's a completely meaningless distinction. It has no objective value. It's imaginary. Anything observing the two of us from an outsider's perspective would say "these two are the same".

Yet we somehow claim we are different, by virtue of giving ourselves arbitrary, meaningless labels, based on an imaginary concept, that's not even consistent across the globe.

I'm very glad I'm not the only one who has any idea what is being said.

[New England and The Maritimes]

It isn't any more real than the blue gorilla I see in the corner of my bedroom.

How cute. And irrelevant.

Just because it ain't a literal physical thing doesn't actually mean it's not real.

OK. So how is the abstract concept of law more real than my pet gorilla? Or god?

How does this relate to gender category distinctions, which are just words applied at random arbitrarily to a series of traits and characteristics and experiences by individuals?

[The Steel Magnolia]

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.

Oh, no, I understand what you're trying to argue, but it's nonsense to argue that just because something isn't an objective reality it isn't real. Just because something is a social construct doesn't mean that doesn't exist.

Law is entirely subjective, it is a social construct, yet it is clearly also real. Law exists.

The same, more or less, is the case for gender.

You appear to be confusing 'constructed' with 'imaginary'. The words are not interchangeable.

I really may as well just quote this because it explains it a little bit better than I ever could.

[Herlosk]

If I was attracted to a woman then I wouldn't be turned off if I found out she was born a boy. If, however, I found out she had a penis, I would ditch her immediately.

[Des-Bal]

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.

Oh, no, I understand what you're trying to argue, but it's nonsense to argue that just because something isn't an objective reality it isn't real. Just because something is a social construct doesn't mean that doesn't exist.

Law is entirely subjective, it is a social construct, yet it is clearly also real. Law exists.

The same, more or less, is the case for gender.

You appear to be confusing 'constructed' with 'imaginary'. The words are not interchangeable.

Your words have no objective meaning and therefore you didn't post anything.

[Lutherstadt]

No. I don't think I could.

[Aurora Novus]

Why haven't I blocked you yet?

I see you still don't saying things of value, instead resorting to little quips and passive-aggressive attacks. Charming.

Obviously I deny that?

You heard it here first folks.

Getting rid of the source of most human conflict, won't solve most human conflict.

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.

If two different people are suffering from the same problem, how does solving that problem require me to view the two as sperate groups? I could simply attack the problem itself, without showing any favoritism to one "group" or the other. Take, for instance, the issue of assault. there is no reason for the campaigns we see in America that chant "stop violence against women". There is no reason that we need treat women like a special group. If we just focus on solving the issue of violence, the root of the problem, violence against women, as well as violence against other people, will go away.

All you do when you focus on groups, instead of problems, is further divide people, cause resentment amongst other groups, and make your overall mission harder t achieve, for less results. It's completely illogical.

[New England and The Maritimes]

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.

Oh, no, I understand what you're trying to argue, but it's nonsense to argue that just because something isn't an objective reality it isn't real. Just because something is a social construct doesn't mean that doesn't exist.

Law is entirely subjective, it is a social construct, yet it is clearly also real. Law exists.

The same, more or less, is the case for gender.

You appear to be confusing 'constructed' with 'imaginary'. The words are not interchangeable.

I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I'm saying if we're going to decide on imaginary concepts to follow, we pick and choose which imaginary concepts to validate and agree on based on logical deduction and analysis. I agree to follow the law not because it's something that is concrete and undeniable- I can very much choose to disregard it because it is definitely not real, I do so because it makes sense and is generally beneficial. There's no undeniable reality to it which forces its relevance; I choose to agree to its relevance because it makes sense and is beneficial to my life and the lives of others.

[The Steel Magnolia]

You heard it here first folks.

Getting rid of the source of most human conflict, won't solve most human conflict.

Circular arguments are circular.

If two different people are suffering from the same problem, how does solving that problem require me to view the two as sperate groups? I could simply attack the problem itself, without showing any favoritism to one "group" or the other. Take, for instance, the issue of assault. there is no reason for the campaigns we see in America that chant "stop violence against women". There is no reason that we need treat women like a special group. If we just focus on solving the issue of violence, the root of the problem, violence against women, as well as violence against other people, will go away.

All you do when you focus on groups, instead of problems, is further divide people, cause resentment amongst other groups, and make your overall mission harder t achieve, for less results. It's completely illogical.

Because they're not suffering the same problem. To use your example, violence against women is a very different problem than violence against other social groups, in severity, prevalence, et cetera.

[Nadkor]

Oh, no, I understand what you're trying to argue, but it's nonsense to argue that just because something isn't an objective reality it isn't real. Just because something is a social construct doesn't mean that doesn't exist.

Law is entirely subjective, it is a social construct, yet it is clearly also real. Law exists.

The same, more or less, is the case for gender.

You appear to be confusing 'constructed' with 'imaginary'. The words are not interchangeable.

I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I'm saying if we're going to decide on imaginary concepts to follow, we pick and choose which imaginary concepts to validate and agree on based on logical deduction and analysis. I agree to follow the law not because it's something that is concrete and undeniable- I can very much choose to disregard it because it is definitely not real, I do so because it makes sense and is generally beneficial. There's no undeniable reality to it which forces its relevance; I choose to agree to its relevance because it makes sense and is beneficial to my life and the lives of others.

Again, you're confusing 'constructed' with 'imaginary'.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Oh, no, I understand what you're trying to argue, but it's nonsense to argue that just because something isn't an objective reality it isn't real. Just because something is a social construct doesn't mean that doesn't exist.

Law is entirely subjective, it is a social construct, yet it is clearly also real. Law exists.

The same, more or less, is the case for gender.

You appear to be confusing 'constructed' with 'imaginary'. The words are not interchangeable.

I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I'm saying if we're going to decide on imaginary concepts to follow, we pick and choose which imaginary concepts to validate and agree on based on logical deduction and analysis. I agree to follow the law not because it's something that is concrete and undeniable- I can very much choose to disregard it because it is definitely not real, I do so because it makes sense and is generally beneficial. There's no undeniable reality to it which forces its relevance; I choose to agree to its relevance because it makes sense and is beneficial to my life and the lives of others.

Then I choose to agree to gender's relevance because it makes sense and is beneficial to my life and the lives of others.

But please. Disregard the law, and then you can tell the judge all about how it's 'not real' and you can choose to disregard it!

[Aurora Novus]

"If we stop acknowledging our differences we will cease to have differences" you don't seem to understand the concept of object permanence. Pretending we're not different doesn't make us not different.

That's not what I'm saying at all, and is a gross misrepresentation of my case.

I'm not denying that variations exist amongst people; I'm saying that those variations don't constitute the forming of separate groups, and viewing one another as being "others", estranged from one another. And especially not when it comes to gender, which doesn't even have any kind of consistent meaning. Again, I could have all the same characteristics of someone who calls themselves a woman, but call myself a man. If it can mean anything, for anyone, it has no objective meaning. It's just nonsense.

[Pillea]

I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I'm saying if we're going to decide on imaginary concepts to follow, we pick and choose which imaginary concepts to validate and agree on based on logical deduction and analysis. I agree to follow the law not because it's something that is concrete and undeniable- I can very much choose to disregard it because it is definitely not real, I do so because it makes sense and is generally beneficial. There's no undeniable reality to it which forces its relevance; I choose to agree to its relevance because it makes sense and is beneficial to my life and the lives of others.

Again, you're confusing 'constructed' with 'imaginary'.

Let me try and help them with this one.

A long time ago there was most likely a city by the name of Troy. They constructed walls around this city. A big war happened and it took a really long time to sack the city. If these walls had been imaginary, it likely would not have taken much time at all.

Societal construction works the same way.

[The Steel Magnolia]

"If we stop acknowledging our differences we will cease to have differences" you don't seem to understand the concept of object permanence. Pretending we're not different doesn't make us not different.

That's not what I'm saying at all, and is a gross misrepresentation of my case.

I'm not denying that variations exist amongst people; I'm saying that those variations don't constitute the forming of separate groups, and viewing one another as being "others", estranged from one another. And especially not when it comes to gender, which doesn't even have any kind of consistent meaning. Again, I could have all the same characteristics of someone who calls themselves a woman, but call myself a man. If it can mean anything, for anyone, it has no objective meaning. It's just nonsense.

Your words can mean anything for anyone they have no objective meaning and they're just nonsense.

Sans the first bit that actually sums up the entirety of your arguments.

[Aurora Novus]

Circular arguments are circular.

It's not even a circular argument.

Because they're not suffering the same problem.

Yes, they are; violent behavior.

To use your example, violence against women is a very different problem than violence against other social groups, in severity, prevalence, et cetera.

It's the same problem. Frequency, severity, prevalence, ect., is all meaningless. Violence is violence. Attacking violent behavior is no different than attacking violent behavior perpetuated against a single group, except that you refuse to acknowledge other groups's sufferings when you do the latter.

You also ignore the fact again that most of these violent crimes come from the fact that the people who perpetuate these crimes look upon their victims as part of "the others". Part of another "group". Eliminating that kind of arbitrary distinction from society, ill inevitably reduce the number of crimes resulting from it.

[New England and The Maritimes]

I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I'm saying if we're going to decide on imaginary concepts to follow, we pick and choose which imaginary concepts to validate and agree on based on logical deduction and analysis. I agree to follow the law not because it's something that is concrete and undeniable- I can very much choose to disregard it because it is definitely not real, I do so because it makes sense and is generally beneficial. There's no undeniable reality to it which forces its relevance; I choose to agree to its relevance because it makes sense and is beneficial to my life and the lives of others.

Then I choose to agree to gender's relevance because it makes sense and is beneficial to my life and the lives of others.

But please. Disregard the law, and then you can tell the judge all about how it's 'not real' and you can choose to disregard it!

Other people don't decide what reality is. Something is real, whether as a conceptualization or an artifact, if it is specifically and objectively defined and that specific objective definition is something that can't be denied logically.

"The law" is not real. A specific statute is real.

A gender has no specific and objective definition. In that sense, then, being "a man" or "a woman" does not convey any information and as such is pointless. The context behind that label is what defines a person, not the label, which is a crutch that is not beneficial and is harmful in plenty of ways.

So, in that sense, we can say "Jim" is real. So let's say "Jim" is "a man." What does that mean? Can you tell me? Is there some list of characteristics that this necessarily conveys?

[The Emerald Dawn]

"If we stop acknowledging our differences we will cease to have differences" you don't seem to understand the concept of object permanence. Pretending we're not different doesn't make us not different.

That's not what I'm saying at all, and is a gross misrepresentation of my case.

I'm not denying that variations exist amongst people; I'm saying that those variations don't constitute the forming of separate groups, and viewing one another as being "others", estranged from one another. And especially not when it comes to gender, which doesn't even have any kind of consistent meaning. Again, I could have all the same characteristics of someone who calls themselves a woman, but call myself a man. If it can mean anything, for anyone, it has no objective meaning. It's just nonsense.

Who's estranging?

They are not of my group. They are of another group. Humans are capable of, if I remember, only 224 discrete relationships. That leaves the rest of the 6+ billion people to be in "other" groups.

That doesn't mean that they cannot become part of my group.

[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.

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

Because its totally against a race surviving and reproducing. That in turn Transgender people have had a genetic mutation happen in the development of there brain as natures number one priority is to reproduce and become stronger.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Yes, they are; violent behavior.

To use your example, violence against women is a very different problem than violence against other social groups, in severity, prevalence, et cetera.

It's the same problem. Frequency, severity, prevalence, ect., is all meaningless. Violence is violence. Attacking violent behavior is no different than attacking violent behavior perpetuated against a single group, except that you refuse to acknowledge other groups's sufferings when you do the latter.

You also ignore the fact again that most of these violent crimes come from the fact that the people who perpetuate these crimes look upon their victims as part of "the others". Part of another "group". Eliminating that kind of arbitrary distinction from society, ill inevitably reduce the number of crimes resulting from it.

This is literally the stupidest thing I've seen in a very long time.