Would you date a transgender?

[Aurora Novus]

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

Actually, yes, this is entirely true. They have no objective meaning.

We as a society agree to pretend they have meaning, in order to try and communicate ideas to one another, but even then, we still can't always agree one what a given sound "means", and we hardly ever keep are meanings consistent across the globe, through time.

But agreeing to pretend it has meaning =/= it having meaning.

[Immoren]

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?

of course not

[The Steel Magnolia]

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.

Again. It's the expectations we place on gender, not gender itself, that's actually the problem.

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?

It conveys that he identifies as a man. That's important enough.

[Des-Bal]

"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.

The objective meaning of gender is how you self identify. By calling yourself a man you have all of the characteristics of someone who identifies as a man.

[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.

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.....

Some do before they come clean but think a couple with even one transgender member it is impossible for those two individuals to reproduce.

[The Steel Magnolia]

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.....

Some do before they come clean but think a couple with even one transgender member it is impossible for those two individuals to reproduce.

So how 'bout those uterine transplants in Turkey!

Also sterile heterosexuals.

And gay people.

[Aurora Novus]

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

"Watch me yet again post a short one-liner, and act like I've somehow refuted the case presented!"

No counter-argument then?

Or wait, let me guess. Is it "you're not worth my time" again? You seem to do that a lot. Engage in a debate, get put in an uncomfortable spot by your opponent, and then say "You know what, you're stupid and not worth my time", without ever actually addressing their case.

I wonder why.

[Souseiseki]

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.....

Some do before they come clean but think a couple with even one transgender member it is impossible for those two individuals to reproduce.

i think you are vastly overestimating/conflating the "number of people would date a transgender person" and "number of transgender people available to date"

[Individuality-ness]

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.....

Some do before they come clean but think a couple with even one transgender member it is impossible for those two individuals to reproduce.

So? Maybe a couple might not want kids. Has that thought ever come to mind?

[Des-Bal]

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.

If we're going by prevalence or severity we should be focusing on violence against men.

[Pillea]

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.....

Some do before they come clean but think a couple with even one transgender member it is impossible for those two individuals to reproduce.

Erm, you are aware of things like sperm banks right? I likely won't have children before undergoing hormone therapies, which can have adverse effects upon fertility, I plan on saving sperm beforehand. My partner thinks this is a great idea, it ensures we'll be able to attempt to have kids in the future if I am no longer fertile.

[The Steel Magnolia]

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

"Watch me yet again post a short one-liner, and act like I've somehow refuted the case presented!"

No counter-argument then?

Or wait, let me guess. Is it "you're not worth my time" again? You seem to do that a lot. Engage in a debate, get put in an uncomfortable spot by your opponent, and then say "You know what, you're stupid and not worth my time", without ever actually addressing their case.

I wonder why.

Because no matter what I'll say you will twist any meaning into a mockery of its former self?

Seriously. You're actually so bad at this it's not worth the energy. Feel free to chalk it up as a win to your side, I don't really care. This isn't actually a competition.

[New England and The Maritimes]

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.

Again. It's the expectations we place on gender, not gender itself, that's actually the problem.

Gender being treated as meaningful when it is just choosing a word you like is the cause of gender expectations.

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?

It conveys that he identifies as a man. That's important enough.

It is meaningless, then. That's a tautology. "I'm a man, that means I am a man." It's completely superfluous to discussion. What does "a man" mean? If it has no meaning, why does it exist? What is the point of it? What benefit does it bring? Why should that be important?

[EnragedMaldivians]

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.

I agree with Weber's definition. They are a monopoly on the use of legitimate violence within a given territory, legitimacy also being a social construct the power of which is greater the more consensus there is on the issue. I also assure you that gangs 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

.

Yes, it is meaningless without the meaning that people give to it. The meaning is socially constructed and enforceable. That people have given it meaning is what you seem not to understand. You, again, conflate tangible and real as the exact same thing.

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

This is mostly just pedantic nonsense that misses the point being projected as a deep, introspective, critically thought out opinion. Actually it's just pedantic nonsense that misses the point.

Take the word 'point', for that matter. Here are a few definitions.

1. A sharp or tapered end: the point of a knife; the point of the antenna.
2. An object having a sharp or tapered end: a stone projectile point.
3. A tapering extension of land projecting into water; a peninsula, cape, or promontory.
4. A mark formed by or as if by a sharp end.
5. A mark or dot used in printing or writing for punctuation, especially a period.
6. A decimal point.
7. Linguistics A vowel point.
8. One of the protruding marks used in certain methods of writing and printing for the blind.
9. Mathematics
a. A dimensionless geometric object having no properties except location.
b. An element in a geometrically described set.

All these meanings are socially constructed based on consensus. Are any of these definitions not real?

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.

Yet you are arguing that socially constructed things can't be real. Is being a Buddhist real? Is being a Christian real? Is being a Muslim real? These are all socially constructed, not necessarily objective, and have disputed definitions. Whatever problems one has with religion, is it reasonable to posit that to end religious discrimination we should abolish religion?

We can even go with political ideologies. Is anarchism real? Is communism real?

[Person012345]

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.

So you think that the only goal for everyone in life is to have as much sex as possible and produce as many babies as possible? You don't think that making as many people as happy as possible for example is a better goal? How many children do you have?

I am not a slave to my instincts. Being able to think for oneself is one of the biggest ways I define people as human. If you truly think that the single most important thing for people to do is to bring as many children into the world as possible, I would in fact judge you to be the fucked up one. But then, I sincerely doubt that that is what you believe. The human race is not in immediate threat of dying out. There is no immediate need for everyone who is capable to start producing babies.

[The Steel Magnolia]

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.

If we're going by prevalence or severity we should be focusing on violence against men.

I never said otherwise?

Though prison violence is a distinct issue, and to conflate prison reform with broad speaking societal reform is generally not a great idea.

[Aurora Novus]

The objective meaning of gender is how you self identify. By calling yourself a man you have all of the characteristics of someone who identifies as a man.

But what does that even mean? What does "man" mean? Again, if the meaning is self-defined, then someone who possesses all the same characteristics as me can label themselves as something "different" than me, despite the fact that their definition contains all the same parts as mine. It becomes a literally meaningless distinction, based on...nothing.

The fact that it is self-defined is precisely what makes it not objective, and therefore, not real.

[Des-Bal]

Again. It's the expectations we place on gender, not gender itself, that's actually the problem.

Gender being treated as meaningful when it is just choosing a word you like is the cause of gender expectations.

It conveys that he identifies as a man. That's important enough.

It is meaningless, then. That's a tautology. "I'm a man, that means I am a man." It's completely superfluous to discussion. What does "a man" mean? If it has no meaning, why does it exist? What is the point of it? What benefit does it bring? Why should that be important?

Why should we have names?

[Imperiatom]

Some do before they come clean but think a couple with even one transgender member it is impossible for those two individuals to reproduce.

So how 'bout those uterine transplants in Turkey!

Also sterile heterosexuals.

And gay people.

The same would apply to gays, whilst transplants require expensive ivf treatments to go with them, no ovary's. Sterile heterosexuals have in evolutionary terms malfunctioned.

[The Steel Magnolia]

So how 'bout those uterine transplants in Turkey!

Also sterile heterosexuals.

And gay people.

The same would apply to gays, whilst transplants require expensive ivf treatments to go with them. Sterile heterosexuals have in evolutionary terms malfunctioned.

First off, stop using words you don't understand.

Secondly, how is any of that relevant?

[Aurora Novus]

Because no matter what I'll say you will twist any meaning into a mockery of its former self?

Translation: "I don't like that you point out the obvious flaws in my post waaaahhhhhhhh!"

Seriously. You're actually so bad at this it's not worth the energy.

Mhm. Yeah. Okay.

In other words, the "you're not worth my time" excuse again? For the third time this week?

Right.

[Des-Bal]

I never said otherwise?

Though prison violence is a distinct issue, and to conflate prison reform with broad speaking societal reform is generally not a great idea.

Unless we're using "violence against women" as a synonym for rape I don't see the relevance.

[New England and The Maritimes]

Gender being treated as meaningful when it is just choosing a word you like is the cause of gender expectations.


It is meaningless, then. That's a tautology. "I'm a man, that means I am a man." It's completely superfluous to discussion. What does "a man" mean? If it has no meaning, why does it exist? What is the point of it? What benefit does it bring? Why should that be important?

Why should we have names?

You tell me. Names are only useful in so far as they distinguish one person from another verbally. I rarely ever use my name, personally. I don't identify myself by labels. I have ideas and thoughts and experiences and emotions and those can be conveyed with their own context instead of providing an artificial external one.

If you readily admit that gender has no meaning, why defend its existence? If it is not significant as you say, why do you attach significance to it?

[The Steel Magnolia]

I never said otherwise?

Though prison violence is a distinct issue, and to conflate prison reform with broad speaking societal reform is generally not a great idea.

Unless we're using "violence against women" as a synonym for rape I don't see the relevance.

It's generally used to refer to domestic abuse and rape.

Regardless I didn't actually bring up the example.

[EnragedMaldivians]

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

Actually, yes, this is entirely true. They have no objective meaning.

We as a society agree to pretend they have meaning, in order to try and communicate ideas to one another, but even then, we still can't always agree one what a given sound "means", and we hardly ever keep are meanings consistent across the globe, through time.

But agreeing to pretend it has meaning =/= it having meaning.

There's nothing to pretend. The word 'frustration' means what we have chosen for it to mean. You are arguing that it is actually meaningless, which is actually a hell of a lot more removed from this 'reality' thing you posit to have such a firm understanding of, than what I'm arguing.