Would you date a transgender?

[Euroslavia]

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.

One word knocks down your entire argument: Adoption. "Malfunctions", as you would call it, don't mean that one cannot become a parent through other means, which are available. Please do try and keep up with medical science.

[The Steel Magnolia]

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?

That's great for you. I'm glad your name isn't a key part of your identity. I'm glad for you that your identity is merely your humanity.

Stop enforcing it on everyone else.

I'm not obligated to explain my identity to you.

[Des-Bal]

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.

It probably shouldn't be because "Violence" "Against" and "Women" all mean things. While the words that mean "Domestic Abuse" and "rape" are generally "Domestic Abuse" and "Rape"

[New England and The Maritimes]

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?

That's great for you. I'm glad your name isn't a key part of your identity. I'm glad for you that your identity is merely your humanity.

Stop enforcing it on everyone else.

I'm not obligated to explain my identity to you.

If you don't want to explain it, why are you debating? If it is significant, why did you agree that it has no meaning? I'm really getting confused.

[Nadkor]

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.

Or take religion and the object of worship of religion.

Religion exists. Religion is real (nb 'real' does not necessarily mean 'correct'). It is constructed.

The object of worship of a religion may not be real (for the sake of argument let's say that it is not). It is imaginary.

Social constructs are real.They may well be intangible (in fact, I'd say that they usually are), but they are real. Imaginary things are not real.

Aurora Novus is confusing 'constructed' with 'imaginary'.

[Person012345]

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.

You don't understand evolution.

Are you just one of these bigot christian types who try to pretend they understand evolution in a pathetic attempt to justify their gay bashing?

[EnragedMaldivians]

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.

Or take religion and the object of worship of religion.

Religion exists. Religion is real (nb 'real' does not necessarily mean 'correct', or 'true'). It is constructed.

The object of worship of a religion may well not be real (for the sake of argument let's say that it is not). It is imaginary.

Social constructs are real.They may well be intangible (in fact, I'd say that they usually are), but they are real. Imaginary things are not real.

Aurora Novus is confusing 'constructed' with 'imaginary'.

Not acknowledging ninja'ds should be a bannable offence, just saying.

But since you can argue this a lot more articulately than I can, carry on.

[Des-Bal]

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?

It's the difference between saying "I don't wear pants in elevators" and "I'm going to take your pants off in this elevator." One mean's your weird, one means your annoying.

[Nadkor]

Or take religion and the object of worship of religion.

Religion exists. Religion is real (nb 'real' does not necessarily mean 'correct', or 'true'). It is constructed.

The object of worship of a religion may well not be real (for the sake of argument let's say that it is not). It is imaginary.

Social constructs are real.They may well be intangible (in fact, I'd say that they usually are), but they are real. Imaginary things are not real.

Aurora Novus is confusing 'constructed' with 'imaginary'.

Not acknowledging ninja'ds should be a bannable offence, just saying.

But since you can argue this a lot more articulately than I can, carry on.

Sorry, I didn't even realise I'd been ninja'd...

[Imperiatom]

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.

No children i am only 21. i do have three sisters though and a 2.5 year relationship. First point the only meaningful you can leave behind are children and their memories and secondly obviously if everybody turned transgender nature and evolution have lead us down the wrong path so in a natural way we would be fucked up. obviously we are moving deep into the hypothetical here.

[New England and The Maritimes]

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?

It's the difference between saying "I don't wear pants in elevators" and "I'm going to take your pants off in this elevator." One mean's your weird, one means your annoying.

What are you even saying?

If I choose to say I am a Hippopotamus yeah I can do that. It doesn't make it meaningful when I describe a hippopotamus as someone who says they're a hippopotamus. It becomes nothing at all but a word I apply to myself which contributes nothing and explains nothing about myself except that I prefer to call myself a hippopotamus.

[Euroslavia]

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?

It's the difference between saying "I don't wear pants in elevators" and "I'm going to take your pants off in this elevator." One mean's your weird, one means your annoying.

Unless you're into sex in public places.

[Des-Bal]

What are you even saying?

If I choose to say I am a Hippopotamus yeah I can do that. It doesn't make it meaningful when I describe a hippopotamus as someone who says they're a hippopotamus. It becomes nothing at all but a word I apply to myself which contributes nothing and explains nothing about myself except that I prefer to call myself a hippopotamus.

You're saying you don't identify yourself with labels. Other people do. Most other people do in fact. The fact that you don't see the value of labels doesn't mean that labels don't have value.

[Aurora Novus]

I agree with Weber's definition. They are a monopoly on the use or 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.

I'm not saying the people who comprise gang ren't real. What I'm saying is the idea of the "gang", as an object thing, is unreal. It's just a collection of people. The state is no different from the gang which is no different from the mormons at your doorstep.

Yes, it is meaningless without the meaning that people give to it.

Which means it is not actually real in any objective sense, because it's existence and meaning is solely dependent upon subjective factors.

The meaning is socially constructed and enforceable. You, again, conflate tangible and real as the exact same thing.

No, I'm not. Just because it is enforceable, doesn't make it real. I can force you to do something because "they floating, blue-black gorilla told me to", but that doesn't make that gorilla any less of a delusion, and therefore, not real.

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?

No, they are not real. They're just lines on an electronic screen. It's not pedantic nonsense, it's reality. You keep trying to divert things back into the realm of subjectivity, in order to claim things exist.

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?

What does it mean to be any of those things? Can you give an objective definition? How does Christian not mean Atheism? How does Atheism not mean Pantheism?

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

Same as the above.

[New England and The Maritimes]

What are you even saying?

If I choose to say I am a Hippopotamus yeah I can do that. It doesn't make it meaningful when I describe a hippopotamus as someone who says they're a hippopotamus. It becomes nothing at all but a word I apply to myself which contributes nothing and explains nothing about myself except that I prefer to call myself a hippopotamus.

You're saying you don't identify yourself with labels. Other people do. Most other people do in fact. The fact that you don't see the value of labels doesn't mean that labels don't have value.

There is no objective value to a label.

You're free to use labels, but you can't expect this kind of odd thinking to go unchallenged. I decide rights have meaning and act as though they exist. That includes your right to say whatever you want to say about who you are, but also my right to challenge your thinking and try to gain better understanding. Since this discussion is going to happen anyway, why should it be muddied like this?

[Arglorand]

Sterile heterosexuals have in evolutionary terms malfunctioned.

...
I manage to take offense at this and I'm not even sterile.

[Person012345]

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.

No children i am only 21. i do have three sisters though and a 2.5 year relationship.

God, 21 and no children? Why aren't you breeding with your sisters? That way your children carry even more of your genetic material.

First point the only meaningful you can leave behind are children and their memories

Depends what you mean. You can leave behind a lot more, and better, memories if you're kind and you go around making people happy than if you go around calling them sick and defective. Apart from that, what's so great about leaving things behind? The now matters as much as the future (they're both important in their own respects).

and secondly obviously if everybody turned transgender nature and evolution have lead us down the wrong path so in a natural way we would be fucked up. obviously we are moving deep into the hypothetical here.

But they won't, so you have no reason for bashing them now.

[Des-Bal]

I agree with Weber's definition. They are a monopoly on the use or 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.

I'm not saying the people who comprise gang ren't real. What I'm saying is the idea of the "gang", as an object thing, is unreal. It's just a collection of people. The state is no different from the gang which is no different from the mormons at your doorstep.

Yes, it is meaningless without the meaning that people give to it.

Which means it is not actually real in any objective sense, because it's existence and meaning is solely dependent upon subjective factors.

The meaning is socially constructed and enforceable. You, again, conflate tangible and real as the exact same thing.

No, I'm not. Just because it is enforceable, doesn't make it real. I can force you to do something because "they floating, blue-black gorilla told me to", but that doesn't make that gorilla any less of a delusion, and therefore, not real.

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?

No, they are not real. They're just lines on an electronic screen. It's not pedantic nonsense, it's reality. You keep trying to divert things back into the realm of subjectivity, in order to claim things exist.

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?

What does it mean to be any of those things? Can you give an objective definition? How does Christian not mean Atheism? How does Atheism not mean Pantheism?

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

Same as the above.

I'm sorry I can't read your post because your words don't actually exist.

[Imperiatom]

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.

You don't understand evolution.

Are you just one of these bigot christian types who try to pretend they understand evolution in a pathetic attempt to justify their gay bashing?

Its not gay bashing, species evolve by reproduction, therefor genetics dictate that for people to be Gay some kind of mutation to genes or brain must have occurred for them to stray from the evolutionary path for Darwinists to be true. Whilst i am not christian you have to say if that is not the case the only other explanation is some higher being creating people how he wants them to be. whilst i suppose this being would be god, it would not be the god from any secular religion.

[Tsuntion]

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.

False. There are quite a lot of humans in the world, and trans people can have kids, and even if they couldn't, people dating someone elderly or someone infertile or someone of the same sex or someone who just doesn't want children hasn't led to the extinction of the human race.

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.

Trans people have the same parental instincts cis people do. Oh, and we as a species have moved beyond needing everything to focus on having kids. Are celibate people fucked up?

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

False.

[Person012345]

You don't understand evolution.

Are you just one of these bigot christian types who try to pretend they understand evolution in a pathetic attempt to justify their gay bashing?

Its not gay bashing, species evolve by reproduction, therefor genetics dictate that for people to be Gay some kind of mutation to genes or brain must have occurred for them to stray from the evolutionary path for Darwinists to be true. Whilst i am not christian you have to say if that is not the case the only other explanation is some higher being creating people how he wants them to be. whilst i suppose this being would be god, it would not be the god from and secular religion.

Evolution is not morality. Evolution does not dictate what is right and wrong. Evolution is not guided. You cannot discern that something is "messed up" from the fact that it would not be genetically successful. Cars are not capable of reproducing, is having a car "messed up"?

[Aurora Novus]

Aurora Novus is confusing 'constructed' with 'imaginary'.

No, I'm really not. It's not about the tangibility; it's about the objectivity.

Take, for instance, a table? What makes it a "table"? It's just a bunch of wood and metal. What does it even mean to be a "table"? There's no way to objectively define this.

Does the table, as the thing we are looking at and attempting to define (a collection of wood and metal in a particular manner), exist? Certainly.

But does the table exist as a table? No. Because the label "table" has no objective meaning. It's meaningless. It can only carry subjective meaning, which means it can carry ANY meaning. Making it nonsensical.


The is the same problem with "gender". what you call a "man", I can call a "woman". The distinction becomes meaningless then, because we're treating ourselves like two different groups, based on an unreal concept of difference.

[Mikland]

If I found a girl extremely hot, I wouldnt care if she "used to be a man." If she has a vagina now, she is a woman, and if she is hot, why not?

[Imperiatom]

Sterile heterosexuals have in evolutionary terms malfunctioned.

...
I manage to take offense at this and I'm not even sterile.

If you do whats your theory for how we go here if its not creationism and its not evolution?

[Imperiatom]

If I found a girl extremely hot, I wouldnt care if she "used to be a man." If she has a vagina now, she is a woman, and if she is hot, why not?

Fair play