Would you date a transgender?

[Des-Bal]

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.

Where are you from? If you're 21 and from an English speaking country there is no reason your grammar or grasp on science should be that awful.

[Person012345]

...
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?

Again, you don't seem to understand what evolution actually is. "Malfunctioned in evolutionary terms" is not a sensical phrase.

[Tsuntion]

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.

First point: Newton left nothing meaningful? The Apostle Paul has no legacy (note: whether you agree with him or not, whether you believe he existed and was who he claimed to be or not, he did have an impact despite remaining celibate)?

Second point: If everyone turned male we'd be lost too. Oh, and don't forget that transgender people can have kids.

[Aurora Novus]

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

Nor can I read yours truly. I'm merely guessing that the same meaning I project onto my lines, you are projecting as well. For all I know, you could mean "you're right, and I concede" by saying what you just wrote.

All we're doing is drawing lines, and projecting subjective meaning onto these lines, in the hopes that who we are "talking" with projects the same meaning, so we can communicate ideas. To make this process simpler, we can form collections of "definitions" to help people better understand and communicate.

But that doesn't change the fact that the communication hinges upon mutual agreement of subjectivity, and therefor, the words themselves are truly, objectively, meaningless. They're just sounds.

[Imperiatom]

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"?

You have gone of at a tangent. The point is that in evolutionary terms it is a failure, and as you have just said it has no perception of morals.

[Desperate Measures]

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.

[EnragedMaldivians]

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

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.

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?

We're basically arguing the same thing to someone who refuses to so much as acknowledge that words, being that what they convey is socially constructed, actually have meanings.

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.

Again, you are literally arguing that words have no meaning. Do you realise this?

[Arglorand]

...
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?

How is that even related in any way. I believe in evolution.

People are not here on earth for the sole reason of reproduction. There are THOUSANDS of ways in which they can be useful for the cultural and civilizational evolution of mankind.

I'm not just here to boink girls to spawn children, I'm here for the betterment of the world and of mankind in every way (although, yeah, I would like to boink girls and to have children, I might as well give my care and attention to the millions of orphans in the world right now - there are more than enough other people on this world who will spawn children for me)

[Person012345]

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"?

You have gone of at a tangent. The point is that in evolutionary terms it is a failure, and as you have just said it has no perception of morals.

No, your point was that dating a trans person would be "messed up". That is what you said. You used evolution as a justification for that statement.

[Des-Bal]

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

Nor can I read yours truly. I'm merely guessing that the same meaning I project onto my lines, you are projecting as well. For all I know, you could mean "you're right, and I concede" by saying what you just wrote.

All we're doing is drawing lines, and projecting subjective meaning onto these lines, in the hopes that who we are "talking" with projects the same meaning, so we can communicate ideas. To make this process simpler, we can form collections of "definitions" to help people better understand and communicate.

But that doesn't change the fact that the communication hinges upon mutual agreement of subjectivity, and therefor, the words themselves are truly, objectively, meaningless. They're just sounds.

Objectivity is objectively meaningless. This stupid fucking tangent about the "realness" of abstract constructs means absolutely nothing in relation to what's actually being discussed. You've dragged this entire thing so far off topic it'll be difficult to bring it back. I suggest you go make your own thread where you and people who think like you can spend a few hundred pages saying absolutely nothing.

[Imperiatom]

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.

First point: Newton left nothing meaningful? The Apostle Paul has no legacy (note: whether you agree with him or not, whether you believe he existed and was who he claimed to be or not, he did have an impact despite remaining celibate)?

Second point: If everyone turned male we'd be lost too. Oh, and don't forget that transgender people can have kids.

Exactly if we started to find that boys are 3 times more likey to be born than girls we would slowly die out as a result of a genetic mutation as every generation half the people cant find reproductive partners. says nothing about my feelings towards transgenders its just evolutionary laws. dosent mean i would say a wife should have children with three husbands as a law.

[New England and The Maritimes]

Nor can I read yours truly. I'm merely guessing that the same meaning I project onto my lines, you are projecting as well. For all I know, you could mean "you're right, and I concede" by saying what you just wrote.

All we're doing is drawing lines, and projecting subjective meaning onto these lines, in the hopes that who we are "talking" with projects the same meaning, so we can communicate ideas. To make this process simpler, we can form collections of "definitions" to help people better understand and communicate.

But that doesn't change the fact that the communication hinges upon mutual agreement of subjectivity, and therefor, the words themselves are truly, objectively, meaningless. They're just sounds.

Objectivity is objectively meaningless. This stupid fucking tangent about the "realness" of abstract constructs means absolutely nothing in relation to what's actually being discussed. You've dragged this entire thing so far off topic it'll be difficult to bring it back. I suggest you go make your own thread where you and people who think like you can spend a few hundred pages saying absolutely nothing.

Words don't have a meaning on their own. We agree to give them a meaning to make communication possible. That's what this whole discussion has been about. What does gender mean? What does your gender mean? Can you explain it using words the definition of which we seem to agree on?

[Des-Bal]

First point: Newton left nothing meaningful? The Apostle Paul has no legacy (note: whether you agree with him or not, whether you believe he existed and was who he claimed to be or not, he did have an impact despite remaining celibate)?

Second point: If everyone turned male we'd be lost too. Oh, and don't forget that transgender people can have kids.

Exactly if we started to find that boys are 3 times more likey to be born than girls we would slowly die out as a result of a genetic mutation as every generation half the people cant find reproductive partners. says nothing about my feelings towards transgenders its just evolutionary laws. dosent mean i would say a wife should have children with three husbands as a law.

Okay so you clearly don't understand how evolution or heredity work.

[EnragedMaldivians]

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

Nor can I read yours truly. I'm merely guessing that the same meaning I project onto my lines, you are projecting as well. For all I know, you could mean "you're right, and I concede" by saying what you just wrote.

All we're doing is drawing lines, and projecting subjective meaning onto these lines, in the hopes that who we are "talking" with projects the same meaning, so we can communicate ideas. To make this process simpler, we can form collections of "definitions" to help people better understand and communicate.

But that doesn't change the fact that the communication hinges upon mutual agreement of subjectivity, and therefor, the words themselves are truly, objectively, meaningless. They're just sounds.

In other words (no pun intended), when it comes to social constructs, identities and language, they don't exist but for the condition that people give it meaning. What you seem to miss is that people have given these things meaning.

[Des-Bal]

Objectivity is objectively meaningless. This stupid fucking tangent about the "realness" of abstract constructs means absolutely nothing in relation to what's actually being discussed. You've dragged this entire thing so far off topic it'll be difficult to bring it back. I suggest you go make your own thread where you and people who think like you can spend a few hundred pages saying absolutely nothing.

Words don't have a meaning on their own. We agree to give them a meaning to make communication possible. That's what this whole discussion has been about. What does gender mean? What does your gender mean? Can you explain it using words the definition of which we seem to agree on?

Yes, we already have. It's how you self-identify. Which then devolved into this ridiculous argument about the meaning of words.

[Socamila]

People should not be discriminated against if they are transgender. No matter what.

[Aurora Novus]

Again, you are literally arguing that words have no meaning. Do you realise this?

Yes, I realize this.

Words are just sounds. they have no objective meanings. Any meaning we say a word has, is subjectively applied by the individual. Which means a word can have, in truth, an number of different meanings at any given time. All meanings for all words are equally valid. It could be to someone that every word means the same thing, meaning every word is the same word.

Which means there is no relevant, objective distinction from word to word, that would allow us to declare them to have any semblance of being real. They're a socially constructed tool, for the purpose of trying to communicate ideas. But they aren't real. Without the society, they lose all meaning. A perfect example of this is ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics.

[Person012345]

First point: Newton left nothing meaningful? The Apostle Paul has no legacy (note: whether you agree with him or not, whether you believe he existed and was who he claimed to be or not, he did have an impact despite remaining celibate)?

Second point: If everyone turned male we'd be lost too. Oh, and don't forget that transgender people can have kids.

Exactly if we started to find that boys are 3 times more likey to be born than girls we would slowly die out as a result of a genetic mutation as every generation half the people cant find reproductive partners. says nothing about my feelings towards transgenders its just evolutionary laws. dosent mean i would say a wife should have children with three husbands as a law.

Why the hell did you even talk about it if it's not remotely relevant to the thread?

Stop backtracking. Just admit if you were wrong and try again.

[Imperiatom]

You have gone of at a tangent. The point is that in evolutionary terms it is a failure, and as you have just said it has no perception of morals.

No, your point was that dating a trans person would be "messed up". That is what you said. You used evolution as a justification for that statement.

Yeah messed up because whilst statistically almost impossible it is a possibility. Maybe i should have been clear at the start that that is why i could not do that plus i do quite like the idea of my own kids. obviously this supports the idea that LGBT people are born that way, not turned by the devil as christians might say.

[New England and The Maritimes]

Words don't have a meaning on their own. We agree to give them a meaning to make communication possible. That's what this whole discussion has been about. What does gender mean? What does your gender mean? Can you explain it using words the definition of which we seem to agree on?

Yes, we already have. It's how you self-identify. Which then devolved into this ridiculous argument about the meaning of words.

That's not an answer. Why is it significant? What information does it convey? What is the purpose of "how you self-identify"? Why is this a better way than simply describing yourself in the context of whichever situation you are in that calls for this identification and description?

[Pillea]

Again, you are literally arguing that words have no meaning. Do you realise this?

Yes, I realize this.

Words are just sounds. they have no objective meanings. Any meaning we say a word has, is subjectively applied by the individual. Which means a word can have, in truth, an number of different meanings at any given time. All meanings for all words are equally valid. It could be to someone that every word means the same thing, meaning every word is the same word.

Which means there is no relevant, objective distinction from word to word, that would allow us to declare them to have any semblance of being real. They're a socially constructed tool, for the purpose of trying to communicate ideas. But they aren't real. Without the society, they lose all meaning. A perfect example of this is ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics.

Pretty sure this nifty thing called the Rosetta Stone caused Egyptology to flourish far after Kemet.

And seriously, if you are going to argue that words, literally our means of communication have no meaning, you best avoid using words to do it, or you're disproving your point.

[Person012345]

No, your point was that dating a trans person would be "messed up". That is what you said. You used evolution as a justification for that statement.

Yeah messed up because whilst statistically almost impossible it is a possibility. Maybe i should have been clear at the start that that is why i could not do that plus i do quite like the idea of my own kids. obviously this supports the idea that LGBT people are born that way, not turned by the devil as christians might say.

What do you mean "statistical almost impossibility"?

Why not just say that you would not because you want children in a totally traditional way for whatever reason, but that if that were not a concern you would? Or do you have some other opinion on the subject that I'm not getting.

[Imperiatom]

Exactly if we started to find that boys are 3 times more likey to be born than girls we would slowly die out as a result of a genetic mutation as every generation half the people cant find reproductive partners. says nothing about my feelings towards transgenders its just evolutionary laws. dosent mean i would say a wife should have children with three husbands as a law.

Why the hell did you even talk about it if it's not remotely relevant to the thread?

Stop backtracking. Just admit if you were wrong and try again.

i supose the biggest reason i would not date one is because of having ones own family, that's why i tied it into genetic mutations/ evolution.

[Aurora Novus]

Nor can I read yours truly. I'm merely guessing that the same meaning I project onto my lines, you are projecting as well. For all I know, you could mean "you're right, and I concede" by saying what you just wrote.

All we're doing is drawing lines, and projecting subjective meaning onto these lines, in the hopes that who we are "talking" with projects the same meaning, so we can communicate ideas. To make this process simpler, we can form collections of "definitions" to help people better understand and communicate.

But that doesn't change the fact that the communication hinges upon mutual agreement of subjectivity, and therefor, the words themselves are truly, objectively, meaningless. They're just sounds.

In other words (no pun intended), when it comes to social constructs, identities and language, they don't exist but for the condition that people give it meaning. What you seem to miss is that people have given these things meaning.

No, they don't exist because they don't carry objective meaning. The very fact that people "give" them meaning, is what makes that subjective.

[Y Wladfa]

of course i would, i don't see the problem.