Sexuality, Human Expression, and Personhood

[Liriena]

And this refutes the existence of intersex and non-binary genders how?

It refutes the idea of genders as strictly cultural.

An idea I did not espouse. Gender identity is not just a cultural thing, it's also mental.

Your claim appears to be that if people say they're non-binary they are.

In principle, yes. Much like all other transgender people.

The problem is you don't apply that logic to anything else,

Anything else being... what? Are you going to play the "otherkin" card again?

people aren't inherently correct about what's going on in they're heads.

Partially true, which is why we have mental health professionals who can verify when someone is transgender and/or suffering from gender dysphoria.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Gender is a pretty social construct, just like other seemingly "objective" criteria such as "morality" and "ethics". As such, you really can't expect people to describe it objectively or that there is a mathematical formula that is discrete that can tell us "this is how you can define a non-binary gender".

Except for the observable physiological component.

Humans have a very physiologically aleatory process. Also, to say "observable physiological component": you are talking about hormonal changes here, which are hardly accurate in any describable measure that the effect is such. Sure, hormones affect how you are, but it doesn't mean that the observable hormone levels are always going to produce the exact same results across people of a population.

[Dumb Ideologies]

When it comes to gender identity and gender dysphoria, that's the gist of it.

So we're agreeing your argument is literally nothing.

No, what we're agreeing is that it doesn't meet your standards for evidence, which aren't very suitable for looking at social and experiential phenomena as many of us have explained. Our identities continue to exist and impact our lives regardless of whether you continue to assert a naïve scientism. I'm afraid that your refusal to accept us tragically does not make us disappear in a puff of logic.

It's not that we have no evidence, it's that you don't understand some of the very basic fundamentals of the field.

[Liriena]

When it comes to gender identity and gender dysphoria, that's the gist of it.

So we're agreeing your argument is literally nothing.

Please, don't perpetuate this society's butchery of the word "literally".
My argument is most certainly something, given how I'm basing it on the demonstrable existence of people of non-binary genders and the consensus that non-binary genders do fall under the umbrella of transgender people.
That being said, are you ever going to provide any evidence refuting the existence of third genders?

[Liriena]

So we're agreeing your argument is literally nothing.

No, what we're agreeing is that it doesn't meet your standards for evidence, which aren't very suitable for looking at social and experiential phenomena as many of us have explained. Our identities continue to exist and impact our lives regardless of whether you continue to assert a naïve scientism. I'm afraid that your refusal to accept us tragically does not make us disappear in a puff of logic.

Now I see why professors in my faculty hate Positivism's guts.

[Des-Bal]

An idea I did not espouse. Gender identity is not just a cultural thing, it's also mental.

Also biological. See that's the part that matters.

[Des-Bal]

Please, don't perpetuate this society's butchery of the word "literally".
My argument is most certainly something, given how I'm basing it on the demonstrable existence of people of non-binary genders and the consensus that non-binary genders do fall under the umbrella of transgender people.
That being said, are you ever going to provide any evidence refuting the existence of third genders?

No see you are LITERALLY offering nothing. You have LITERALLY nothing. You are saying "this is so" I ask you to prove it and you repeat "this is so"

[Des-Bal]

No, what we're agreeing is that it doesn't meet your standards for evidence, which aren't very suitable for looking at social and experiential phenomena as many of us have explained. Our identities continue to exist and impact our lives regardless of whether you continue to assert a naïve scientism. I'm afraid that your refusal to accept us tragically does not make us disappear in a puff of logic.

It's not that we have no evidence, it's that you don't understand some of the very basic fundamentals of the field.

There is literature on the biological components of gender, show me similar evidence for people outside the binary. If you're right it should be easy.


I'm not refusing to accept anybody, I accept you completely- just like creationists, communists, and schizophrenics. I accept you freely and eagerly but no part of that acceptance means I need to think you're right.

[Liriena]

An idea I did not espouse. Gender identity is not just a cultural thing, it's also mental.

Also biological. See that's the part that matters.

It's a part that matters, but not the only one. Unnecessary and meanspirited reductionism won't get you very far.

Please, don't perpetuate this society's butchery of the word "literally".
My argument is most certainly something, given how I'm basing it on the demonstrable existence of people of non-binary genders and the consensus that non-binary genders do fall under the umbrella of transgender people.
That being said, are you ever going to provide any evidence refuting the existence of third genders?

No see you are LITERALLY offering nothing. You have LITERALLY nothing. You are saying "this is so" I ask you to prove it and you repeat "this is so"

Could you please respond to your real detractors, rather than your pathetic strawmen of them?

[Des-Bal]

It's a part that matters, but not the only one. Unnecessary and meanspirited reductionism won't get you very far.

Could you please respond to your real detractors, rather than your pathetic strawmen of them?

Nope.

I'm not making strawmen you are saying NOTHING to substantiate your arguments save the claim that you've made them.

[Liriena]

It's a part that matters, but not the only one. Unnecessary and meanspirited reductionism won't get you very far.

Could you please respond to your real detractors, rather than your pathetic strawmen of them?

Nope.

"Nope"? That's it? In your peerless brilliance that you oh-so-modestly have displayed throughout this discussion, "nope" is your answer? What, did you feel "poop" was too graphic?

I'm not making strawmen you are saying NOTHING to substantiate your arguments save the claim that you've made them.

Except I have: I provided proof of the existence of cultures that recognize the existence of non-binary genders and people who identify as non-binary.

[Des-Bal]

"Nope"? That's it? In your peerless brilliance that you oh-so-modestly have displayed throughout this discussion, "nope" is your answer? What, did you feel "poop" was too graphic?

Except I have: I provided proof of the existence of cultures that recognize the existence of non-binary genders and people who identify as non-binary.

Yeah. You're saying "this is this way" without backing it up with anything. Give me an argument and I'll pose one of my own you're just making clippy little statements. When you form an argument field it and you'll be prepared to actually start this discussion, for now you get "Nope."

Which is the exact same level of proof supporting every religion.

[Liriena]

"Nope"? That's it? In your peerless brilliance that you oh-so-modestly have displayed throughout this discussion, "nope" is your answer? What, did you feel "poop" was too graphic?

Except I have: I provided proof of the existence of cultures that recognize the existence of non-binary genders and people who identify as non-binary.

Yeah. You're saying "this is this way" without backing it up with anything. Give me an argument and I'll pose one of my own you're just making clippy little statements. When you form an argument field it and you'll be prepared to actually start this discussion, for now you get "Nope."

I've already given you an argument, and now I'm giving you its basis. That you refuse to acknowledge my argument's backing because it doesn't fit your homemade method doesn't make it the least bit lacking. It only makes your dishonest antics all the more reprehensible. Quit dragging everybody in circles to satisfy your own arrogance already.

Which is the exact same level of proof supporting every religion.

Which is why we know very religion exists and is worthy of legal recognition... and let's not delve into the difference between gender identity and superstition.

[Des-Bal]

I've already given you an argument, and now I'm giving you its basis. That you refuse to acknowledge my argument's backing because it doesn't fit your homemade method doesn't make it the least bit lacking. It only makes your dishonest antics all the more reprehensible. Quit dragging everybody in circles to satisfy your own arrogance already.


Which is why we know very religion exists and is worthy of legal recognition... and let's not delve into the difference between gender identity and superstition.

I'm refusing to acknowledge your arguments backing because it apparently exists at a wavelength only you can see. You have NOTHING. You aren't forming an argument, you aren't providing anything.

We acknowledge religion exists, we don't assume it's right. Yeah let's go ahead and delve because as you tell it there's no real difference.

[Liriena]

I've already given you an argument, and now I'm giving you its basis. That you refuse to acknowledge my argument's backing because it doesn't fit your homemade method doesn't make it the least bit lacking. It only makes your dishonest antics all the more reprehensible. Quit dragging everybody in circles to satisfy your own arrogance already.


Which is why we know very religion exists and is worthy of legal recognition... and let's not delve into the difference between gender identity and superstition.

I'm refusing to acknowledge your arguments backing because it apparently exists at a wavelength only you can see. You have NOTHING. You aren't forming an argument, you aren't providing anything.

We acknowledge religion exists, we don't assume it's right. Yeah let's go ahead and delve because as you tell it there's no real difference.

No.

[Des-Bal]

No.

What exactly is the difference?

[The Flood]

Washing centers will stop criminals instead.

What the fuck would those "washing centers" do?

Give your hair strength and volume, while dealing with those pesky split ends. Duh!

[Greater Ilanar]

Do we need a return to morality? Yes. The sexual revolution has simply wreaked havoc on America.

Should the government bring us back? Absolutely, no way in Hell! Washington can't balance something as trivial as a budget. I certainly wouldn't trust them with something as important as a human soul.

[Liriena]

Do we need a return to morality? Yes.

The problem with this assertion is that it would seem to imply that there is only one legitimate set of morals, and that said set of morals has since been disregarded by American society and replaced by amorality.

Such a premise would be laughable if you weren't serious about it.

The sexual revolution has simply wreaked havoc on America.

Oh, yes, because American society is so sex-positive nowadays, isn't it? Why, with your slut-shaming, shitty sex ed and constant hindering of reproductive rights for women...

Should the government bring us back? Absolutely, no way in Hell! Washington can't balance something as trivial as a budget. I certainly wouldn't trust them with something as important as a human soul.

Ah, so your arguments are motivated by religion? Well, what a pity that the United States is a secular state.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Do we need a return to morality? Yes. The sexual revolution has simply wreaked havoc on America.

Should the government bring us back? Absolutely, no way in Hell! Washington can't balance something as trivial as a budget. I certainly wouldn't trust them with something as important as a human soul.

I will disagree with you because I don't see a need to "go back to morality" when said morality was worse in years past than today.

[Squeeheart]

Do we need a return to morality? Yes. The sexual revolution has simply wreaked havoc on America.

Should the government bring us back? Absolutely, no way in Hell! Washington can't balance something as trivial as a budget. I certainly wouldn't trust them with something as important as a human soul.

Well that's too bad because the only way for the "sexual revolution" to end is to either wait long enough for it to die off (I doubt it will.), or have the corrupt American system suppress the freedoms of everyone. To achieve the latter one would have to somehow make the Republican party more likeable, which is difficult if not impossible when they're reasoning and choice of words are either selfish, poorly thought out, or both.

By the way you'll need a government in order to actually enforce this morality crap. Opposing the size of government is actually running counter to your requirements of a morality-enforced society, especially when the majority of society is becoming more and more liberal. Now I know you're talking specifically about the federal government, but who else could do it? I doubt your state government will be able to without some form of interference from the government.

[Sefard]

It is very simple. We partition the United States into several provinces, one for traditional peoples, one for moderate peoples, one for "liberated" peoples, and one for ultra-traditional peoples.

[Shie]

No, what we're agreeing is that it doesn't meet your standards for evidence, which aren't very suitable for looking at social and experiential phenomena as many of us have explained. Our identities continue to exist and impact our lives regardless of whether you continue to assert a naïve scientism. I'm afraid that your refusal to accept us tragically does not make us disappear in a puff of logic.

Now I see why professors in my faculty hate Positivism's guts.

They're robbers.

[Shie]

Do we need a return to morality? Yes. The sexual revolution has simply wreaked havoc on America.

Should the government bring us back? Absolutely, no way in Hell! Washington can't balance something as trivial as a budget. I certainly wouldn't trust them with something as important as a human soul.

Well that's too bad because the only way for the "sexual revolution" to end is to either wait long enough for it to die off (I doubt it will.), or have the corrupt American system suppress the freedoms of everyone. To achieve the latter one would have to somehow make the Republican party more likeable, which is difficult if not impossible when they're reasoning and choice of words are either selfish, poorly thought out, or both.

By the way you'll need a government in order to actually enforce this morality crap. Opposing the size of government is actually running counter to your requirements of a morality-enforced society, especially when the majority of society is becoming more and more liberal. Now I know you're talking specifically about the federal government, but who else could do it? I doubt your state government will be able to without some form of interference from the government.

Yes, the Republican party needs a new leader to restore it's former glory. Where could that man be?

[Dumb Ideologies]

Now I see why professors in my faculty hate Positivism's guts.

They're robbers.

I've got the oddest image of highwayman professors.

"Your epistemological certainty or your life!"