Transgender Discussion Thread III: Vote in our poll!

[Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Territories]

That sounds like a special pleading mixed in with incoherency. If anomalies exist (and, in the case of intersex people, probably number in the millions of individuals), then the system can't be honestly, logically defined as a binary. If there are more than two possible outcomes, then it's not a binary, even if the non-binary outcomes share elements with either or both of the "binary" outcomes.

It is neither incoherent nor it is special pleading. It's merely biology and your lack of understanding of it is no actual argument to dismiss what it tells us.
Errors in the reproduction process that create the anomalies that are intersex people is not in anyway disproving the fact that said reproduction system is entirely based on a male/female binary.

Your conflation of the reproductive process with the condition of any given individual would only make sense if every human reproduced, and reproduction were the sole point of human existence.

Edit: Also "Errors" presupposes "purpose", and as you should know, evolution is an unguided process (save for natural selection, which isn't the topic at hand when discussing human individuals' self-determination).

[Vassenor]

It's not pedantry, it's a simple bloody fact. If the number of possible states is more than two, then it isn't a sodding binary. The paradigm is bullshit, and we need a new one.

Not if the third factor is an equilibrium between the other two. It proves nothing.

Binary exclusively refers to two different discrete states. 0 and 1. 0.5 cannot exist in a binary despite being an "equilibrium between the other two".

[Aellex]

Your conflation of the reproductive process with the condition of any given individual would only make sense if every human reproduced, and reproduction were the sole point of human existence.

Ok, you're simply choosing to deny fucking biology because you don't like the hard facts it tells you and instead retreat into vague nihilistic crap to cope with them. This is just fucking flat-earth tier of bullshitery.
Anyway, let me cut you right there. Every living individual very much has an ingrained biological purpose and this purpose is to reproduce. It is true of every living thing from plants passing to animals and even bacterias. Now, us human reproduce through this little thing called "sexual reproduction" which require mating between two individus, one male and one female to be accomplished. Biologically speaking, our sole purpose is to do that and we're built around that form of reproduction. It requires us to be either male or female. Anomalies doesn't disprove these facts, they just show that it simply isn't perfect.

Please, stop with that science denialism already. It's just painful to watch.

[Khalisako]

All this strange talk of gradients and stuff has me mighty confused.

[Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Territories]

Your conflation of the reproductive process with the condition of any given individual would only make sense if every human reproduced, and reproduction were the sole point of human existence.

Ok, you're simply choosing to deny fucking biology because you don't like the hard facts it tells you and instead retreat into vague nihilistic crap to cope with them. This is just fucking flat-earth tier of bullshitery.
Anyway, let me cut you right there. Every living individual very much has an ingrained biological purpose and this purpose is to reproduce. It is true of every living thing from plants passing to animals and even bacterias. Now, us human reproduce through this little thing called "sexual reproduction" which require mating between two individus, one male and one female to be accomplished. Biologically speaking, our sole purpose is to do that and we're built around that form of reproduction. It requires us to be either male or female. Anomalies doesn't disprove these facts, they just show that it simply isn't perfect.

Please, stop with that science denialism already. It's just painful to watch.

Reproduction is not our 'purpose', reproduction is merely the means to the continued existence of genetic code.

[Liriena]

Sex, not gender. Sex and gender are not synonyms.

By now, you should know I'm of the "Sex and Gender are the same thing" camp. :^)

Well, that's unfortunate. "Sex and gender are the same thing" is a claim that runs counter to the consensus among psychologists, psychiatrists and various schools in social sciences. "Sex and gender are the same thing" is the gender equivalent of "scientific racism", in that it only makes any sense if you are living in the 19th century, when the West collectively decided that it was a good idea to try and cram the square peg that is positivism in the round hole that is social science, and we didn't have the Frankfurt School to tell us that it was a dumb (and dangerous) idea.

[Aellex]

Edit: Also "Errors" presupposes "purpose", and as you should know, evolution is an unguided process (save for natural selection, which isn't the topic at hand when discussing human individuals' self-determination).

Yeah, no. I really do not see why you're trying to bring evolution into the mix and it's quite obvious you're conflating a lot of things there as you don't really know what you're talking about.
Whether evolution is guided or not is up to debate but it happens through reproduction, the sexual one in the case of most animals (us included) so... You still failed to actually oppose or disprove my argument in any way.

[Liriena]

All this strange talk of gradients and stuff has me mighty confused.

To be fair, it is understandable that so many of us struggle with the idea of gender being non-binary, often to the point of violent rejection, since we humans kind of naturally suck at thinking about stuff in non-dualist terms.

[Aellex]

Reproduction is not our 'purpose', reproduction is merely the means to the continued existence of genetic code.

Biologically, we only have three purposes. To eat, produce organic mater and reproduce. That's literally all there is to it.

[Sanctissima]

By now, you should know I'm of the "Sex and Gender are the same thing" camp. :^)

Well, that's unfortunate. "Sex and gender are the same thing" is a claim that runs counter to the consensus among psychologists, psychiatrists and various schools in social sciences. "Sex and gender are the same thing" is the gender equivalent of "scientific racism", in that it only makes any sense if you are living in the 19th century, when the West collectively decided that it was a good idea to try and cram the square peg that is positivism in the round hole that is social science, and we didn't have the Frankfurt School to tell us that it was a dumb (and dangerous) idea.

Ah yes, I forgot that Cultural Marxism has systematically neutered the Psychology Department of nearly every Western University. Thank you for reminding me.

[Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Territories]

Edit: Also "Errors" presupposes "purpose", and as you should know, evolution is an unguided process (save for natural selection, which isn't the topic at hand when discussing human individuals' self-determination).

Yeah, no. I really do not see why you're trying to bring evolution into the mix and it's quite obvious you're conflating a lot of things there as you don't really know what you're talking about.
Whether evolution is guided or not is up to debate but it happens through reproduction, the sexual one in the case of most animals (us included) so... You still failed to actually oppose or disprove my argument in any way.

You're the one who seems almost obsessed with reproduction. Why on earth does it even factor in this question? It's a straight fact that conditions exist outside the binary absolute, and your response to it was to bring reproduction (and by extension, evolution) into it. You have consistently described reproduction as our 'purpose', and the only argument for that position that I can conceive (heh) of is that the purpose of humans is to evolve.

[Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Territories]

Reproduction is not our 'purpose', reproduction is merely the means to the continued existence of genetic code.

Biologically, we only have three purposes. To eat, produce organic mater and reproduce. That's literally all there is to it.

They aren't purposes, they're functions.

[Liriena]

That sounds like a special pleading mixed in with incoherency. If anomalies exist (and, in the case of intersex people, probably number in the millions of individuals), then the system can't be honestly, logically defined as a binary. If there are more than two possible outcomes, then it's not a binary, even if the non-binary outcomes share elements with either or both of the "binary" outcomes.

It is neither incoherent nor it is special pleading. It's merely biology and your lack of understanding of it is no actual argument to dismiss what it tells us.

Except it's kind of a special pleading to argue sex is binary because 'anomalies' somehow don't count even though they clearly exist and are the product of the exact same biological processes as those that form all other individuals. Intersex people were not created in a laboratory or through Satanic conjuration, so your dismissal seems like a cowardly, intellectually dishonest attempt to preserve your pseudo-scientific narrative from being refuted by the same science you've been defensively name-dropping.

Errors in the reproduction process that create the anomalies that are intersex people is not in anyway disproving the fact that said reproduction system is entirely based on a male/female binary.

>bloviates about biology and other people not getting it
>bloviates about "errors in the reproduction process"

I'm starting to think you don't understand the discipline you are defensively name-dropping.

[Liriena]

Well, that's unfortunate. "Sex and gender are the same thing" is a claim that runs counter to the consensus among psychologists, psychiatrists and various schools in social sciences. "Sex and gender are the same thing" is the gender equivalent of "scientific racism", in that it only makes any sense if you are living in the 19th century, when the West collectively decided that it was a good idea to try and cram the square peg that is positivism in the round hole that is social science, and we didn't have the Frankfurt School to tell us that it was a dumb (and dangerous) idea.

Ah yes, I forgot that Cultural Marxism has systematically neutered the Psychology Department of nearly every Western University. Thank you for reminding me.

Oh, your far right propaganda is on point. ;3

[Grenartia]

1. Have you ever been to college? Because if you have, you'd know that they teach you an oversimplified version of things in high school.

2. You said, unironically.

1. So that's the line of defense you're going to try to use then? "I-It's just an over-simplification!" Well, please, do correct me where I was wrong in any of the arguments I made about those biological facts. If you can, that is. :^)
2. I'm not the one denying basic biology in the face of the obvious, here. :^)

1. You already have been corrected. Simply because you chose to keep on parroting your inaccurate education doesn't mean you actually refuted it.

2. You're the one ignoring the scientific consensus on the issue. Scientific truth is more complicated than the simple fairy tales they teach you in high school. :^) See, I can spam the dorito face, too.

Actually, it kind of does, because it proves that sex is a continuum, instead of a black and white binary. Which puts the question of why gender has a binary in full light. After all, nothing else in the universe is an exclusive binary, so what makes gender so special?

1. Well, there is computer coding, but...

Yes, I see your point, but at most you can argue that there exists a third gender called intersex, and 2. it is an equilibrium of the two much more prevalent ones. It disproves the idea of a gender duality or binary as much as the ancient Chinese concept of Yin-Yang is disproved by a woman having Yang qualities. It means nothing, such a scenario has existed for millennia, and has always fit in perfectly with the established paradigm. 3. Having some overlap within a duality doesn't inherently make it non-binary. If anything, it just adds more credence to the paradigm you seem to despise.

1. Even in computer science, there are non-binary systems. Quantum computing, for example.

2. I don't think you're using "equilibrium" correctly. It doesn't make sense in this context.

3. Except, it does. That's a cold, hard, mathematical fact. You're describing a spectrum, which is decidedly NOT a binary.

It literally does though.

There being an equilibrium between two genders does not make the paradigm non-binary. Not unless you want to be extremely pedantic about the definition of the word binary.

Its not being "pedantic", its being accurate. Again, you're also not using the word equilibrium correctly.

If the material manifestation of a paradigm does not exclusively produce a duality of outcomes, how can it be binary, rather than... say... a spectrum?

1. Because there is a difference between the existence of an equilibrium and a third outcome completely different from the other two.

2. If you want to prove the existence of a non-binary gender spectrum, you need something as an example other than intersex.

1. Again, you're misusing the word.

2. I never tried to argue otherwise. I simply stated that its quite strong supporting evidence against the binary model of gender.

Sex, not gender. Sex and gender are not synonyms.

By now, you should know I'm of the "Sex and Gender are the same thing" camp. :^)

So this is just special pleading on your part, the refusal to acknolwedge that you can't have an in-between in a binary. Good to know.

Well, that's unfortunate. "Sex and gender are the same thing" is a claim that runs counter to the consensus among psychologists, psychiatrists and various schools in social sciences. "Sex and gender are the same thing" is the gender equivalent of "scientific racism", in that it only makes any sense if you are living in the 19th century, when the West collectively decided that it was a good idea to try and cram the square peg that is positivism in the round hole that is social science, and we didn't have the Frankfurt School to tell us that it was a dumb (and dangerous) idea.

Ah yes, I forgot that Cultural Marxism has systematically neutered the Psychology Department of nearly every Western University. Thank you for reminding me.

"Cultural Marxism": the belief that because science and other fields of study has shown that in many cases, reality does not align with conservative and reactionary view points, academia has a liberal bias.

Its tired and sad, just like all deluded conspiracy theories. What's next? UFOs anal probed your dog last night? Kurt Cobain killed himself to cover up 9/11 from the illuminati NWO lizardmen?

[Sanctissima]

Ah yes, I forgot that Cultural Marxism has systematically neutered the Psychology Department of nearly every Western University. Thank you for reminding me.

Oh, your far right propaganda is on point. ;3

Yes comrade, the Frankfurt School wasn't full of degenerate Marxists. This is bourgeois propaganda!

[Vassenor]

Biologically, we only have three purposes. To eat, produce organic mater and reproduce. That's literally all there is to it.

They aren't purposes, they're functions.

Also I'm guessing there's going to be some crap about how the biologically infertile aren't true humans then since they're not capable of fulfilling one of those purposes.

[Aellex]

You're the one who seems almost obsessed with reproduction. Why on earth does it even factor in this question? It's a straight fact that conditions exist outside the binary absolute, and your response to it was to bring reproduction (and by extension, evolution) into it. You have consistently described reproduction as our 'purpose', and the only argument for that position that I can conceive (heh) of is that the purpose of humans is to evolve.

I'm trying to explain you the (very basic) fact that there can not be anything but a sex binary for humans since our reproduction, being a sexual one, depends on a sex binary. You're having troubles coping with that fact and decided to go full science-denialist, doing your best to divert from it by saying that anomalies existing meant that the said binary didn't exist (which is utterly retarded as they exist within the binary system of sex).

As for your last sentence, it explains a lot. You know literally shit about what you're trying to talk about and that explain why you brought up evolution out of nowhere despite it being utterly unrelated to the subject at hand.
And yes, biologically speaking, our purpose (and the one of any living organism) is to reproduce. It's not up to debate. It's a simple fact.

[Aellex]

They aren't purposes, they're functions.

function
ˈfʌŋ(k)ʃ(ə)n/Submit
noun
plural noun: functions
1.
an activity that is natural to or the purpose of a person or thing.

Quite the back-pedalling you're making, there. :^)

[Liriena]

Ah yes, I forgot that Cultural Marxism has systematically neutered the Psychology Department of nearly every Western University. Thank you for reminding me.

Oh, your far right propaganda is on point. ;3

Seriously, though, that's a very weak, lazy and unoriginal retort.

Yes, the Frankfurt School had a fair bit of influence on psychology and social sciences. After all, they were brilliant academics whose work went a long way in exposing the flaws and dangers of previous schools of thought. And you just dismissing them and those who were influenced by them with that snarl term is just pathetic anti-intellectualism at its finest. You don't come off as a brilliant truth-teller, but as just another propagandist eager to spew contempt at adversaries who dare to challenge your dogma.

I'm so sorry that over a century of academic progress left you and your pseudo-science behind, but maybe you could consider not clinging with such resentful zeal and smugness to dogma.

[Improved werpland]

.

[Liriena]

Oh, your far right propaganda is on point. ;3

Yes comrade, the Frankfurt School wasn't full of degenerate Marxists. This is bourgeois propaganda!

Have you ever even read the works of the Frankfurt School?

Also, remember where you are. Calling a group of early 20th century intellectuals "degenerates" is not going to earn you cookies and a pat on the back around these parts.

That said... I kind of love the fact that you couldn't even be bothered to distance yourself from the unfortunate historical implications of your snarl term, and instead lashed out with humorous deflection.

[Philjia]

All states of gender identity are based on the male/female diametric to some extent. However, being a concept that only really exists inside our heads, it doesn't have to obey the same rules. It doesn't have to be one thing or the other thing.

[Aellex]

Except it's kind of a special pleading to argue sex is binary because 'anomalies' somehow don't count even though they clearly exist and are the product of the exact same biological processes as those that form all other individuals. Intersex people were not created in a laboratory or through Satanic conjuration, so your dismissal seems like a cowardly, intellectually dishonest attempt to preserve your pseudo-scientific narrative from being refuted by the same science you've been defensively name-dropping.

They're the results of errors in the reproduction process. Their existence just proves that it isn't perfect.

>bloviates about biology and other people not getting it
>bloviates about "errors in the reproduction process"

I'm starting to think you don't understand the discipline you are defensively name-dropping.

No, they're literally that. They're most of the time the result of an incomplete intrachromosomal genetic mixing which happens guess when? During the meiosis. :^)
It appears quite clear that the more you try to put doubt on my understanding of biology, the more your own lack of shows.

[Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Territories]

They aren't purposes, they're functions.

function
ˈfʌŋ(k)ʃ(ə)n/Submit
noun
plural noun: functions
1.
an activity that is natural to or the purpose of a person or thing.

Quite the back-pedalling you're making, there. :^)

Oh look, a dictionary definition, which despite dictionaries not being the be-all and end-all of anything at all, happens to agree with me that function =/= purpose.