Too Much Pressure to Identify?

[US-SSR]

Sounds to me like too much pressure on teens to hook up with people as opposed to, i dunno, investing in friendships and stuff like that...iow same stuff, different decade...

[Nakena]

What your alternative? An active, obstinate search for meaninglessness?

My alternative? That be a longer post I think.

If you want to know about my take on LGBT, please check here and here. It should give an good idea, since I don't tend to be an essay writer.

Also abrahamism can GTFO. Unironically.

[Necroghastia]

Eh, yeah, there's especially a bias against changing labels and against adopting any that are out of the ordinary.

LGBT+ people are still the only group of people in the US that is legally allowed to be discriminated against.

Good, more free speech.

Discrimination actually runs counter to "free speech."

[Slavakino]

Eh, yeah, there's especially a bias against changing labels and against adopting any that are out of the ordinary.

Good, more free speech.

Discrimination actually runs counter to "free speech."

I doubt that highly. Banning discrimination is practically banning someone's right to free speech

[SD_Film Artists]

Oh, well this is easy. Free will is a silly concept invented by philosophers to torture themselves, the soul doesn't exist, and no computer as we currently know them could accurately function as a human brain.

Unless you'd like to start a new thread or two I'd agree to disagree on that.

Something can exist and someone can still propose it for a different purpose than it used to be used. Somebody could reinvent the wheel, but for use as a dish off of which to eat instead of for transport or they could just propose that without any reinvention. I mean, it would be pointless and kind of dumb, but it still could happen (analogous to what's happening here). The issue I'm seeing is that biological sex is, as you describe here, a whole bunch of different traits and people very often disagree on how exactly to define it. Also, some of the things here are just natural consequences of other components of a composite version of biological sex - risk factors for some sex-specific diseases are hormonal in nature, bone structure differences result largely from differences in puberty (also caused by hormone levels in large part), etc. In my opinion, a proper definition of biological sex should contain neurological aspect

Except not really, though. There are loads of exceptions to virtually any definition of biological sex. People have ambiguous genitalia, ambiguous bone/facial structures, hormonal disorders, genetic disorders, get diseases that are more common in the other sex, etc. In neurology, about which I was primarily talking, the article you link below proves my point that there is ambiguity and cross-over despite general trends. Sure, you can generally identify someone as a particular sex by observing one of these things, but there are also a significant number of cases where this is not true.

By your own admission the exceptions are exceptions: some people have a sixth digit yet you can still say with authority that humans have four fingers and a thumb. It's not like neurodiversity or race which exist in their own right rather than being 'exceptions'.

I said 'higher risk' because some 'female conditions' are evident in men and vice-versa, but the difference is still there.

Consider this- if you successfully graft a woman's hand onto a man it will still fundamentally be a female hand even if it were made convincingly to look like that of its new owner.

If we all have a gender-neutral brain then how can you tell if someone is cis or trans based only from a brain scan?

[Cekoviu]

Something can exist and someone can still propose it for a different purpose than it used to be used. Somebody could reinvent the wheel, but for use as a dish off of which to eat instead of for transport or they could just propose that without any reinvention. I mean, it would be pointless and kind of dumb, but it still could happen (analogous to what's happening here). The issue I'm seeing is that biological sex is, as you describe here, a whole bunch of different traits and people very often disagree on how exactly to define it. Also, some of the things here are just natural consequences of other components of a composite version of biological sex - risk factors for some sex-specific diseases are hormonal in nature, bone structure differences result largely from differences in puberty (also caused by hormone levels in large part), etc. In my opinion, a proper definition of biological sex should contain neurological aspect

Except not really, though. There are loads of exceptions to virtually any definition of biological sex. People have ambiguous genitalia, ambiguous bone/facial structures, hormonal disorders, genetic disorders, get diseases that are more common in the other sex, etc. In neurology, about which I was primarily talking, the article you link below proves my point that there is ambiguity and cross-over despite general trends. Sure, you can generally identify someone as a particular sex by observing one of these things, but there are also a significant number of cases where this is not true.

By your own admission the exceptions are exceptions: some people have a sixth digit yet you can still say with authority that humans have four fingers and a thumb. It's not like neurodiversity or race which exist in their own right rather than being 'exceptions'.

I said 'higher risk' because some 'female conditions' are evident in men and vice-versa, but the difference is still there.

Consider this- if you successfully graft a woman's hand onto a man it will still fundamentally be a female hand even if it were made convincingly to look like that of its new owner.

If we all have a gender-neutral brain then how can you tell if someone is cis or trans based only from a brain scan?

I wrote a detailed post and then the forum glitched and deleted my text because it thought I wasn't logged in. I'm not going to rewrite everything I said, so sorry. Will quickly respond:
- Those are not the same thing at all
- Then they can't be used to reliably determine sex
- That's a bad argument that doesn't work
- We don't and you can't

[Major-Tom]

I suppose it depends. Years ago, back in HS, it seemed that people viewed sexuality in a rigid fashion, IE, you were either gay or straight, and only the latter was viewed as acceptable.

But that was Catholic school, where social acceptance is lacking to begin with. In University, I found that a great deal of people understand the fluidity of human sexuality, and that's really the way it should be. Nobody should have to be certain about where they stand in regards to sexual preferences, so long as they pursue their sexual desires in a consensual and healthy fashion.