Social Gender ideology is dying, common sense prevailing

[sanguinius]

I'm not interested in interacting with you. Just don't address me and move on with whatever it is you do.

Don’t need any updates about what you are or aren’t interested in, buddy.

 

[sanguinius]

I refuted what you said in very simple terms. I'll do it one more time even though it's absolutely redundant by now.

A woman is an adult female. A female is the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, which can be fertilized by males. A male cannot bear offspring or produce eggs. Therefore a male cannot be a woman.

For the record, you've failed to refute this 3, going on 4 times now. Instead you want to get into the weeds on what a sound or logical argument is because you know you cannot refute that. The bolded paragraph above is my extremely simple refute that you yourself have no argument for.

Like I said, you got KO'd by someone simply asking you what a woman is.

He’s probably just not interested in actually refuting points. You are being rude by talking about things he has no interest in.

 

[krelianx]

I refuted what you said in very simple terms. I'll do it one more time even though it's absolutely redundant by now.

A woman is an adult female. A female is the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, which can be fertilized by males. A male cannot bear offspring or produce eggs. Therefore a male cannot be a woman.

For the record, you've failed to refute this 3, going on 4 times now. Instead you want to get into the weeds on what a sound or logical argument is because you know you cannot refute that. The bolded paragraph above is my extremely simple refute that you yourself have no argument for.

Like I said, you got KO'd by someone simply asking you what a woman is.

You provide a definition of the term "woman" that corresponds to biological sex. I provided a definition that disambiguates between different concepts, including the biological sex concept and the gender concept, which is not the same.

Your argument is also badly formulated. Clearly, not all biological females produce eggs or can produce offspring, or else any biological female who was infertile would not be a woman.

So, reduction ad absurdum departing from the assumption that Jennifer Aniston is a woman:


1) A woman is an adult female.
2) A "female" refers to an individual that can bear or produce eggs, which can be fertilized by males.
3) A sterile individual with XX-Chromosomes and the phenotypical traits associated with females that is sterile cannot bear offspring or produce eggs that can be fertilized by males.
4) Therefore, sterile individuals with XX-chromosomes and the said traits cannot be an adult female.
5) Therefore, such individuals cannot be women.
6) Jennifer Aniston is infertile.
7) Anyone who is not a woman is a man (assumption of gender binarism and conflation of sex-gender).
8) Therefore, Jennifer Aniston is not a woman.
9) Therefore, Jennifer Aniston is a man.

Congratulations, you just provided an argument that in fact entails that all infertile biological females are, in fact, men.

 

[HereticBD]

It has to do because your only counter-argument is that the argument I provided was illogical.

Because it is.

When one is "debating" a flat-earther, one does not need to entertain the illogical musings of that person.

Same deal with this shit. You want to play "Make Believe Land" in your treehouse with a bunch of other children? Go right the fuck ahead. Step out of that treehouse and into the real world, and you'll find that society doesn't adhere to your juvenile games.

 

[krelianx]

Because it is.

When one is "debating" a flat-earther, one does not need to entertain the illogical musings of that person.

Same deal with this shit. You want to play "Make Believe Land" in your treehouse with a bunch of other children? Go right the fuck ahead. Step out of that treehouse and into the real world, and you'll find that society doesn't adhere to your juvenile games.

You don't even know what the words you use mean, let alone what counts as "illogical". You are refusing to actually address anything I say because you can't. I provided a litany of sources of scientific literature from different fields, from forensic anthropology, to sexology and psychology, to neurophysiology, to philosophy and history. I provided a formal argument and definition that disambiguates between sex and gender.

And yet I am supposed to be the one that is "the flat earther" here?

Newsflash: flat-earthers are the ones that explicitly deny the credibility of scientific consensus and bona fide academic scholarship, appealing to common sense intuitions or "logic" in the abstract.

You can revel in your ignorance and continue to simply look away from what's been put before your eyes under the pretext that "one does not engage with the illogical musings of a person."

But you don't even know what "logic" is. Because you are an uneducated moron who takes pride in his ignorance, and confuses it for wisdom.

You have nothing except your own willful ignorance to rejoice in.

 

[HereticBD]

You don't even know what the words you use mean, let alone what counts as "illogical". You are refusing to actually address anything I say because you can't. I provided a litany of sources of scientific literature from different fields, from forensic anthropology, to sexology and psychology, to neurophysiology, to philosophy and history. I provided a formal argument and definition that disambiguates between sex and gender.

And yet I am supposed to be the one that is "the flat earther" here?

Yes. All it would take for you to believe in "Flat Earth", is if a bunch of nutters who have degrees got together and entertained the idea.

Guarantee you put your mask on in between bites at crowded restaurants during COVID, because "science" told you that it would protect you and everyone around you. Guaran-fucking-tee.

You're an appeal to authority slave

 

[krelianx]

Yes. All it would take for you to believe in "Flat Earth", is if a bunch of nutters who have degrees got together and entertained the idea.

Guarantee you put your mask on in between bites at crowded restaurants during COVID, because "science" told you that it would protect you and everyone around you. Guaran-fucking-tee.

You're an appeal to authority slave

It must be really soothing to you to simply tell yourself that the scientific community are a "bunch of nutters" that simply "get together to entertain ideas".

Guarantee that you go would go to a hospital to see a doctor if you broke your leg or if you needed emergency surgery.

Guaran-fucking-tee.

Which means that science is a selective matter to you. You choose to trust science when it aligns with your biases or your immediate needs and interests. But the moment that science, even when under consensus, says something that doesn't align with such biases you pull the card of "scientists are a bunch of nutters." It is not that you adjudicate between scientific claims and theories on the basis of informed research and concrete claims. You just off the bat refuse to even consider the fact you might be wrong, and to look at the studies of the people who are dealing with these issues professionally. You have not addressed a single claim of any of the papers mentioned, nor any of my claims or arguments. You can't.

Of course, this is a convenient way to never have to actually address anything being argued or claimed.

Which of course shows a really perverse hypocrisy. Not only are you ignorant, and unwilling to accept it. But even more pathetically, you try to make it seem as if being ignorant is virtuous, and it is the expert community of scientists and the people who actually read and do research who are an ideologically warped court of authority we ought to distrust... when it is convenient to you to do so.

 

[HereticBD]

It must be really soothing to you to simply tell yourself that the scientific community are a "bunch of nutters" that simply "get together to entertain ideas".

Guarantee that you go would go to a hospital to see a doctor if you broke your leg or if you needed emergency surgery.

Guaran-fucking-tee.

I never discredited the entire field. This shit is nutter territory, though, and it will never be made a societal law of the land. They're just making shit up as they go, much like they did with COVID.

See, I can be critical of "the science". You on the other hand, are a slave to the almighty deity that is "the science". If they say so, it must be true...like phrenology or lobotomies for the mentally ill...

 

[Stoic1]

This guy, krelionx, is definately taking hormones.

 

[krelianx]

I never discredited the entire field. This shit is nutter territory, though, and it will never be made a societal law of the land. They're just making shit up as they go, much like they did with COVID.

See, I can be critical of "the science". You on the other hand, are a slave to the almighty deity that is "the science". If they say so, it must be true...like phrenology or lobotomies for the mentally ill...

You are just saying things, not arguing for anything or providing any kind of support for anything you say.

Things are actually quite simple:

Science and humanities in the academy draw a distinction between sex and gender, as also many people do. These are not synonymous concepts, and there is no single concept of gender anymore than there is a single concept of sex. Concepts are invented and change in time, and there is usually several concepts that use the same term at work among different social groups. Gender is one of those terms.

Recognizing that there exists a conceptual distinction that people use to talk about different things is completely neutral with regard to what one thinks about sex and gender, their relation, or anything resembling the ethics of medical practice, sports legislation, etc.

You are confusing what is a matter of semantic fact with the empirical issues surrounding the science. Because you are an uneducated moron.

This is the Mirriam-Webster dictionary history:

"The words sex and gender have a long and intertwined history. In the 15th century gender expanded from its use as a term for a grammatical subclass to join sex in referring to either of the two primary biological forms of a species, a meaning sex has had since the 14th century; phrases like "the male sex" and "the female gender" are both grounded in uses established for more than five centuries. In the 20th century sex and gender each acquired new uses. Sex developed its "sexual intercourse" meaning in the early part of the century (now its more common meaning), and a few decades later gender gained a meaning referring to the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex, as in "gender roles." Later in the century, gender also came to have application in two closely related compound terms: gender identity refers to a person's internal sense of being male, female, some combination of male and female, or neither male nor female; gender expression refers to the physical and behavioral manifestations of one's gender identity. By the end of the century gender by itself was being used as a synonym of gender identity."

One can ask specific questions about gender from here: does a person's self-identification suffice for gender identity? What is this "inner sense" appealed to?

One might find that the criteria for individuation and identification are incoherent, or inconsistently used and defined. That is a task for sociology, psychology, and is not something one can answer a priori. The fact that the concepts are distinguished and have been distinguished historically is undeniable, and nothing you can say or do will change that.

That's it. The distinction exists, and nothing you can do will occlude that.

 

[HereticBD]

You are just saying things, not arguing for anything or providing any kind of support for anything you say.

No, I've pointed out your slave mentality to a field that gets things wrong all the time. You're just a drone who can't think for himself. Like I said, you will support any and everything they tell you. Just because you can scour the net and link articles to "scientific" studies, doesn't make you smart. You think the presentation of the links you provide makes you smart.

Again, decades ago, you'd be the guy going to bat for phrenology, because you're a dumbass who thinks all studies presented in professional manner by "experts", makes them infallible. You don't even have an opinion of your own. We've all seen how you act, when you can't link studies from websites. You're a juvenile moron, who just gets frustrated and calls people names. You can't speak on any subject without appealing to authority and being a drone. Meh.

 

[krelianx]

No, I've pointed out your slave mentality to a field that gets things wrong all the time. You're just a drone who can't think for himself. Like I said, you will support any and everything they tell you. Just because you can scour the net and link articles to "scientific" studies, doesn't make you smart. You think the presentation of the links you provide makes you smart.

Again, decades ago, you'd be the guy going to bat for phrenology, because you're a dumbass who thinks all studies presented in professional manner by "experts", makes them infallible. You don't even have an opinion of your own. We've all seen how you act, when you can't link studies from websites. You're a juvenile moron, who just gets frustrated and calls people names. You can't speak on any subject without appealing to authority and being a drone. Meh.

Keep avoiding the issue. The sad part is you think being an ignorant, illiterate, uneducated moron who hasnt contributed anything let alone published a thing, is somehow free from "authority". You are a slave to yourself.

 

[HereticBD]

Keep avoiding the issue.

What issue would that be? Not agreeing with you? LOL.

Like I said, when you're left to your own devices and aren't just spamming links, you're exposed as a juvenile moron with nary an intelligent thought to be seen. You're just a mindless drone.

 

[krelianx]

What issue would that be? Not agreeing with you? LOL.

Like I said, when you're left to your own devices and aren't just spamming links, you're exposed as a juvenile moron with nary an intelligent thought to be seen. You're just a mindless drone.

You don't have a leg to stand on, because you can't actually argue with anything that I said.

I gave a series of definitions, arguments, conceptual distinctions, linked to a variety of sources from different fields, and you have so far absolutely addressed nothing substantive. Not a claim in the papers linked to, not a single premise in the arguments, not an answer to any of the questions I formulated.

In fact, you have quite explicitly refused to address anything substantial. And you have nothing to offer in return.

It's very easy to call something "illogical" and "nonsense" to not have to address it, and avoid the issue entirely.

So, who is being the dogmatist here?

You can't actually talk about this topic because you don't know anything about it.

If you think the argument I provided for the distinction between sex and gender is a bad one, point to me to how it is either unsound or invalid.

Otherwise, you have nothing. And you do, in fact, have nothing.

 

[HereticBD]

You don't have a leg to stand on, because you can't actually argue with anything that I said.

I gave a series of definitions, arguments, conceptual distinctions, linked to a variety of sources from different fields, and you have so far absolutely addressed nothing substantive. Not a claim in the papers linked to, not a single premise in the arguments, not an answer to any of the questions I formulated.

No, denouncing your links(you have no arguments of your own), is addressing the issues "you" presented. Like I said, one does not have to engage with a flat-earther, when they're arguing absolute nonsense. Dismissal of said nonsense works just fine.

You bore me, child.

 

[krelianx]

No, denouncing your links(you have no arguments of your own), is addressing the issues "you" presented. Like I said, one does not have to engage with a flat-earther, when they're arguing absolute nonsense. Dismissal of said nonsense works just fine.

You bore me, child.

I presented an argument for the distinction between sex and gender.


1) There is a distinction between biological and social factors
2) Biological factors include sexual determination, dividing between male/female, intersex, and other types.
3) Certain social roles are commonly associated with specific sexual types, and these roles are context dependent as well as historically mutable.
4) Such roles include descriptive generalizations ("girls play with dolls, boys play with guns") and prescriptive norms ("women belong in the kitchen").
5) Such social roles determine how individuals identify one another and themselves, in relation to a variety of other determinations, including biological sex, sexual orientation, psychological and social roles, and belonging to specific communities.
6) The set of concepts comprising such social classification terms are commonly labelled under the rubric "gender".
7) Gender concepts are sometimes syntactically equivalent to biological-sex concepts (e.g. the term "male" can refer either to the biological concept, or to the gender concept) but are not semantically identical, i.e. they are not invariant under substitution; e.g. "Biological males express X-Y chromosomes" is not synonymous with "Male identifying individuals express X-Y chromosomes," since they are not co-referential nor sense-equivalent.
8) The concepts "sex" and "gender" while correlated to sexual determination in different ways, and always (trivially) coextensive with biologically sexed individuals, therefore are not coextensive (extensionally identical) nor sense-equivalent (intensionally identical).


I can formalize this with basic predicate calculus (quantificational logic):

1) ∃x (Sex(x) Biological(x)) and ∃x (Gender(x) ∧ Social(x))
There exist classifications of individuals that are biologically grounded (Sex) and classifications that are socially grounded (Gender).
2)Sex(x) is by B-properties (e.g., chromosomal type, reproductive anatomy).
Sexual classification tracks biological factors.
3) Gender(x) is a function of S-properties, including descriptive norms (e.g., behavioral generalizations) and prescriptive norms (e.g., normative role expectations).
Gender classification tracks socially constructed roles and expectations.
4) ∃x,y (Sex(x) = Sex(y) ∧ Gender(x) ≠ Gender(y))
There exist individuals who share a biological sex but differ in gender identity.

5) ∃x,y (Gender(x) = Gender(y) ∧ Sex(x) ≠ Sex(y))
There exist individuals who share a gender identity but differ in biological sex.
6) For some term t (e.g., "male"), t may refer either to Sex(x) or Gender(x), but such terms are not generally substitutable. "Male" is syntactically ambiguous and context-sensitive; semantic content varies across uses.
7) Let C(x) be a classification concept (e.g., "male") applied to the set x of human individuals. Then:

If C(x) = Sex(x), it refers to B-properties.

If C(x) = Gender(x), it refers to S-properties.

But C(x) ≠ C(y) unless both sense and reference are preserved.

Conclusion) Sex and Gender are distinct but partially correlated classification schemes.

Formally:
¬∀x (Sex(x) ↔ Gender(x)) ∧ ¬∀x (Sex(x) ≡ Gender(x))

That is, Sex and Gender are neither coextensive (extensionally identical) nor sense-equivalent (intensionally identical).

Show me how that argument is invalid or unsound.

 

[HereticBD]

I presented an argument for the distinction between sex and gender.


1) There is a distinction between biological and social factors
2) Biological factors include sexual determination, dividing between male/female, intersex, and other types.
3) Certain social roles are commonly associated with specific sexual types, and these roles are context dependent as well as historically mutable.
4) Such roles include descriptive generalizations ("girls play with dolls, boys play with guns") and prescriptive norms ("women belong in the kitchen").
5) Such social roles determine how individuals identify one another and themselves, in relation to a variety of other determinations, including biological sex, sexual orientation, psychological and social roles, and belonging to specific communities.
6) The set of concepts comprising such social classification terms are commonly labelled under the rubric "gender".
7) Gender concepts are sometimes syntactically equivalent to biological-sex concepts (e.g. the term "male" can refer either to the biological concept, or to the gender concept) but are not semantically identical, i.e. they are not invariant under substitution; e.g. "Biological males express X-Y chromosomes" is not synonymous with "Male identifying individuals express X-Y chromosomes," since they are not co-referential nor sense-equivalent.
8) The concepts "sex" and "gender" while correlated to sexual determination in different ways, and always (trivially) coextensive with biologically sexed individuals, therefore are not coextensive (extensionally identical) nor sense-equivalent (intensionally identical).


I can formalize this with basic predicate calculus (quantificational logic):

1) ∃x (Sex(x) Biological(x)) and ∃x (Gender(x) ∧ Social(x))
There exist classifications of individuals that are biologically grounded (Sex) and classifications that are socially grounded (Gender).
2)Sex(x) is by B-properties (e.g., chromosomal type, reproductive anatomy).
Sexual classification tracks biological factors.
3) Gender(x) is a function of S-properties, including descriptive norms (e.g., behavioral generalizations) and prescriptive norms (e.g., normative role expectations).
Gender classification tracks socially constructed roles and expectations.
4) ∃x,y (Sex(x) = Sex(y) ∧ Gender(x) ≠ Gender(y))
There exist individuals who share a biological sex but differ in gender identity.

5) ∃x,y (Gender(x) = Gender(y) ∧ Sex(x) ≠ Sex(y))
There exist individuals who share a gender identity but differ in biological sex.
6) For some term t (e.g., "male"), t may refer either to Sex(x) or Gender(x), but such terms are not generally substitutable. "Male" is syntactically ambiguous and context-sensitive; semantic content varies across uses.
7) Let C(x) be a classification concept (e.g., "male") applied to the set x of human individuals. Then:

If C(x) = Sex(x), it refers to B-properties.

If C(x) = Gender(x), it refers to S-properties.

But C(x) ≠ C(y) unless both sense and reference are preserved.

Conclusion) Sex and Gender are distinct but partially correlated classification schemes.

Formally:
¬∀x (Sex(x) ↔ Gender(x)) ∧ ¬∀x (Sex(x) ≡ Gender(x))

That is, Sex and Gender are neither coextensive (extensionally identical) nor sense-equivalent (intensionally identical).

Show me how that argument is invalid or unsound.

All that to say that a biological man can wear lipstick and believe he's a woman, despite not being one. LOL.

Crazy people exist. I agree. My mind is blown. Copy and paste more pseudo scientific slop from your subreddit, please.

 

[krelianx]

All that to say that a biological man can wear lipstick and believe he's a woman, despite not being one. LOL.

Crazy people exist. I agree. My mind is blown. Post more pseudo scientific slop, please.

See, you have nothing.

 

[HereticBD]

See, you have nothing.

No, I put all of your "scientific" slop into a nutshell, and now you're back to being your true self.

You're gonna start frantically triple cope posting about how dumb we all are now, because that's all you really have.

 

[sanguinius]

I presented an argument for the distinction between sex and gender.


1) There is a distinction between biological and social factors
2) Biological factors include sexual determination, dividing between male/female, intersex, and other types.
3) Certain social roles are commonly associated with specific sexual types, and these roles are context dependent as well as historically mutable.
4) Such roles include descriptive generalizations ("girls play with dolls, boys play with guns") and prescriptive norms ("women belong in the kitchen").
5) Such social roles determine how individuals identify one another and themselves, in relation to a variety of other determinations, including biological sex, sexual orientation, psychological and social roles, and belonging to specific communities.
6) The set of concepts comprising such social classification terms are commonly labelled under the rubric "gender".
7) Gender concepts are sometimes syntactically equivalent to biological-sex concepts (e.g. the term "male" can refer either to the biological concept, or to the gender concept) but are not semantically identical, i.e. they are not invariant under substitution; e.g. "Biological males express X-Y chromosomes" is not synonymous with "Male identifying individuals express X-Y chromosomes," since they are not co-referential nor sense-equivalent.
8) The concepts "sex" and "gender" while correlated to sexual determination in different ways, and always (trivially) coextensive with biologically sexed individuals, therefore are not coextensive (extensionally identical) nor sense-equivalent (intensionally identical).


I can formalize this with basic predicate calculus (quantificational logic):

1) ∃x (Sex(x) Biological(x)) and ∃x (Gender(x) ∧ Social(x))
There exist classifications of individuals that are biologically grounded (Sex) and classifications that are socially grounded (Gender).
2)Sex(x) is by B-properties (e.g., chromosomal type, reproductive anatomy).
Sexual classification tracks biological factors.
3) Gender(x) is a function of S-properties, including descriptive norms (e.g., behavioral generalizations) and prescriptive norms (e.g., normative role expectations).
Gender classification tracks socially constructed roles and expectations.
4) ∃x,y (Sex(x) = Sex(y) ∧ Gender(x) ≠ Gender(y))
There exist individuals who share a biological sex but differ in gender identity.

5) ∃x,y (Gender(x) = Gender(y) ∧ Sex(x) ≠ Sex(y))
There exist individuals who share a gender identity but differ in biological sex.
6) For some term t (e.g., "male"), t may refer either to Sex(x) or Gender(x), but such terms are not generally substitutable. "Male" is syntactically ambiguous and context-sensitive; semantic content varies across uses.
7) Let C(x) be a classification concept (e.g., "male") applied to the set x of human individuals. Then:

If C(x) = Sex(x), it refers to B-properties.

If C(x) = Gender(x), it refers to S-properties.

But C(x) ≠ C(y) unless both sense and reference are preserved.

Conclusion) Sex and Gender are distinct but partially correlated classification schemes.

Formally:
¬∀x (Sex(x) ↔ Gender(x)) ∧ ¬∀x (Sex(x) ≡ Gender(x))

That is, Sex and Gender are neither coextensive (extensionally identical) nor sense-equivalent (intensionally identical).

Show me how that argument is invalid or unsound.

What’s with the connection between autism and transgenderism? I assume you have personal knowledge on the subject.