Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Transgender rightsFollow

#577 Mar 23 2013 at 9:42 PM Rating: Decent
**
496 posts
Hi, i was responding to
Quote:
Exactly and the definition of sex based on biology and not gender is accepted by a large portion of the community.


You linked the exact opposite: defining gender by sex. I am, unfortunately, well aware that some people do that.

Furthermore, " no one believes otherwise." means everyone agrees. As in, no one disagrees. As in, yes, sex is based on biology, and NOT gender.

Edited, Mar 23rd 2013 11:47pm by Rachel9
#578 Mar 24 2013 at 5:31 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Smiley: banghead

Please tell me you're drunk. All of you. Because that's the only way any of this makes a tiny bit of sense.
Brain damage is also a good explanation.
#579 Mar 24 2013 at 6:22 AM Rating: Good
*****
13,251 posts
Drain bamage.
#580 Mar 24 2013 at 6:25 AM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Rachel wrote:
So, yeah...

Rachel wrote:
As far as i'm aware, no one believes otherwise. As i've said, there is no relation between sex and gender. They are completely different things, and neither determines the other.


Rachel's quote wrote:
b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits [b]typically associated with one sex[/b]


Do you not know the definition of "relation"? In the very definition that you quoted, it states that gender are traits typically associated with one's sex. That's not saying that they are the same words, but they are indeed related by definition.

Alma, "typically" does not mean "always". The definition specifically leaves room for the minority cases where the behavioral cultural or psychological traits of a person's gender is different from those associated with one's born sex.
#581 Mar 24 2013 at 6:34 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Rachel wrote:
You linked the exact opposite: defining gender by sex. I am, unfortunately, well aware that some people do that.


See post #569.
Almalieque for the third time wrote:
The popular use of gender simply as an alternative to sex (as a biological category) is also widespread, although attempts are still made to preserve the distinction.


Just because you didn't read it thoroughly, doesn't mean it isn't there. In the definitions, i.e. wikipedia, it clearly states that the creation of the term gender was to separate "biology" from stereotypes. Your argument contradicts the entire creation of the word and push during the Women's Rights movement. The movement was to only define a woman by her biological make up, not by stereotypes. That's where the word "gender" comes in. So, being a woman, doesn't mean cook, secretary and stay-at home mom/caretaker. It means breast and ****** who can be a cook or an EE college professor.

Furthermore, you said that there was NO RELATION, so by demonstrating their relation through the term gender and you acknowledging that relation, you are wrong. So, I ask again, what's your beef? What rights?



Edited, Mar 24th 2013 2:42pm by Almalieque
#582 Mar 24 2013 at 6:40 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Arip wrote:

Alma, "typically" does not mean "always". The definition specifically leaves room for the minority cases where the behavioral cultural or psychological traits of a person's gender is different from those associated with one's born sex.


Arip, I not only know that, I've been saying that the entire time. Rachel is been going in circles in random different arguments to prevent from admitting error. There is a clear distinction between the words gender and sex. Rachel's argument was that there was NO RELATION between the two. My quotes weren't to prove that there were the same word, but to show that there is a relation between the two words.

I also quoted the definitions to demonstrate that society differentiates sex by biology. That very fact is how the word gender is able to be a separate word than sex. One is biological and the other one is not.
#583 Mar 24 2013 at 7:35 AM Rating: Decent
**
496 posts
Half of your posts any more are like 25%+ copy pasted from others. I'm the one going in circles?
#584 Mar 24 2013 at 7:42 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Rachel wrote:
Half of your posts any more are like 25%+ copy pasted from others. I'm the one going in circles?


It would only be going in circles if you actually addressed the copied/pasted information. So, I ask again, what's your beef? What rights?
#585 Mar 24 2013 at 8:52 AM Rating: Decent
**
496 posts
If i don't address something, it's probably because i either don't understand wtf you're asking, or because it's so dumb i don't feel like it. I will allow you to speculate about which case this might be.
#586 Mar 24 2013 at 9:23 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
If i don't address something, it's probably because i either don't understand wtf you're asking, or because it's so dumb i don't feel like it. I will allow you to speculate about which case this might be.


In either situation, that doesn't make me going in circles now does it?

My entire point has been that either transgenders should be treated as their natural sex when it comes to sex discriminating laws, rules, practices etc. or the laws, rules, practices, etc. should be removed.

You later argued for pages how sex shouldn't be defined by genitalia to only concede to that point on post #510. Since that has been my main point and we agreed, I asked you what exactly have you been arguing against? You stated "Transgender rights"? I merely asked you to expound on what rights? Surely you understand the question. So, if that question is "so dumb", then you're only deriding yourself as you were the one who brought it up. So, I ask again, what's your beef? What rights?


P.S. I have absolutely no expectation of you answering the question as I know that you merely put your foot in your mouth. I just like watching you tap dance around simply admitting that I'm right. It's the Internet for God's sake. It's not that serious. I'm wrong several times, usually in the most embarrassing way.


#587 Mar 24 2013 at 9:59 AM Rating: Decent
**
496 posts
Quote:
You later argued for pages how sex shouldn't be defined by genitalia
Please link to the post(s) where i said that.

Edited, Mar 24th 2013 12:01pm by Rachel9
#588 Mar 24 2013 at 10:37 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
Quote:
You later argued for pages how sex shouldn't be defined by genitalia
Please link to the post(s) where i said that.

Edited, Mar 24th 2013 12:01pm by Rachel9


Regardless or not you want to admit to your statements, you agreed to my primary point of defining sex by genitalia. So, I ask again, what's your beef? What rights?
#589 Mar 24 2013 at 10:48 AM Rating: Decent
**
496 posts
Quote:
Regardless or not you want to admit to your statements, you agreed to my primary point of defining sex by genitalia.
Yes, because that's what sex is. Everyone knows that.
#590 Mar 24 2013 at 10:57 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
Quote:
Regardless or not you want to admit to your statements, you agreed to my primary point of defining sex by genitalia.
Yes, because that's what sex is. Everyone knows that.

So, I ask again, what's your beef? What rights?
#591 Mar 24 2013 at 12:11 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,042 posts
WHERE'S THE BEEF (curtains)?
#592 Mar 24 2013 at 12:19 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
It's what's for dinner.
#593 Mar 24 2013 at 12:44 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Guenny wrote:
WHERE'S THE BEEF (curtains)?


Look up Dominika.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#594 Mar 24 2013 at 7:56 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
Quote:
You later argued for pages how sex shouldn't be defined by genitalia
Please link to the post(s) where i said that.


Almalieque wrote:
Rachel9 wrote:
Quote:
You later argued for pages how sex shouldn't be defined by genitalia
Please link to the post(s) where i said that.]


Regardless or not you want to admit to your statements, you agreed to my primary point of defining sex by genitalia. So, I ask again, what's your beef? What rights?

Almalieque, Rachel (however incommunicatively) was arguing for pages that gender should not be defined by genitalia. Not that sex should not be determined by genitalia, but that gender should not be be determined by genitalia.

In light of this, and assuming Rachel is a male-to-female transgender, I'm assuming that Rachel would really appreciate the personal security of being permitted to use facilities that are concurrent with her gender but not her sex. I'm assuming that Rachel, for instance, would feel very uncomfortable walking back into the male sex bathroom that she's used for most of her childhood in a girl's haircut, make-up and feminine clothing. She'd probably feel very out of place doing that, and be aware that the men in the bathroom would probably be uncomfortable with her being there.
#595 Mar 25 2013 at 6:32 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
I think Alma and Rachel should be pointed to a private forum. They need to work this out free from outside influences.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#596 Mar 25 2013 at 7:42 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
They are working it out free from outside influences.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#597 Mar 25 2013 at 7:56 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 posts
Elinda wrote:
I think Alma and Rachel should be pointed to a private forum. They need to work this out free from outside influences.


*sigh*


I'll get the weapons rack...
#598 Mar 25 2013 at 7:58 AM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
As for the "WHO DETERMINES?" question, as in, who gets to say a man is a woman, and therefore should be allowed to use the woman's toilets? Almost always a doctor, indeed several specialists including a psychiatrist, gets to say so, and can write doctor's notes for the individual who feels trapped in the "wrong body". Just like someone with an internal metal brace or shrapnel will have a doctor's note so that they can bypass metal detectors, and not be put in CAT machines. One should, of course, give a TG the courtesy of believing in their life-long experience. But if you want to be sure, really, really sure, you can always ask who their specialist is. Not for their medical history. But to know that they have one who is expert in gender medicine.
#599 Mar 25 2013 at 11:31 AM Rating: Good
***
2,010 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
As for the "WHO DETERMINES?" question, as in, who gets to say a man is a woman, and therefore should be allowed to use the woman's toilets? Almost always a doctor, indeed several specialists including a psychiatrist, gets to say so, and can write doctor's notes for the individual who feels trapped in the "wrong body". Just like someone with an internal metal brace or shrapnel will have a doctor's note so that they can bypass metal detectors, and not be put in CAT machines. One should, of course, give a TG the courtesy of believing in their life-long experience. But if you want to be sure, really, really sure, you can always ask who their specialist is. Not for their medical history. But to know that they have one who is expert in gender medicine.


So you are in favor of carding at the door?
#600 Mar 25 2013 at 11:33 AM Rating: Decent
*****
15,952 posts
Nope.
#601 Mar 25 2013 at 2:21 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Quote:

Almalieque, Rachel (however incommunicatively) was arguing for pages that gender should not be defined by genitalia. Not that sex should not be determined by genitalia, but that gender should not be be determined by genitalia.


False. Rachel was arguing both by interchanging gender with sex when he felt appropriate. Of course gender isn't determined by genitalia, again that's the entire point of the creation of the word; to differentiate stereotypes from sex. I've said that a million times.

Rachel also stated that sex IS DEFINED biologically. However, he also said that women could have penises. The last time I checked, a ***** is biological, not stereotypical traits as described with gender. So the correct label would be a man with a female gender. You can't just switch the terms man and woman to mean sex and/or gender to support your point.

If sex is biologically defined, then how does a person with zero woman biological traits and all man biological traits be defined as a woman? That person is defined as a man by sex with the freedom to choose to exercise either a male or female gender. Just because a man decides to choose a female's gender, it doesn't biologically change him into a woman.

Arip wrote:

In light of this, and assuming Rachel is a male-to-female transgender, I'm assuming that Rachel would really appreciate the personal security of being permitted to use facilities that are concurrent with her gender but not her sex. I'm assuming that Rachel, for instance, would feel very uncomfortable walking back into the male sex bathroom that she's used for most of her childhood in a girl's haircut, make-up and feminine clothing. She'd probably feel very out of place doing that, and be aware that the men in the bathroom would probably be uncomfortable with her being there.


So I avoided from mentioning the hypocrisy in this sentiment when the thread was interesting. However, since it's pretty much dead, I'll bring it up. Where were all of these feelings when debating DADT? How come heterosexuals can't execute their same feelings to choose their surroundings when dealing with comfort? How is it "homophobia" for a heterosexual, but "ok" for not only transgenders but often women?
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 341 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (341)