Board Thread:Fun and Games/@comment-48285-20161205164344/@comment-25814498-20170620124549

Wow, so much for mutual respect: Your physical body should be the baseline for what gender you are assumed to have, because whilst the entire concept of gender was socially constructed (just like I said...) in order to differentiate between biological sex and self-identified sex, and the two are by no means synonymous(again, as I said before, though you apparently chose to ignore that fact...), allowing the two to be separated completely gives absolutely no reason as to why the same can't be said about other biological facts, despite what you suggest; if you suddenly dictate that someone is allowed to change their gender, in complete contradiction to their biological self, and that society should recognize them as the gender they see fit, then why the hell can't the same be said about a person's species, or age, or even the person they are? Because you still haven't answered my question. Could you really call someone who self-identified as a Gorilla a Gorilla? What about a moose? Or Stephen Hawkings? After all, I know plenty of transspecies people who have no issue with saying "I'm biologically human" in contrast to how they themselves identify. So by what right can you draw the line at gender but not other biological facts? Because if you draw it anywhere, you're being nothing but hypocritical.

"unlike species, gender is a concept we cooked up because of how we classify objects and need to put things into categories". You wanna try switching the words "Gender" and "Species" in that sentence and seeing if it still makes sense? Because if the answer is yes, then the point is moot, or rather, completely incorrect. Actually, I'll just do it for you; "Unlike gender, species is a concept we cooked up because of how we classify objects and need to put things into categories". Is the concept of species used to classify different organisms into the same category, for the purpose of identification? Yes, in fact. Though there is still a problem in that sentence, actually, since gender is also used to classify different individuals into the same categories, so how it should actually go is "Much like gender, species is a concept we cooked up because of how we classify objects and need to put things into categories". We classify different species based on different biological factors. We classify different genders based on different biological factors. You have stated that this shouldn't be the case for gender. You have stated that people should be able to dictate what gender they should be identified as. So why can't the same be said about species? Once again, gender as a word arose from a need to differentiate self-identification from scientific and biological identification, so why can't self-identification be used to determine species if it can be used to determine gender? All we need is a different word, do we not? A word that differentiates biological identification of species from self-identification of species, so how about we try to come up with one right now? Anril? Unter? Snurbleflurp? I'm sure we can think of something if we tried hard enough.

Not only this, but your argument surrounding "experience" is also deeply flawed. Biologically speaking, a transgender female cannot experience what a man experiences, whether "formulatively or as an adult"(what's that supposed to mean? That I can't "figure out" how to act like a Gorilla"). In a similar sense, I, as a human, cannot biologically experience what a Gorilla experiences, nor what 60-year-old experiences or what Stephen Hawkings experiences. Never the less, there is still a societally shared concept of what a Gorilla actually is, despite what biology tells us, and therefore, whilst I cannot biologically experience what a Gorilla experiences, I can experience what a Gorilla experiences societally, by having society treat me as such and referring to me as a Gorilla. The same can be said about age or biology, too. I'm not Stephen Hawkings biologically speaking, but I can experience what he experiences by having people treat me like him and acting like Stephen Hawkings. In a similar way, whilst it may be impossible for the transgendered woman to experience what a man experiences biologically speaking(*), they can experience what it is to be a man societally, by having people treat them as such and referring to them as a man from that point onwards. Because our cases are both virtually identical, therefore, we must both be referred to by how we self-identify.

(*unless a person were going through hormone therapy, perhaps, or their hormonal levels/brain structure causes them to view themselves as male. Even so, I have a similar question to the one I asked when you brought up brain structure, and one you have still not answered.

Question: If a transgendered woman identified as a man, but their hormonal levels/brain structure were not "similar enough" to the cisgendered sex they aligned with, would you deny them the right to identify as such?)

All the things you've listed can be used to identify different people. You realise this, right? Eye colour, hair colour and height can ALL be used to identify different groups of people. If I saw a 5"6 boy with blue eyes and black hair who identified as a 6"2 girl with purple eyes and blue hair, I would either refer to him by the latter completely, by his preferred height, eyes, hair and gender, or purely by his biological description. I couldn't go half and half and neither could you, otherwise I wouldn't be staying consistent with the statement "Biology comes before self-identity" and you wouldn't be staying consistent to the statement "the only thing that's actually important is what a person tells you about themself". If they dyed their hair, eyes, and got stilts rammed into their legs, then I would say they have blue hair, purple eyes and are 6"2, because they are all (with the exception of height, perhaps) cosmetic differences which can be changed easily. Sex, and in turn gender, are not measures using cosmetic differences, however, and thus, I would not be staying consistent to my properly basic belief.

That's a thought experiment that was proposed on Kite's talk page, and I responded that fertility, genitalia and chromosomal arrangement are all used to determine a person's sex, just as it is in science, hence females with an inactive Y chromosome are still referred to as "female" in terms of sex, just as males with functioning breasts are referred to as "males" with functioning breasts. I'm fully aware of the fickle nature of biology, and I'll even quote one of the first things I said when I responded to you, "In fact, the fickle nature of biology is what one user touched upon on Kite's talk page, and I conceded that in certain circumstances, biological factors may not be enough to determine what pronouns or gender to refer to somebody by/as. Even so, however, I do think there is a problem with placing one's own self-identity over biological factors when such factors are clearly apparent.". You not read that? I agree that it is flawed, but unless one stays consistent with the connotations of referring to someone purely by how they wish to be addressed, the latter is a much less justifiable argument. And do you really think I'm trying to justify any of the abhorrent acts of violence committed towards transgendered people? Of course I'm not! What I am saying is that if you say to me "I am a biological female, but I identify as a man", I would say to you "Very well, but as you are not biologically male, I will not be referring to you as such", exactly because of the reasons listed about. I would respect you as a human being and treat you as such(which, in all honesty, should be blatantly obvious), but that doesn't mean I would change the way I refer to you by. Moreover, your so-called treatment for gender dysphoria doesn't exactly seem to be working in transgendered people's favour. The transgender suicide rate is 40%, and according to the Anderson School at UCLA, it makes no difference statistically speaking as to whether people view the person as trangendered or not. Are you really going to look at a 36% difference in suicide rates between transgendered people and the rest of America and say "I dunno, I guess the 'Medical treatment' we have now is working out pretty well"? Because I wouldn't, and the clear correlation between transgendereism and suicidality seems like a much more pressing issue than how I choose to refer to you, especially when the latter affects the former in no measurable way.

"If an arbitrary decision is the difference between life and death... wouldn't you prefer the choice that doesn't lead to death?". Careful now; that's utilitarian principle, and the connotaions are much  greater than what you might expect.

"this rhetoric of "you're acting against God/the "Biological Truth" - it's the same concept pretending to be the exact opposite - leads to people being murdered or tormented into suicide".

Question 2: Care you explain how determining pronoun usage based on biology(where biology can be determined) or religion justifies murder and torment? Instead of, you know, pronoun usage?

Question 3: Why should I respect a woman(again, I'm staying consistent) who won't treat me with the same courtesy, simply because of my age and conflicting viewpoints?