[Pants-of-dog]

...Until you've clarified what you believe the connection if any of gender to sex to be, I can't comment further here, and I'm not going to.

Gender is a social construct that is partially based on some of the determinants of biological sex. It is, therefore, subjective, and culturally relative.

The notion of gender as two binaries is the conservative European construct. It seems to no longer be applicable to modern European society, and was obviously never applicable outside of Europe.

[Noob]

Gender is a social construct that is partially based on some of the determinants of biological sex. It is, therefore, subjective, and culturally relative.

So it appears we have some agreement on this point. It appears that you disagree with some of the gender theorists' crazier claims that sex itself does not exist, or is preceded by gender. It appears you agree with the logic of a 'gender continuum', yet one in which genders may tend heavily to either side. Would it not be better for you to use the word 'spectrum', in that case? Regardless, the starting point of both thematics deny that men and women themselves exist as discrete categories, and that everybody is to be placed on a continuous scale or into a degree of androgyny. I maintain that there are only two sexes, and from that, genders, and that there is a plurality of choices therein (biological sex has nothing in itself to do with sexual predilections).

All said, the sticking point appears to be the emphasis on the recognition of a virtually sacred conception of abstract equality expressed in terms of 'equal rights' for all individuals, and I won't repeat my thoughts on why there might be a drive to recognise everybody (or chosen groups, in the minds of some) as 'equal', or my reservations about the fundamentally moral complexion of this drive.

It seems to no longer be applicable to modern European society

I don't see why the conception of gender that modern gender theory espouses is appropriate for European societies. In Italy, people from neo-Marxists to ordinary Catholics speak out against gender theory and other similar forms of contemporary identity politics. Even the French have produced a number of well-informed critiques of gender theory.

[Pants-of-dog]

I maintain that there are only two sexes, and from that, genders, and that there is a plurality of choices therein (biological sex has nothing in itself to do with sexual predilections).

I would agree that there are two sexes, and I would add that people are not necessarily only one of them.

I don't see why the conception of gender that modern gender theory espouses is appropriate for European societies.

Because it is more logically consistent with the fact that a rising number of Europeans believe that sexual and gender equality trump conservative notions of gender.

In Italy, people from neo-Marxists to ordinary Catholics speak out against gender theory and other similar forms of contemporary identity politics. Even the French have produced a number of well-informed critiques of gender theory.

Yes, there are still conservative voices in the debate, but it seems like one of those struggles where the conservatives are on the wrong side of history.

[Noob]

Yes, there are still conservative voices in the debate, but it seems like one of those struggles where the conservatives are on the wrong side of history.

This assumes a theory of progress and that societies are irreversibly moving towards one set of ever-better, ever-improving ideals. It seems to me as though many people, especially in more conservative societies such as Italy, see no reason to accept these 'new and improved' ideals, and whilst ideals are changing as ever, they are not necessarily changing in favour of the gender theory that has cropped up mostly over the course of the past two decades.

[Pants-of-dog]

This assumes a theory of progress and that societies are irreversibly moving towards one set of ever-better, ever-improving ideals.

Let's assume such a progression is not inevitable or irreversible or better in any objective way.

What I meant was that in modern European history there has been a trend towards a more egalitarian and inclusive society. Racism (aside from the Roma), sexism, religious bigotry (aside from recent Islamomophobia) and other forms of discrimination seem to be on the wane in most western societies. This "progression" is not inevitable or irreversible or better in any objective way, but it is certainly observable right now.

It seems to me as though many people, especially in more conservative societies such as Italy, see no reason to accept these 'new and improved' ideals, and whilst ideals are changing as ever, they are not necessarily changing in favour of the gender theory that has cropped up mostly over the course of the past two decades.

I agree. In fact, they see reasons to fight this new paradigm of not hating trans people. In the quest for power, it is always helpful to have a group of people to hate and blame and otherwise marginalise, because that makes your social position relatively more powerful. But that does not imply the existence of anything wrong with whichever group of people are targeted.

Nothing about any of this suggests that we should treat trans people any differently.

[DrSteveBrule]

Actually, SteveBrule, I'm no longer an ethnocentrist (or an 'ethnic nationalist', in the proper sense of the word and I don't think I ever really was), since the logic of ethnocentrism is ultimately incompatible with ethnoregionalism. (And indeed, one can protect ethnic identities (as with gender identities, in a sense) without requiring homogenisation and centralisation.) In reality I'm rather cosmopolitan in my tastes and dispositions.

For all I care, you could be whatever, or whomever you wish to be, so long as you abide by the concept of negative rights.

But the idea that all individuals should for some wild reason be treated as 'equal' derives from Christianity's conception of dignity, since Christianity gives a purely individual explanation of freedom, in that Christianity gives man a soul that puts him in a direct relationship with God, which can't be confused with belonging to collectivities or his personal qualities (or lack of them), and overrides them.

Christianity condoned the absolute rule of kings, the subjugation of women, slavery and holy war. The enlightenment created moderate Christianity, not the other way around. In fact, orthodox religious institutions opposed enlightenment ideals because of their ability to threaten existing power structures and institutions.

illiberal, I don't agree with it.

I really can't find a compelling, rational reason to start a campaign to restrict transgenders. There is no real conceivable benefit to doing so: but feel free to do so. Unfortunately, I suspect that you will have some difficulties convincing rational people to do so.

Can you elaborate? If you are saying that upholding roles leads to sameness, I would disagree. Agreeing with the logic that there are just two sexes and from them, genders, doesn't imply that there can't be a plurality of practices within those two genders. There can be equality between the sexes and without requiring them to assimilate into one androgynous blob.

No one demands that society transition into a state of androgyny. The current topic is to the extension of all normally conferred negative rights to people whose behavior doesn't align with their biological form.

I don't have an issue with the concept that there are two discrete sexes and genders, but upholding gender roles would demand that people conform to an ideal set for each gender. Not that such roles need to be upheld in the fist place, as the workings of nature itself predisposes the majority of the population to conforming within these norms to some degree.

[Noob]

For all I care, you could be whatever, or whomever you wish to be, so long as you abide by the concept of negative rights.

I'm afraid you'll have to forgive me for not caring about human rights.

Christianity condoned the absolute rule of kings, the subjugation of women, slavery and holy war.

I fail to see how this addresses anything of what I said.

The enlightenment created moderate Christianity, not the other way around.

Secular Enlightenment ideals don't exist in a vacuum, totally disconnected from the ideals that came before.

In fact, orthodox religious institutions opposed enlightenment ideals because of their ability to threaten existing power structures and institutions.

Understandable.

I really can't find a compelling, rational reason to start a campaign to restrict transgenders.

I'm not sure what 'restrict transgenders' means. However, if you are saying that (moral) values (including yours) are irrational, then you are correct.

[DrSteveBrule]

I'm afraid you'll have to forgive me for not caring about human rights.

Conversely, it seems you will have to do the opposite. But if you care not for the rights of others, then I presume that you will take no offense if the rest of Britain decides to trample on those of yourself.

I fail to see how this addresses anything of what I said.

I find it dubious to believe that Christianity lead to the Enlightenment, or any form of liberalism when it historically acted as a counter force to it. Much like how the majority of Muslims nowadays are incompatible with liberalism, the Christians of the time were anything but 'defenders' of human rights and dignity.

Secular Enlightenment ideals don't exist in a vacuum, totally disconnected from the ideals that came before.

Indeed. The abuse of the absolute power of monarchs justified through religion gave an impetus for skepticism and rationalism, not as the offspring of religious dogma.

I'm not sure what 'restrict transgenders' means. However, if you are saying that (moral) values (including yours) are irrational, then you are correct.

Libertarianism is not bound by morality

I'm afraid that it is you, n00b, who is in favor of morality. Irrational morality, that is. I care not for the whims of those who believe that coercion is a just manner of enforcing arbitrary metrics of 'moralism' into society.

In other words, you'll have to excuse me for choosing not to believe in reactionary conservatism or dystopian progressivism.

[Noob]

Conversely, it seems you will have to do the opposite.

Yes, obviously. I forgive you.

But if you care not for the rights of others, then I presume that you will take no offense if the rest of Britain decides to trample on those of yourself.

Very fanciful. As I've said, I live in a rather socially conservative area, so I doubt there will be anybody willing to go out of their way to 'not tolerate intolerance'.

Indeed. The abuse of the absolute power of monarchs justified through religion gave an impetus for skepticism and rationalism, not as the offspring of religious dogma.

Indeed. That's what the 'death of God' looks like. This doesn't mean that the individualist anthropology of Christianity had been scrubbed out with the 'Enlightenment', or its will to truth, etc.

Irrational morality, that is.

Can you explain what a rational morality is?

[Pants-of-dog]

Let me know when you guys want to discuss the topic.

So far, it seems that current trends in Western society are towards a society that is more accepting of trans people.

[DrSteveBrule]

Can you explain what a rational morality is?

Innate human nature, to some extent.

Humans generally are averse to killing their young for a pragmatic reason : children were necessary to the survival of the human race.
Cannibalism is discouraged because of the factor above, and also because it has a high chance of causing fatal prion related diseases.
Humans have an innate predisposition to cooperation and communal living, mostly for necessity and increased chances of survival.

Nowadays, the only rational form of morality is to prevent others from doing harm to others.

Indeed. That's what the 'death of God' looks like. This doesn't mean that the individualist anthropology of Christianity had been scrubbed out with the 'Enlightenment', or its will to truth, etc.

I'm not even sure if individualism was, or ever had been a widespread interpretation of the bible. Generally, Christianity emphasizes subjugation to God or an entity believed to be representing God himself. Is it possible that such was the case at one point? Maybe, but it was long gone by the time that the Enlightenment arrived.

[distinct]

Some infants are born intersex - their sex can't be determined - so it's concievable that one could have a feminized brain in a masculinized body.
Here is a list of "disorders of sex development".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorde ... Conditions

Amazing how a discussion can dragon with so little substance.

[Noob]

^ There's no reason to pander to people who have the incorrect amount of chromosomes or faulty genes, or autism, or snowflake-individualist syndrome; and from that then decide that, apparently logically, everybody falls onto a "gender continuum" and that people are ultimately all just different shades of unisex.

[AFAIK]

The sex organs don't begin to develop until the 14th week of pregnancy. At this point we are girls but those of us exposed to testosterone will see our clitorises grow and form penises and our ovaries will drop and form testes inside what used to be our labia. Female to male transexuals get to witness this transformation during adulthood if they take hormone treatment.

Ever wondered why men have nipples? It's because they develop before the genitals do. Ever wondered what the rate of hermaphroditic births is? 1 in 100,000. The same rate as twin births.

The reason I bring all this up is to show that male and female are not distinct, mutually exclusive categories. People exist at various stages along the spectrum from a genetic and a social perspective.

The only interesting argument against transsexualism that I have heard is a comparison with anorexia. Medical professionals and the general public don't encourage anorexics to dramatically alter their bodies until they match their preferred mental image of themselves. Promoting sex change operations is considered equally damaging and counterproductive by some.

[Noob]

At this point we are girls but those of us exposed to testosterone will see our clitorises grow and form penises and our ovaries will drop and form testes inside what used to be our labia. Female to male transexuals get to witness this transformation during adulthood if they take hormone treatment.

Ever wondered why men have nipples? It's because they develop before the genitals do. Ever wondered what the rate of hermaphroditic births is? 1 in 100,000. The same rate as twin births.

Wild.

Unfortunately for your argument, sex is not synonymous with genitals, which are just a body part. Same logic: children's genitals aren't fully developed; ergo, supposedly, children aren't fully male or female.

Now come at me with a reason for why the exception should be considered the rule, or why I or anybody else as-yet unconvinced need to incorporate the "gender continuum" into my/their worldview.

[AFAIK]

I thought the definition of sex was what genitals you had. How do you define it?

Paedophiles aren't hurting me as well but I hate them so much damn!!!....

Pedophiles victimize and injure children(so there is indeed a great deal of harm done to individuals and society), and that is all we should say about it, since if you want to pursue this argument you'll find Pofo permanently BANS people who argue in favour of it, even unintentionally.

Pedophiles are people who are sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. Child molesters are people who rape children. There are non-offending pedos who have never had sexually contact with children and there are child molesters who offend due to circumstance but don't seek out children as their primary sexual outlet.

I think the stigma and hatred of pedophilia is dangerous because it deters pedos from seeking help and makes them more likely to offend if they are unable to suppress their sexuality.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

Gender is a social construct that is partially based on some of the determinants of biological sex. It is, therefore, subjective, and culturally relative.

The notion of gender as two binaries is the conservative European construct. It seems to no longer be applicable to modern European society, and was obviously never applicable outside of Europe.

It goes beyond gender. They're altering the sex on birth certs driving licences and passports now, they're mutilating peoples bodies and putting them on severe life long drug programmes. If gender is just a social construct then why are the mutilating their bodies with public tax money?

[Noob]

I thought the definition of sex was what genitals you had. How do you define it?

Well, I won't chastise you for not wading through my meandering posts. But this is what I wrote on the first page:

[I]n reality, the qualifier for being a man would entail having been a boy, and the qualifier for being a woman would entail having been a girl. Biological sex and gender identity are linked, since the former conditions how we think, act, and feel, which constitutes a large portion of the latter (there are of course social pressures and influences in society with regards to gender identity, but their relevance cannot be absolutised, or applied to biological sex). Body parts specific to biological sex do not capture the essence of manhood or womanhood, but they are the result of that essence. In biological terms, this corresponds to the SRY gene, which determines in its absence a female or in its presence a male. Outliers that do not line up with either biological sex are deformed - there are only two sexes. Outliers from gender role archetypes so long as roles themselves are upheld (ie, so long as there are roles, and everybody isn't categorised as one homogeneous androgynous blob) aren't an issue.

I think the stigma and hatred of pedophilia is dangerous because it deters pedos from seeking help and makes them more likely to offend if they are unable to suppress their sexuality.

In my humble opinion, this sentiment is an outgrowth of the "we just need to be who we are", "born this way", etc, line of thought, in which behaviours are considered immutable and totally unchangeable. There is no reason to think that sexual attraction to children is innate, as it is for for other dispositions (heterosexuality, homosexuality (even putting aside social influences)). There is no reason to normalise pædophilia by removing the stigma associated to it in the name of endless "openness and tolerance".

[distinct]

Do they all want the surgery? If somebody wants to dress transgender, then that's a no brainer. Even the drugs can be stopped if problems arise. The surgery goes beyond transgenderism into transsexualism.

[Dagoth Ur]

No we do not all want surgury. And maybe in Europe it is different but in America you will get zero government dollars with which to transition.