[Pants-of-dog]

This is all kind of interesting because now we are bouncing around between whether or not we are meeting the dictionary definitions of words.

But let's say that someone is thinking of scam in the Merriam-Webster way:

Let's say that we are saying that it is deceptive because gender (male & female) is such a basic truth that anyone who is not accepting it is deceiving themselves. This isn't a beautiful usage of "deceive," but it is still a usage that is seen.

So you are saying that we should assume that transphobes are right, and that all trans people are actually delusional or stupid and deceiving themselves.

This is not only transphobic, but obviously suffers from the fallacy that your conclusion is also an acceptable premise in your argument.

You could also say that plenty of people within the LGBTQ movement are superficially invested in the narrative that gender is purely a construct and thus uncritically accept the claims of non-binary people because they are more excited about the prospect of 'dismantling the patriarchy,' by hook or by crook. So, in a sense, it could be seen as somehow fraudulent because it is a collection of sloppy, DECEITFUL, TRICKY means (thank you, Merriam-Wesbter)...

Yes, you could imagine another unverifiable musing about the nefarious motives of those lying gay people, but who cares?

... This is also kind of interesting because the article itself uses the word sham and not scam. Yet, of course, users here have been using the word scam as well.

But I would say this, POD:

For a guy who really hated people talking about intent and the in's and out's of what categories of crime were committed by James Fields, you sure are interested in extremely precise & exacting use of words in this thread.

Actually, you are. You have spent serval posts stretching the defintion of “scam” more and more while still not making an actual argument.

[Verv]

(1) Transphobe is a political scare word. No one here has demonstrated that they have an irrational fear of such people. Indeed, critics of the non-binary movement have shown themselves to be sympathetic to people here.

You should deal with the words that people actually offer up in describing their philosophy and stances and not just accuse them of things and brand them with new words designed to assassinate their character. This is a political discussion site, right, not a site for you to insult people for disagreeing with you in Newspeak.

(2) You shouldn't assume we are right about this at all. You should accept that it is not an absurd position to say that these people deceive themselves.

Indeed, it would not be uncommon to hear it said that "theists deceive themselves into believing in God." I am a strong Christian, but I still accept that the word usage here is legitimate ands uch a thought isn't entirely absurd.

I am just trying to be objective about word usage here.

(3) "Yes, you could imagine another unverifiable musing about the nefarious motives of those lying gay people, but who cares?"

Your bad take on my statement is not an argument.

(4) "Actually, you are. You have spent serval posts stretching the defintion of “scam” more and more while still not making an actual argument."

I am explaining to you why your complaints on the language being used are unfounded. Now, you seem to be embarrassed and have conceded that we are using our own native language properly, and the fact that we have proven this to you is supposed to make us look like fools.

Right.

[Pants-of-dog]

(1) Transphobe is a political scare word. No one here has demonstrated that they have an irrational fear of such people. Indeed, critics of the non-binary movement have shown themselves to be sympathetic to people here.

You should deal with the words that people actually offer up in describing their philosophy and stances and not just accuse them of things and brand them with new words designed to assassinate their character. This is a political discussion site, right, not a site for you to insult people for disagreeing with you in Newspeak.

Again, you seem really focused on the exact meanings of words rather than arguments.

And you seem to have ignored my point that you are assuming your conclusion is true by hsing it as one if your premises.

You are trying to argue that non binary people are deceitful, and your initial premise is that they are deceitful.

This is just bad logic.

(2) You shouldn't assume we are right about this at all. You should accept that it is not an absurd position to say that these people deceive themselves.

Indeed, it would not be uncommon to hear it said that "theists deceive themselves into believing in God." I am a strong Christian, but I still accept that the word usage here is legitimate ands uch a thought isn't entirely absurd.

I am just trying to be objective about word usage here.

Again, you are ignoring the fact that you have to assume they are lying in order to support your argumnet that they are lying.

This is a logical fallacy.

(3) "Yes, you could imagine another unverifiable musing about the nefarious motives of those lying gay people, but who cares?"

Your bad take on my statement is not an argument.

And your statement was not an argument. It was literally you musing about the nefarious motives of LGBT people.

(4) "Actually, you are. You have spent serval posts stretching the defintion of “scam” more and more while still not making an actual argument."

I am explaining to you why your complaints on the language being used are unfounded. Now, you seem to be embarrassed and have conceded that we are using our own native language properly, and the fact that we have proven this to you is supposed to make us look like fools.

Right.

Again, I do not care what defintion of scam you use, or even use the word “sham” if you want.

Just pick a defintion and support it.

Right now, you are 0 for 2.

[Verv]

I think you are misunderstanding the subjects here...

Non-binary is a sham/scam because it has become a concept used to deceive Westerners about gender in general. Who is using it as such? I think the most common argument would be that powerful people within the media, academia, and the LGBTQ movement are using it as a ploy to trick people into attacking and giving up on traditional gender norms in spite of the fact that it is not a legitimate concept that holds water across time.

Indeed, the comments on the first page seem to be sympathetic with the foolish people who have bought into these ideas and tricked themselves into thinking they are snowflakes.

(2) It's also important to understand that deceiving yourself is different from lying in a conventional sense.

Moreover, the way that 'scam' is being used is in a way different from the most direct meaning of a scheme to lie to people to defraud them of money.

Again, I do not care what defintion of scam you use, or even use the word “sham” if you want.

Just pick a defintion and support it.

Right now, you are 0 for 2.

LOL, I am sorry if you feel that way.

I think I have held up my end of the ... somewhat useless and pointless discussion on semantics...

Would you just like to drop it and attempt to speak about these issues in plain language?

[Pants-of-dog]

I think you are misunderstanding the subjects here...

Non-binary is a sham/scam because it has become a concept used to deceive Westerners about gender in general. Who is using it as such? I think the most common argument would be that powerful people within the media, academia, and the LGBTQ movement are using it as a ploy to trick people into attacking and giving up on traditional gender norms in spite of the fact that it is not a legitimate concept that holds water across time.

This seems like a lot of effort for little or no reward.

People do not need to be tricked into abandoning traditional gender norms. They simply see them as being no longer applicable to modern life and are simply ignoring them. Why should a modern person confine their identity with outdated norms?

But let us return to your argument. Why would these powerful people use their influence to attack traditional gender roles? What would they gain?

Indeed, the comments on the first page seem to be sympathetic with the foolish people who have bought into these ideas and tricked themselves into thinking they are snowflakes.

Yes, amny of the comments on the first page seemed to coddle conservatives. And?

(2) It's also important to understand that deceiving yourself is different from lying in a conventional sense.

Moreover, the way that 'scam' is being used is in a way different from the most direct meaning of a scheme to lie to people to defraud them of money.

Can you cite an example of this deceit, or is it just a feeling you have?

LOL, I am sorry if you feel that way.

I think I have held up my end of the ... somewhat useless and pointless discussion on semantics...

Would you just like to drop it and attempt to speak about these issues in plain language?

I would love that.

Please show me a simple, plain example of the deceit you keep mentioning. Thanks.

[Verv]

This seems like a lot of effort for little or no reward.

People do not need to be tricked into abandoning traditional gender norms. They simply see them as being no longer applicable to modern life and are simply ignoring them. Why should a modern person confine their identity with outdated norms?

So you believe that "male" and "female" are "outdated."

How is that possible?

There are only two genders; there are only two healthy sets of how human gender manifests itself...

How is it outdated?

But let us return to your argument. Why would these powerful people use their influence to attack traditional gender roles? What would they gain?

Because they dislike traditional Western society and norms.

Are you implying that people need to get material gain to do something like this?Otherwise it would be meaningless?

Yes, amny of the comments on the first page seemed to coddle conservatives. And?



Can you cite an example of this deceit, or is it just a feeling you have?



I would love that.

Please show me a simple, plain example of the deceit you keep mentioning. Thanks.

Because a person is born as a man or a woman, and these are the only two forms of gender which exist, any person who attempts to create some other gender identity is lying to xirselves in the sense that whatever they are constructing does not exist in reality. It's just a grand artifice they created out of their personal flight of fancy.

They are deceiving themselves.

But that's OK: we can just talk about how the non-binary gender and all other created genders are not real.

[Godstud]

@Verv Gender(psychological) and sex(biological) are not interchangeable. You are making this mistake, purposefully, to push your right-wing agenda.

[Pants-of-dog]

So you believe that "male" and "female" are "outdated."

How is that possible?

I never said male and female are outdated.

I said the traditional gender roles associated with male and female are outdated for a lot of people, including non binary people.

There are only two genders; there are only two healthy sets of how human gender manifests itself...

How is it outdated?

Because it does not address the needs and identities of non binary people, and fails in that regard because it is based on old and useless models.

Because they dislike traditional Western society and norms.

Are you implying that people need to get material gain to do something like this?Otherwise it would be meaningless?

I think that people need to have material gain if they are willing to incur a material loss about something like this.

Because a person is born as a man or a woman, and these are the only two forms of gender which exist, any person who attempts to create some other gender identity is lying to xirselves in the sense that whatever they are constructing does not exist in reality. It's just a grand artifice they created out of their personal flight of fancy.

They are deceiving themselves.

But that's OK: we can just talk about how the non-binary gender and all other created genders are not real.

Yes, I understand your argument.

Now, provide an example.

If you are simply saying that all non binary people are lying to themselves and us, it is still you just finding anway if saying they are stupid and delusional while pretending it is not simply transphobia.

[Verv]

@Verv Gender(psychological) and sex(biological) are not interchangeable. You are making this mistake, purposefully, to push your right-wing agenda.

Well, gee, Godstud, maybe I think that it's not a mistake and that the previous thousands of years of gender conceptions among pretty much every civilized people were actually the right ones.

Maybe I actually think that a group of "academics" in highly politicized sociological and "gender studies" feels actually came up with these ideas for changing the meaning of "sex" and "gender" for their own political motivations.

... Maybe I'm not actually objectively wrong and pushing a right-wing agenda.

... Maybe the people who shifted language and academia in the last few decades were actually pushing their own agenda...?

... Or, even better: maybe we can disagree with each other, and think the other person wrong, but we don't have to pretend the other person is abusing language just to propagandize and is actually using language honestly to express what they believe.

But with some of the characters around here -- that might not be so possible.

[Godstud]

Yes, you could try to stop propagandizing and actually use language honestly to express what you believe, instead of hiding your bigotry and intolerance behind semantics. Trying to change the meanings of the words, and actual facts, doesn't do you any favours.

Science Says: Sex and gender aren't the same
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-10- ... ender.html

[Verv]

I never said male and female are outdated.

I said the traditional gender roles associated with male and female are outdated for a lot of people, including non binary people.

Aw, so we are actually just talking about "traditional gender roles." OK. I disagree, but it seems to be going a bit far from the topic to just talk about male/female gender roles... But I get it. I've heard it. It's far less silly to me than suggesting there are more than two genders.

Because it does not address the needs and identities of non binary people, and fails in that regard because it is based on old and useless models.

So their gender is purely a mental disposition that is accessible only to them, and it does not correspond with their physical bodies.

Why should I accept these as a reality.

Why should society reorganize its conceptions of gender for an extreme minority of people that do not do a very good job of describing anything. Consider as well that they are still talking about non-gendered things in gendered terms much of the time....

And what if they are just talking about subgenders?

You're telling me we live in an era where you can't say that races exist but you can say 54 flavors of gender do?

I think that people need to have material gain if they are willing to incur a material loss about something like this.

... What material loss?

What... material anything?

We are talking about the abstract concept of gender and things that involve social and political capital.

You're confused, POD -- or, more likely, you are trying to steer this debate to some other thing.

Come on, man, level with me. Tell me what it is you wnat to talk about.

If you are simply saying that all non binary people are lying to themselves and us, it is still you just finding anway if saying they are stupid and delusional while pretending it is not simply transphobia.

If I said they are lying I would have said they were lying. I said they were deceiving themselves. That's even what it says in the quote itself.

And you and me both know I am talking about it in the sense that folks lie to themselves to make themselves feel special or better, which is more about poetic language about the process that occurs.

None of this is about a conscious process of lying to people's faces. None of this lying is happening at the Freudian "ego" level, right, now you knew what we meant, and you know what everyone means when they say this is a sham.

You are trying to play fancy pants here and do Double Dutch jumprope with the words we are using but why don't you just come out and focus on the actual ideas in play here as opposed to your badly nitpicked word games.

[Verv]

Yes, you could try to stop propagandizing and actually use language honestly to express what you believe, instead of hiding your bigotry and intolerance behind semantics. Trying to change the meanings of the words, and actual facts, doesn't do you any favours.

Science Says: Sex and gender aren't the same
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-10- ... ender.html

OK, look at this:

A: Sex typically refers to anatomy while "gender goes beyond biology," says Dr. Jason Rafferty, a pediatrician and child psychiatrist at Hasbro Children's Hospital in Rhode Island, and lead author of the AAP's transgender policy.

I don't actually think this is science saying this is the case.

What I got here is a psychiatrist whose pride & bread & butter are all bundled up in the transgender cause making statements to support his paycheck.

These guys are pretty controversial -- so much so that a rival organization was created:

In 2002 a group of pediatricians and related professionals split from the 86-year-old American Academy of Pediatrics over the organization's support for abortion and homosexual adoption. Some 14 years later, now called the American College of Pediatricians, the group is challenging the AAP on transgenderism.

In a biting statement last month, the American College of Pediatricians warned legislators and educators that conditioning children to accept transgenderism as normal is child abuse, as transgenderism is classified as a mental illness.

https://www.christianpost.com/news/pedi ... althy.html

So much for "science."

[Godstud]

NM. Trying to discuss things with right-wingers now is dealing with bigotry and intolerance that is unwavering. facts don't matter, only your fucked up agenda of stupidity. I only hope you deal with the same hate-spewing bullshit in your life.

[Pants-of-dog]

Aw, so we are actually just talking about "traditional gender roles." OK. I disagree, but it seems to be going a bit far from the topic to just talk about male/female gender roles... But I get it. I've heard it. It's far less silly to me than suggesting there are more than two genders.

Getting back to your conspiracy theory:

Why should the powerful have to trick anyone when traditional gender roles are already outdated and useless for a lot of people, including non binary people?

Do you think traditional gender roles are just so inherently awesome that people would never consciously abandon or ignore them?

So their gender is purely a mental disposition that is accessible only to them, and it does not correspond with their physical bodies.

Why should I accept these as a reality.

No one cares if you accept then as a reality. The LGBTQ equality movements are not about getting you to agree. It is about securing rights regardless of whether or not you agree.

Why should society reorganize its conceptions of gender for an extreme minority of people that do not do a very good job of describing anything. Consider as well that they are still talking about non-gendered things in gendered terms much of the time....

And what if they are just talking about subgenders?

You're telling me we live in an era where you can't say that races exist but you can say 54 flavors of gender do?

What does this word salad have to do with the fact that people are not interested in confining themselves to tradygender roles if they do not feel like it?

Should people not act in their own self interest?

... What material loss?

What... material anything?

We are talking about the abstract concept of gender and things that involve social and political capital.

You're confused, POD -- or, more likely, you are trying to steer this debate to some other thing.

Come on, man, level with me. Tell me what it is you wnat to talk about.

You claimed that the powerful elites are using their media influence and academia inflto attack traditional gender roles.

I asked how they gained anything by that.

You claimed that they gained something because they hate traditional gender roles.

I pointed out that this means that they hqve no material gain, despite having to pay for this disinformation campaign in media and academia.

So, now that you are caught up with your own argument, please note that you have not shown how these people gain anything despite having to pay for a disinformation campaign.

If I said they are lying I would have said they were lying. I said they were deceiving themselves. That's even what it says in the quote itself.

And you and me both know I am talking about it in the sense that folks lie to themselves to make themselves feel special or better, which is more about poetic language about the process that occurs.

None of this is about a conscious process of lying to people's faces. None of this lying is happening at the Freudian "ego" level, right, now you knew what we meant, and you know what everyone means when they say this is a sham.

You are trying to play fancy pants here and do Double Dutch jumprope with the words we are using but why don't you just come out and focus on the actual ideas in play here as opposed to your badly nitpicked word games.

Let me put it in plain langauge:

This claim of yours (that they are deceiving themselves) is unverifiable.

You cannot prove it. You cannot show it is true or false.

I am now going to ignore it because it is, from a debate standpoint, not very different from just an opinion.

[Verv]

NM. Trying to discuss things with right-wingers now is dealing with bigotry and intolerance that is unwavering. facts don't matter, only your fucked up agenda of stupidity. I only hope you deal with the same hate-spewing bullshit in your life.

I don't have time to respond to the real, actual post from Pants of Dog but I want to ask you to take a moment to reflect on why you post on PoFo.

You clearly don't want to discuss anything. You are here to just swear at random posters you don't agree with.

What's the deal?

Instead of swearing at me on the internet, why don't you get a rescue dog and give it love and attention?

I'm not going to change my mind and you're not going to produce anything or value swearing at me. You might as well use your time productively and I'm sure the dog will reward you with more love than the likes you get from Special Olympian.

[Godstud]

Why do you post on Pofo?

You clearly don't want to discuss anything. You just want to spew the same old intolerance and right-wing rhetoric that the other right-wingers post. You are only reinforcing your own confirmation bias.

You go buy a dog. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

[Verv]

Getting back to your conspiracy theory:

Why should the powerful have to trick anyone when traditional gender roles are already outdated and useless for a lot of people, including non binary people?

Do you think traditional gender roles are just so inherently awesome that people would never consciously abandon or ignore them?

i. It wouldn't be deceptive or tricky to have a straight forward debate about gender roles like all of the West was doing in the sixties and seventies.

It is deceptive and tricky to say that all of these other genders exist which don't exist and to never put forward any effort into unpacking everything that it entails. It is also a bit odd because no one wants to talk about the depths that biological gender influences physical reality.

For instance, the universality by which men are more likely to be violent criminals or the way in which they dominate the chess world in spite of it being a purely mental sport are very much things worth discussing, and they are also very much things influenced by the biological reality of having testosterone and a masculine mental profile... but no one wants to discuss it, and that is never the talking point.

But you have a point: is it really necessarily fair to say that the media, academia, etc., are being deceptive? What if they are just bad at being objective and this isn't intentional?

In that regard, sure, I am not so heavily committed to the idea of saying that it is all perpetrated through willful deception.

However, to assert that dozens of genders exist without unpacking them or pointing to some real, actual basis seems... like a bad take on reality.

And when people say that this is science, and elites say this is science, and Bill Nye says this is science, I think they are actually being deceptive.

ii. I think traditional gender roles also shifted from generation to generation, but never shifted as extremely as they have now. I think there are natural changes in how we perceive the relationships between men and women, and the role of women within the household.

I also think it is entirely excusable to say that these would have to change a lot because of the fundamental shift in the division of labor.

But these are things that all operate in the male/female basic concept of gender and labor. I think these don't have that much to do with the topic at hand of non-binary.

No one cares if you accept then as a reality. The LGBTQ equality movements are not about getting you to agree. It is about securing rights regardless of whether or not you agree.

And it doesn't matter to me if you agree, either. It's about restoring people to sanity.l

What does this word salad have to do with the fact that people are not interested in confining themselves to tradygender roles if they do not feel like it?

Should people not act in their own self interest?

It is commonly said that conservative Republican people do not act int heir self interest by voting Republican.

No one acts in their self-interest by convincing themselves they're pangender or non-binary.

You claimed that the powerful elites are using their media influence and academia inflto attack traditional gender roles.

I asked how they gained anything by that.

You claimed that they gained something because they hate traditional gender roles.

I pointed out that this means that they hqve no material gain, despite having to pay for this disinformation campaign in media and academia.

... But why would this campaign have to be paid for if the bulk of people involved are in agreement? And this is not even an organized campaign.

If you make a gender studies department an LGBTQ related sociology department, what do you think those people are going to do with their free time? And what will result when we have plenty of kids learning these things for decades?

A whole wing of people in society that believe these things.

And, of course, it will also result in well funded PACs and other organizations, right, but that's beyond the point. There's actually a good video from Mass Resist that talks about how the LGBTQ movement has not been grassroots for a long time, and there really is a lot of money involved in it, but that isn't what I am here to say.

I am here only to say that the bias does exist, and that these people do advocate for this because it is what they are ideologically committed to.

There doesn't have to be a meaningful material sacrifice when the bulk of people have been brought onto this over the decades through education.

Let me put it in plain langauge:

This claim of yours (that they are deceiving themselves) is unverifiable.

You cannot prove it. You cannot show it is true or false.

I am now going to ignore it because it is, from a debate standpoint, not very different from just an opinion.

You are being really obtuse here, POD:

They are deceiving themselves int he same sense that it is said that Christians deceive themselves by convincing themselves of the truth of the Gospels. It's a turn of phrase -- not a complicated discussion about psychological realities.

[Verv]

Why do you post on Pofo?

You clearly don't want to discuss anything. You just want to spew the same old intolerance and right-wing rhetoric that the other right-wingers post. You are only reinforcing your own confirmation bias.

You go buy a dog. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

(1) I am actually here discussing things passionately with POD.

(2) I have a rescue dog already and we have thought of getting another.

I recommend it -- which is why I suggested it.

[layman]

I said the traditional gender roles associated with male and female are outdated for a lot of people, including non binary people.

Sure but then trans people are insisting that they live in the body of the wrong gender and want to live the gender role opposite to their biological sex.

And you really expected people to believe you were ignorant to these fundamental contradictions in non binary, trans and feminist ideas?

[Drlee]

@Godstud @Pants-of-dog

Pull back for a moment and look at what Verve (and I for that matter) are saying.

We do not contend that any INDIVIDUAL who presents him/herself as "binary"

Here is what Gender-Wiki describes as Non-binary:

Have an androgynous (both masculine and feminine) gender identity, such as androgyne.
Have an identity between male and female, such as intergender.
Have a neutral or unrecognized gender identity, such as agender, neutrois, or most xenogenders.
Have multiple gender identities, such as bigender or pangender.
Have a gender identity which varies over time, known as genderfluid.
Have a weak or partial connection to a gender identity, known as demigender.
Are intersex and identify as intersex, know as amalgagender
Have a culturally specific gender identity which exists only within their or their ancestor's culture.

Some states have allowed a "no-gender" response on official documents.

FULL STOP

Now lets talk about the medical community. The medical community has far harder decisions to make about gender assignment than does a group of people trying to be "inclusive". Lee as a private citizen could, and does, simply say "what's it to me?" Let them be whatever they want to be. BUT....

If any one of those above presents to a medical/mental health professional the situation changes. Using trans people as an example (because POD is incapable of understanding the above it would appear) the practitioner is called upon to make profound medical choices for/with his patient. The powerful drugs required to transition someone from one sex to the other are not over the counter. These drugs not only affect secondary sexual traits but also are powerfully psychoactive drugs too. Giving a woman testosterone without careful medical and psychiatric care can be fatal.

Changing sex assignment in children is particularly disturbing for the practitioner. We see parents presenting children for gender reassignment treatment long before that child can make an informed decision for themselves. And this in the face of the clinical evidence which concludes that most gender dysphoria resolves itself to birth gender by the age of 18 medically untreated.

So for a practitioner the question is not what to "believe". It is what to do. Sometimes 'nothing' is the correct answer. Sometimes 'I don't know' is the correct answer. Always referring the patient to an expert is what to do when the physician is out of his comfort zone. But look at the above. Many of these are so vanishingly rare that there really aren't experts. That is not to say that there are not physicians who will not treat. It is to say that they are treating on a belief or political position and not on good science. For me that is the very definition of a scam.

This thread is based upon the posting of one individual but it is not a bad example. Why? Because all patients presenting with these issues are individuals. One thing is clear. The physicians he was dealing with began treatment without sufficient science on the subject or reliable psychiatric care for this individual. And it led to a train wreck. Of course it did.

So practitioners must not shoot from the hip about this nor should they simply accede to the whims of their patient no matter how passionately they insist. ALL of these individuals should be presumed to have serious underlying psychiatric issues and referred for treatment. That is what the APA says to do. That is what any reasonable practitioner would do. Are these real things or made up? Doesn't matter. It may be "cool" to call yourself an androgyne but is it scientifically supportable? Or is it a treatable mental disorder? To reject the later simply because it is not trendy is unscientific and could lead not only to an unhappy mentally ill patient but could lead others to misdiagnose themselves.

At the end of the day, people are free to call themselves whatever they like. They are free to act out however they like providing that they do not harm themselves or others. But when they bang into the medical community it is the science that takes over and not the politician or some ad hoc support group. There is the very real possibility that any of the above are treatable conditions with the "cure" leading to the patient dropping the very notion that they are "that" and resuming their biologically determined identity. How do we know? Because it happens in the majority of early presentation gender dysphoria. That's how.