How the Law (doesn't really), define "gender identity"

[McBell]

Oh. So it's a social construct, but every individual gets to choose their own adventure?

If Gender is a social construct, how they personally see themselves is irrelevant; what matters is what society sees them as; hence the term social construct rather than personal construct.

These questions strongly indicate that you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

But it's not like various people from the same culture and society use different words for same sex attraction like some people recognize homosexuality to mean same sex, while others who use another word don't use that term

They kind of do, though. When I was growing up, to refer to something as "gay" was to suggest it was in some way generally negative. Of course, we don't do that any more and it's strongly frowned on, but it's an example of how language is part of sociological phenomenon that can be influenced contextually to imply and develop new meanings. Ask a homosexual what being homosexual means to them and you might get a range of expressions, even if there is a general trend towards a more clinical definition.

White men are definitely not the majority in the US population; so just because you have never heard of them referred to as minority does not mean they are not

So you think that when people refer to "minority groups" or "ethnic minorities" in America, you think they're including straight white men in that category? You literally think the phrase "minority" is being used in a literal, pre-scriptive sense?

Post #179 you said
Rather than just scoffing at the idea of 72 or more genders, why not take the time to understand what people are referring to in that context and see if you can understand it, even if you don't agree?
Those were your exact words. Doesn't sound like you were suggesting I should not ask people who don't believe there are 72 different genders

Yes, ask them. Not people who aren't making that claim. So why are you expecting people who are NOT making that claim to defend it?

Personally, I find the claim that there are 72 genders no less arbitrary than the idea that there are only two, but I suspect that what's being counted as a gender in that context is something very specific, so I can't possibly investigate without the rationale behind it.

Then explain exactly what is so complicated when it comes to Gender.

Practically everything. It's association with sex, its forms of expression, the way we identify it, the ways in which we personally relate to and understand it, the range of values various cultures assign to it, the relation of those values to who is expected to belong in which particular category, the biodimorphic qualities associated between sex and gender, the association and acceptability of masculinity/femininity within certain contexts and roles, the way we associate and express gender physically, verbally, through our work, through our values, through our perspectives. It's a aspect of human sociology that probably has the greatest and widest range of impacts on our day to day life and, more broadly, on our culture. It's ubiquitous, and equally complex.

Where would you like to start?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If Gender is a social construct, how they personally see themselves is irrelevant; what matters is what society sees them as; hence the term social construct rather than personal construct.

That's not how these things work. I've already explained that social constructs are not democracies: they aren't DETERMINED by committee. They're just FORMED and DEVELOPED in societies, but how each individual relates to and understands the construct themselves can still be (and is almost always inevitably) coloured by their own personal experiences and understanding.

Why do people not understand sociology any more? It really isn't that difficult to understand.

 

[icehorse]

That's not how these things work. I've already explained that social constructs are not democracies: they aren't DETERMINED by committee. They're just FORMED and DEVELOPED in societies, but how each individual relates to and understands the construct themselves can still be (and is almost always inevitably) coloured by their own personal experiences and understanding.

Why do people not understand sociology any more? It really isn't that difficult to understand.

I think we understand sociology - complex as it is - well enough to notice that the way in which the terms "gender" and "gender identity" are being used, is open to a lot o confusion in general, and abuse by bad men.

These terms seem like yet another way for people who are obsessed with identity politics to try to create artificial categories.

 

[icehorse]

These questions strongly indicate that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Your answers strongly indicate that you have drunk the woke koolaid and have no idea what you're talking about, past a few sound bites.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I think we understand sociology - complex as it is - well enough to notice that the way in which the terms "gender" and "gender identity" are being used, is open to a lot o confusion in general, and abuse by bad men.

You mean, like by people who continually fail to understand the distinction between sex and gender, or tend to conflate those terms?

These terms seem like yet another way for people who are obsessed with identity politics to try to create artificial categories.

How on earth is this in any way related to "identity politics". Please explain that absurd connection. Or do you believe that, because this is about a social identity, talking about it means we're "obsessed with identity politics"? In which case, I would draw your attention to the number of threads about issues relating to trans people you have started, which makes it seem like you're the one obsessing here.

Or are you just wheeling out buzzwords in lieu of actual analysis?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Your answers strongly indicate that you have drunk the woke koolaid and have no idea what you're talking about, past a few sound bites.

Sound bites like "woke" and "kool aid" and "identity politics".

 

[icehorse]

Sound bites like "woke" and "kool aid" and "identity politics".

I'm happy to discuss any and all of those terms in a separate thread. But this thread is all about how gender and gender identity are poorly defined and how that's making abuse easy fo bad men.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think we understand sociology - complex as it is - well enough to notice that the way in which the terms "gender" and "gender identity" are being used, is open to a lot o confusion in general, and abuse by bad men.

These terms seem like yet another way for people who are obsessed with identity politics to try to create artificial categories.

So how do you know if something is subjective, real and true, because you claimed that could be the case.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm happy to discuss any and all of those terms in a separate thread.

Then stop using them. You know as well as I do that they're meaningless buzzwords that dishonest actors use to dismiss all views that they don't agree with.

But this thread is all about how gender and gender identity are poorly defined and how that's making abuse easy fo bad men.

Oh, well that makes this discussion much easier: it's not, and there's no evidence it is.

End of thread.

 

[icehorse]

So how do you know if something is subjective, real and true, because you claimed that could be the case.

I'm not going to spend time debating with you as long as you're coming from a relativist stance.

 

[icehorse]

Then stop using them. You know as well as I do that they're meaningless buzzwords that dishonest actors use to dismiss all views that they don't agree with.

I know no such thing. I see them being used to abuse women.

Oh, well that makes this discussion much easier: it's not, and there's no evidence it is.

End of thread.

Evidence has been provided.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm not going to spend time debating with you as long as you're coming from a relativist stance.

Yeah, and that is objectively true in you as independent of your thoughs, feelings and beliefs and is established with sicence and the Law.

You are doing a double standard, because you want your feelings about making sense to be the only ones being used.

 

[icehorse]

You are doing a double standard, because you want your feelings about making sense to be the only ones being used.

Not true at all. I am willing to debate ideas with most everyone except for people who take the stance of moral relativism. Nothing personal, but such a stance can scuttle any chance of useful dialog.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not true at all. I am willing to debate ideas with most everyone except for people who take the stance of moral relativism. Nothing personal, but such a stance can scuttle any chance of useful dialog.

And that is not subjective and relativistic. Get it.

 

[icehorse]

And that is not subjective and relativistic. Get it.

Take "yes" for an answer I've already admitted that I think relativists can win any argument concerning subjectivity, objectivity, morality, ethics and so on. As a relativist, you have a "get out of jail" card that can defeat all the arguments I can come up with.

IMHO, the problem I see with relativism is that relativists tend not to have good solutions.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Take "yes" for an answer I've already admitted that I think relativists can win any argument concerning subjectivity, objectivity, morality, ethics and so on. As a relativist, you have a "get out of jail" card that can defeat all the arguments I can come up with.

IMHO, the problem I see with relativism is that relativists tend not to have good solutions.

Yeah, but the point is that there is something positive to be learned from relativism, but you won't accept that, because you don't like it, that you can't use truth/science or the Law as logical.
But if you get past that, you can learn the positive side of relativism.

 

[McBell]

That's not how these things work. I've already explained that social constructs are not democracies: they aren't DETERMINED by committee. They're just FORMED and DEVELOPED in societies, but how each individual relates to and understands the construct themselves can still be (and is almost always inevitably) coloured by their own personal experiences and understanding.

Why do people not understand sociology any more? It really isn't that difficult to understand.

Seems it strikes at the heart of their worldview.

Personally, I have no interest in discussing something with someone who does not know enough about the topic to offer a meaningful honest discussion.

Then for them to reply with list of buzzwords thinking they have somehow made a point of some sort is just icing on the cake.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, but the point is that there is something positive to be learned from relativism, but you won't accept that, because you don't like it, that you can't use truth/science or the Law as logical.
But if you get past that, you can learn the positive side of relativism.

A moral absolutist differs from a moral relativist
primarily by the absolutist's belief that their morals
are inerrant facts rather than opinion. How does
the absolutist know this? Scripture. Obviousness.
Are these assumptions better than the relativist's?
Who knows....but the problem is the absolutist's
tendency for intolerance of other morals.

 

[icehorse]

Yeah, but the point is that there is something positive to be learned from relativism, but you won't accept that, because you don't like it, that you can't use truth/science or the Law as logical.
But if you get past that, you can learn the positive side of relativism.

You do not know what I accept or don't, so do no put words in my mouth, thanks.