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

[mikkel_the_dane]

Because boolean logic. The same way we know how to understand all legal definitions.

hahaha - I'm just responding to the definition YOU provided. I have made no claims as to the nature of the definition.

Yes, you did.

 

[icehorse]

Yeah, but you claim it must be a legal definition to a certain standard.
We are in general political debates and unless you can show that all of the human world is legal definitions as legal, you have no leg to stand on demand that it must a legal defintion.

This thread is ABOUT legal definitions. If the one YOU provided is not a legal definition then you should not have offered it in this thread.

Again, if you want to discuss non-legal definitions, start another thread. thanks.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This thread is ABOUT legal definitions. If the one YOU provided is not a legal definition then you should not have offered it in this thread.

Again, if you want to discuss non-legal definitions, start another thread. thanks.

So only legal defintion of gender are relevant for what gender is and you can't have a law that uses gender, but the defintion of gender is not legal as it is not in the law, but given by another part of the government in question.

 

[wellwisher]

Sex is quantitative and can be objectified with DNA testing. Gender is much more subjective, which is why the number of genders increases with time, as people find nuance. Gender is like choosing spices on a rack to flavor the barbecue sauce to your tastes.

Gender is more subject to will and choice, than is sex. We are born with a given sex and have no choice when it happens. Gender allows for choices and even nuance among choices. It can also be a role you can play, like an actor. Transitioning involves costumes and cosmetic changes. Gender is where everyday becomes halloween, so we can stay in the fine tuned gender character of our choosing.

This is a mostly a US fad. It is not quite caught on in other places. It is designed to make money. Like all fads, the hype is there to create new demand for goods and services. I am sure Nancy Pelosi has stock in these companies, especially when government is using tax payer money to promote the fad in schools. Brain washing, apart from parents, was part of the promotional process. That alone is a tell.

Electric cars used the same approach, by the same political party; insider trading. One choice of automobile; electric, gets all the benefits of the doubt using tax payers resources; tax breaks, rebates and free charging. This happened with gender. The other alternatives; gasoline or biological sex is given a handicap and pays extra to exist; shunned as terrible. Both kill the planet. Based on this rigged system, anyone can see which stocks will do the best. The crooks cash in.

The same crooks did this to education, resulting in students with lots of debt. The students got sucked into thinking everyone should go to college, without any regard to the future costs and the potential future jobs based on the education of choice. The trades, in this case, were given the crap end of the stick; everyone go to colleges. Government sweetens the pot by underwriting college loans. Colleges got all this free loan money, to fill their coffers, until the crap hits the fan for the students.

The same will happen to the gender fad, if the stocks go up and the rich cash in. The Left minions have to be the worse, when it comes to resisting fast talking salesmen in their own party. You guys seem to live for bad choices, all so you can be state of the art for the day, during the reaping of money, but before the next disaster, kicks in.

 

[icehorse]

So only legal defintion of gender are relevant for what gender is and you can't have a law that uses gender, but the defintion of gender is not legal as it is not in the law, but given by another part of the government in question.

But sadly, the idea of a "gender identity" IS creeping into many laws in the US and in Europe.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But sadly, the idea of a "gender identity" IS creeping into many laws in the US and in Europe.

Yeah, I need that you are rational and give evidence and not feelings like sadly.
It is a falacy to argue based on feelings. It has to be rational.

 

[McBell]

But sadly, the idea of a "gender identity" IS creeping into many laws in the US and in Europe.

thus the reason they legally defined the term.
Your disliking the definitions does not mean they do not exist.

 

[icehorse]

thus the reason they legally defined the term.
Your disliking the definitions does not mean they do not exist.

I never said they don't exist. What I've been saying is that they are poorly worded and that bad men are taking advantage of this poor wording.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I never said they don't exist. What I've been saying is that they are poorly worded and that bad men are taking advantage of this poor wording.

Yeah, so come up with one yourself.

 

[McBell]

I never said they don't exist. What I've been saying is that they are poorly worded and that bad men are taking advantage of this poor wording.

then present a definition you think works.

IMO, if you can not/will not present a definition there is no reason to take your complaining about the definitions seriously.

 

[icehorse]

then present a definition you think works.

IMO, if you can not/will not present a definition there is no reason to take your complaining about the definitions seriously.

Haha. I think it's a disingenuous concept that has no business being in any laws. To me, the closest similar situation is associated with religion. People have "faith", and based on that faith they get some protections under the law. So perhaps it would be useful to acknowledge that gender ideology is a "faith" and treat it the way we treat religions?

But notice that being of a religion does not allow you to unlawfully curtail the rights and protections of others - at least not in a free, secular society.

 

[McBell]

Haha. I think it's a disingenuous concept that has no business being in any laws. To me, the closest similar situation is associated with religion. People have "faith", and based on that faith they get some protections under the law. So perhaps it would be useful to acknowledge that gender ideology is a "faith" and treat it the way we treat religions?

But notice that being of a religion does not allow you to unlawfully curtail the rights and protections of others - at least not in a free, secular society.

So, no definition then?
Ok.

Now give us a reason to take your whining about the current definitions seriously.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Haha. I think it's a disingenuous concept that has no business being in any laws. To me, the closest similar situation is associated with religion. People have "faith", and based on that faith they get some protections under the law. So perhaps it would be useful to acknowledge that gender ideology is a "faith" and treat it the way we treat religions?

But notice that being of a religion does not allow you to unlawfully curtail the rights and protections of others - at least not in a free, secular society.

Is what you think falsifiable according to science and in fact biology as biology?

 

[icehorse]

So, no definition then?
Ok.

Now give us a reason to take your whining about the current definitions seriously.

Bad definitions are what's enabling violent men to abuse women and girls, as I showed you in post #598 of this thread:

Gender reassignment/affirming surgery

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Bad definitions are what's enabling violent men to abuse women and girls, as I showed you in post #598 of this thread:

Gender reassignment/affirming surgery

Well, a bad defintion of science is what treats morality as falsifiable by science. There are bad people everywhere, who use bad defintions and bad understanding of reality.
That is not limited to gender. Now use a defense mechanism and laugh at it.

 

[Kfox]

Interesting take. Women seem to have much more leeway then men when it comes to cultural enforcement of gender roles. Is a male nurse considered to be unmanly and is he chided because he has taken on a traditionally feminine occupation?

No. Fortunately society has moved away from such sexist gender roles.

If so, who is most likely to do the chiding?

Somebody with the absurd idea that a woman is someone who fits the social roles traditionally given to a female based on a particular time and culture.

 

[Kfox]

Not really. Lots of people disagree on socially constructed concepts.

But the vast majority of social constructs are agreed upon by the majority of society. This idea of 72 different genders is an absurdity that is not agreed upon by the majority of society, thus does not fit the category of “social construct” but more of an absurd ideology

Not quite. People are still influenced by the concept as it socially exists.

But it is still like everybody is making up their own rules which is why there is no agreement when it comes to the details of how many genders there are, what they are, and what each of them mean.

That's one way of doing it, I suppose.

I agree!

 

[Kfox]

Gender is more subject to will and choice, than is sex. We are born with a given sex and have no choice when it happens. Gender allows for choices and even nuance among choices. It can also be a role you can play, like an actor. Transitioning involves costumes and cosmetic changes. Gender is where everyday becomes halloween, so we can stay in the fine tuned gender character of our choosing.

This is a mostly a US fad. It is not quite caught on in other places.

I don't think the people behind this see it as a fad.

It is designed to make money. Like all fads, the hype is there to create new demand for goods and services. I am sure Nancy Pelosi has stock in these companies,

How is money made from this? Which companies do you believe are involved?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

But the vast majority of social constructs are agreed upon by the majority of society.

Where did you get that idea? When did sociological concepts become democratised?

This idea of 72 different genders is an absurdity that is not agreed upon by the majority of society, thus does not fit the category of “social construct” but more of an absurd ideology

False. Even a niche idea can still express a socially rising phenomenon, even if a vast majority of people disagree. Not too long ago, people would use this very argument you are using to deny the humanity of homosexuals, or of minorities, or the rights of women to work. If we're capable of understanding something on a sociological level, then we are capable of understanding how these things can be multifaceted in a multitude of different ways.

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?

But it is still like everybody is making up their own rules

Everyone does that anyway. What's the issue?

which is why there is no agreement when it comes to the details of how many genders there are,

Why does the number matter? Why not just accept that gender is complex?

what they are, and what each of them mean.

Then let's all just do the sensible thing and agree that they are largely arbitrary labels, and the only reasonable metric we can use to assign them is to allow everyone to identify their own. Get rid of the whole idea of socially prescribed roles and/or pronouns, divorce that idea entirely from any facet of biology or social expectation, and just allow people the freedom to freely associate, as free as possible from social coercion.

 

[Kfox]

Where did you get that idea? When did sociological concepts become democratised?

Race, Age, the value of Money, Childhood, Adolescence, these are all social constructs. You gonna tell me most people don’t agree on these things?

False. Even a niche idea can still express a socially rising phenomenon, even if a vast majority of people disagree. Not too long ago, people would use this very argument you are using to deny the humanity of homosexuals, or of minorities, or the rights of women to work.

Oh stop it! There has always been agreement on what makes a person homosexual, a minority, or a woman. Is there an agreement on what makes a person a Condigender? Or is it a gender or not?

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?

I’ve done that already, and when pressed, they don’t seem to have answers.

Everyone does that anyway. What's the issue?

No, when it comes to words and speech, each person does not make up their own rules; if they did words would become meaningless

Why does the number matter? Why not just accept that gender is complex?

Because it shouldn’t be complex.

Then let's all just do the sensible thing and agree that they are largely arbitrary labels, and the only reasonable metric we can use to assign them is to allow everyone to identify their own. Get rid of the whole idea of socially prescribed roles and/or pronouns, divorce that idea entirely from any facet of biology or social expectation, and just allow people the freedom to freely associate, as free as possible from social coercion.

Because if you are going to live around other people in a society, agreed upon labels and descriptions of these people are necessary in order to function as a society.