Gender reassignment/affirming surgery

[Ignatius A]

Mind finishing the statement?



So where's the problem? If you wish to be uncivil to a person and understand that they are likely to be uncivil back, why complain about people "demanding" and "screeching" about that decision?



In that bit, he suggests with that we should refer to handicapped people as "defective" and slow learners as "stupid." He also is a comedian and in that bit (as serious as he may have been in his comedy) his attempts at making up "PC speech" actually come across as elegant rather than clunky (unless your lazy, or rather, linguistically energy efficient?). Since the video hasn't aged well, I would say that Carlin doesn't understand the dynamic and impactful quality of language.

Given that Carlin is engaging in satire, let me throw out a favorite quote of mine:

"Satire is meant to ridicule power. If you are laughing at people who are hurting, it's not satire, it's bullying." - Terry Pratchett.

Mind finishing the statement?



So where's the problem? If you wish to be uncivil to a person and understand that they are likely to be uncivil back, why complain about people "demanding" and "screeching" about that decision?



In that bit, he suggests with that we should refer to handicapped people as "defective" and slow learners as "stupid." He also is a comedian and in that bit (as serious as he may have been in his comedy) his attempts at making up "PC speech" actually come across as elegant rather than clunky (unless your lazy, or rather, linguistically energy efficient?). Since the video hasn't aged well, I would say that Carlin doesn't understand the dynamic and impactful quality of language.

Given that Carlin is engaging in satire, let me throw out a favorite quote of mine:

"Satire is meant to ridicule power. If you are laughing at people who are hurting, it's not satire, it's bullying." - Terry Pratchett.

The difference is Im not "demanding" and "screeching" when people dont want to play along with how i think they should behave

 

[Ignatius A]

Ever notice the little bumps on signs?

Sure. Do they feel them with their eyes. BTW I never said they couldnt read. It is amazing how few people can focus on what was actually said rather then what they think was said.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

In not concerned about people being angry, I know people will be angry when I dont do whatever they think they can command me to do. If a lady teacher demands I call her "Mr" no go. I might call a doctor "Dr" since they earned that title. No trans person has earned my compliance or is entitled to it.

I think George Carlin said it well, "Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners".

Referring to people by the terms they use to identify themselves is literally nothing to do with political correctness.

What do you think political correctness is?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The difference is Im not "demanding" and "screeching" when people dont want to play along with how i think they should behave

Yes you are. Literally, this whole tread is basically just you "screeching". You're clearly very upset at the idea that there are people who would like you to call them something different than what you want to call them.

You've displayed more anger and entitlement than any trans person I've met, personally. You seem to genuinely believe you have a right to be rude and uncivil, and that other people have no right to be rude or uncivil to you, in response. That's the highest of entitlement and delusion, there.

 

[icehorse]

Mind specifying the laws?

In this thread four similar laws are dissected:

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

In terms of my definition, let's dissect deeper. What are the things that we use to determine gender? Appearance such as clothes, the words people use to describe other people, how we treat each other according to roles and such.

And this was your definition:

Gender is social expression that, while often linked to sex, it doesn't have to be since often the expression is irrelevant to biological features of sex and can be relative to time and culture.

Using the same sort of analysis in the videos I linked to, we can strike the following from your definition because it doesn't define anything:

"that, while often linked to sex, it doesn't have to be since often the expression is irrelevant to biological features of sex and can be relative to time and culture."

Words and phrases like "often" and "doesn't have to be" and "can be" have no place in definitions, because they allow for wiggle room. Sometimes wiggle room is important, but it has no place when defining a thing.

Again, I'm not really criticizing you here. The similarities between your definition and the four states' definitions is striking. People who push gender ideology have been effective in pushing these non-definitions into society. You're just saying things that everyone has heard over and over again. But these things do not hold up to careful analysis.

==

Now you used the word "expression" several times. Are you talking about an individual's choice for how they present themselves to the world, or are you talking about how the world sees certain "styles". (I'm happy to use a word different than "styles", I mean it to be neutral, having neither a positive or negative connotation.)

So consider a woman who's an auto mechanic. She wears oily dungarees, keeps her hair short, and doesn't wear makeup. All consistent with being a mechanic. This outward appearance tells us nothing about her inner feelings concerning her sexuality, correct? How you you go about putting a gender label on this woman?

IMO, "gender" is mostly a rubbish term that causes more confusion than clarity.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Words and phrases like "often" and "doesn't have to be" and "can be" have no place in definitions, because they allow for wiggle room.

This is possibly the most ridiculous and baseless claim I have ever heard.

 

[icehorse]

This is possibly the most ridiculous and baseless claim I have ever heard.

How do those phrases help define a thing? Can you give me an example?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

How do those phrases help define a thing? Can you give me an example?

You seriously believe your claim that the word "often" cannot be used in a definition, or that definitions cannot have "wiggle room"?

Are you seriously going to be so brazen as to pretend that this is a legitimate, logical claim?

Tell me; do you know the difference between a prescriptive and descriptive definition? And can you give me a clear, concise definition of literally anything that a) defines explicitly what a thing is without also including things in the definition that are not what it is attempting to define and b) has no "wiggle room" whatsoever?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Sure. Do they feel them with their eyes. BTW I never said they couldnt read. It is amazing how few people can focus on what was actually said rather then what they think was said.

Here is the exchange.

What I dont doubt is that Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles see exactly same thing.

I'm sure they can read.

Prove they can

You did say prove they can read.

 

[Brickjectivity]

In my opinion it is not. We homo sapiens do not have a monopoly on the term human, and indeed some of our ancestors that predate sapeins would basically be indistinguishable to us in a crowd of us. We'd think of them as human. Why should test tube babies be any different?

Nothing of me is original. I am the combined efforts of everyone I've ever known. (Chuck Palahniuk)
That's basically true and we humans and society work. If we weren't to some degree like molding clay it would be impossible to communicate as we wouldn't be able to conform to our society's communition standards.

Just treat the child like a regular person. Most people won't even know.

We treat an infant with love to give it life, and we see it as alive and as a human though it is not yet anyone; and eventually it loves us back. We help make others human by treating them so, and we also make ourselves human by doing that. We ourselves need this at some time or another: the gift of humanity. We also need to give this gift. It is human to do that. I even talk to trees sometimes or to the ocean or whatever. People talk to things, and we extend humanity outside ourselves. Anything human tries to do this; but when there is no response we stop. We can't only give. We need to receive, too. We also can't only receive. We need to express this extension outside of ourselves.

Humanity is a two way street. Animals usually do not travel on it with us. If its between a wolf and a dog, I save the dog. The dog is more likely to fellowship. I love wolves, but the dog sees me as a dog. The wolf sees me as a monster or as an object. What about a child raised by wolves? Then those wolves are human wolves. They have fellowshipped a human as a wolf. They are above other animals.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

In this thread four similar laws are dissected:

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



And this was your definition:



Using the same sort of analysis in the videos I linked to, we can strike the following from your definition because it doesn't define anything:

"that, while often linked to sex, it doesn't have to be since often the expression is irrelevant to biological features of sex and can be relative to time and culture."

Words and phrases like "often" and "doesn't have to be" and "can be" have no place in definitions, because they allow for wiggle room. Sometimes wiggle room is important, but it has no place when defining a thing.

Defining something with as many variations as gender as precisely as we need takes time. It suffices to simply refer to it as a construct related to customs based on social roles and relations. The problem here is that humans don't quite follow this definition neatly. Traditionally, it is often linked to biological sex, but not always. It often deals with human sexual customs, but not always. All the things that define it, like clothing, hair styles, body decoration, pronouns, and occupations tend to vary both in time and place with individuals often bucking the rules. So a precise definition will never be adequate. Since legislation impacts individuals, it is necessary that a definition for gender be able to account for this.

Again, I'm not really criticizing you here. The similarities between your definition and the four states' definitions is striking. People who push gender ideology have been effective in pushing these non-definitions into society. You're just saying things that everyone has heard over and over again. But these things do not hold up to careful analysis.

They are not non-definitions. People just diagree on the definition.

Now you used the word "expression" several times. Are you talking about an individual's choice for how they present themselves to the world, or are you talking about how the world sees certain "styles". (I'm happy to use a word different than "styles", I mean it to be neutral, having neither a positive or negative connotation.)

Both.

"Gender is social expression that, while often linked to sex, it doesn't have to be since often the expression is irrelevant to biological features of sex and can be relative to time and culture."

When a person expresses an identity, that identity is linked to their culture even if they are attempting something new since the reaction is going to be based on the mores of that culture.

So consider a woman who's an auto mechanic. She wears oily dungarees, keeps her hair short, and doesn't wear makeup. All consistent with being a mechanic. This outward appearance tells us nothing about her inner feelings concerning her sexuality, correct? How you you go about putting a gender label on this woman?

Ask. Or assume a gender and get told otherwise. Or use neutral language until you are certain. In this case, you describe the imagined person as a "woman" and use pronouns that suggests she identifies as a "woman."

Let's say that you come across a person dressed in ripped jeans and a tee shirt who has short hair and no definable secondary sexual characteristics. There's bone structure in the face and hips that suggest female, but that's not for certain. How do you proceed?

IMO, "gender" is mostly a rubbish term that causes more confusion than clarity.

Ok. Then let's get rid of it. That will require removing gender based language for something more neutral and abandoning gender based social roles. Everything will be based on sexual biology where appropriate, but people will generally be free to express themselves through dress and decoration, through the roles they decide to take on in society, and how they relate to one another.

Otherwise, we will have to have some way to advertise our genitals and DNA without making it "gendered." Any idea on how to do that?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

The difference is Im not "demanding" and "screeching" when people dont want to play along with how i think they should behave

So you are unhappy about people getting mad about your behavior? That's a personal choice. I hope you are able to manage civilly outside of a debate forum, but if not, that is your choice.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Words and phrases like "often" and "doesn't have to be" and "can be" have no place in definitions, because they allow for wiggle room. Sometimes wiggle room is important, but it has no place when defining a thing.

You'll need to inform scientists because often, tends to, trends towards, usually and generally are about as certain as it gets, including with some definitions were we often see "especially" being used, giving some wiggle room to the definition.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think George Carlin said it well, "Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners

He didn't say that. That was an image the person who made the video added.

 

[icehorse]

Defining something with as many variations as gender as precisely as we need takes time. It suffices to simply refer to it as a construct related to customs based on social roles and relations. The problem here is that humans don't quite follow this definition neatly. Traditionally, it is often linked to biological sex, but not always. It often deals with human sexual customs, but not always. All the things that define it, like clothing, hair styles, body decoration, pronouns, and occupations tend to vary both in time and place with individuals often bucking the rules. So a precise definition will never be adequate. Since legislation impacts individuals, it is necessary that a definition for gender be able to account for this.

Laws are in place. consequential, life-changing decisions are being made. These "gender identification" laws were rushed into existence and they are poorly thought out. In the name of what "inclusivity"? Kids are getting sterilized and maimed, women are being raped and assaulted in other ways, women are having their sports ruined, all in the name of this ill-defined "gender" ideology. And we're just supposed to allow this ideological, activist movement take its time being sorted out?

Nope.

They are not non-definitions. People just diagree on the definition.

Actually, your definition is closely aligned with the LEGAL definitions provided by the four states I mentioned earlier. You're all basically agreeing on the same non-definitions.

"Gender is social expression that, while often linked to sex, it doesn't have to be since often the expression is irrelevant to biological features of sex and can be relative to time and culture."

When a person expresses an identity, that identity is linked to their culture even if they are attempting something new since the reaction is going to be based on the mores of that culture.

Sounds to me like you're describing "personalities". In what ways do you think your definitions are different than just saying "we all have different personalities"?

Ask. Or assume a gender and get told otherwise. Or use neutral language until you are certain. In this case, you describe the imagined person as a "woman" and use pronouns that suggests she identifies as a "woman."

Let's say that you come across a person dressed in ripped jeans and a tee shirt who has short hair and no definable secondary sexual characteristics. There's bone structure in the face and hips that suggest female, but that's not for certain. How do you proceed?

Perhaps we're discussing this from different contexts? I'm coming from the context of laws and public policies. I'm not sure why - in a personal one on one situation - I'd ever ask a person what their gender is?

Ok. Then let's get rid of it. That will require removing gender based language for something more neutral and abandoning gender based social roles. Everything will be based on sexual biology where appropriate, but people will generally be free to express themselves through dress and decoration, through the roles they decide to take on in society, and how they relate to one another.

Otherwise, we will have to have some way to advertise our genitals and DNA without making it "gendered." Any idea on how to do that?

Again, define a "gender based social role".

And when you say everything will be based on biology, well, yes, that's how it's always been for many consequential aspects of life. If a patient is in the ER, the doctors do not care what gender the patient is - it's often crucial to know what sex the patient is.

So, when biological sex is crucial to a situation, there are scientific ways to learn an individuals sex. And when it's not crucial, how does thinking in terms of "gender" help? Again, we all already understand the idea of personalities - how does this seemingly nebulous idea of "gender" help?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

n that bit, he suggests with that we should refer to handicapped people as "defective" and slow learners as "stupid." He also is a comedian and in that bit (as serious as he may have been in his comedy) his attempts at making up "PC speech" actually come across as elegant rather than clunky (unless your lazy, or rather, linguistically energy efficient?). Since the video hasn't aged well, I would say that Carlin doesn't understand the dynamic and impactful quality of language.

I do agree with him a lot of it is to help normies and neurotypicals feel more comfortable around those with more noticeable physical and mental handicaps. I do agree that speech codes won't really address or fix the problem. It's one of.his harsher bits, but parts of it are similar to things mentioned by Foucault in Madness and Society.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm not sure why - in a personal one on one situation - I'd ever ask a person what their gender is?

Because you aren't sure?

 

[Ignatius A]

Referring to people by the terms they use to identify themselves is literally nothing to do with political correctness.

What do you think political correctness is?

Right it's about the screeching people are exposed to when someone is "misgendered". I'm STILL waiting for why I should be compelled to participate in someone else's delusion. Let me guess, courtesy right? That's another way of saying manners. From now you you need to address me as Lord and Master. That's the term I use to identify myself.

 

[Ignatius A]

He didn't say that. That was an image the person who made the video added.

Ok it's still accurate no matter who said it.

 

[McBell]

He didn't say that. That was an image the person who made the video added.

It appears it was Charlton Heston who said it first.

“Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners.” — georgecarlin.net