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

[mikkel_the_dane]

We depend on logic, our society would literally fall apart without it.

Our society would also fall apart if we all viewed the world thru the relativist lens you're using in this thread.

No, logic is working in some cases. You just have to show that it applies to the legal, which is morality in the end, as far as I can tell.
I am not claiming logic doesn't work. I am asking for evidence that you can do it with morality as for harm and bad men.
That is all.

You claim you can aviod relativism. Fair enough, but that is only a claim. You actually have to show that you can avoid it, for it to mean anything in practice. Saying it, but not showing it, won't cut it.
Stop claiming you can do it. DO IT!!!

 

[Kfox]

Yeah, but that you choose science as a standard is subjective. That is what you don't get. You don't get when you are subjective.
Your problem is that you lack the skill to do the relevant intrapsychological understanding of when you are subjective. There, I said it aloud.
Not that you are wrong or any such jazz, Or that it is a disorder, abnormal or what not. You just don't relevant for this, know when you yourself are subjective.

I never said everything I do is objective, and just for the record; there is nothing wrong with subjective. The point I am making is because I align gender with biology, I am able to differentiate man from woman because those biological distinctions are objective; not subjective. You are unable to do this because you have chosen to divorce gender from biology.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I never said everything I do is objective, and just for the record; there is nothing wrong with subjective. The point I am making is because I align gender with biology, I am able to differentiate man from woman because those biological distinctions are objective; not subjective. You are unable to do this because you have chosen to divorce gender from biology.

Yeah, we are different subjectively. So what is your point? That your subjectivity is better for you and me and I can't be subjective as me, because you decide what is best for me based on your subjectivity?

Is that you claim or it is something else?
You consider me way of doing it wrong for me, but I just point out that I accept that you are subjective as you and you can do that, but that is not objectively better or worse, Rather what is good for you is bad for me and what is bad for you is good for me.
Don't you understand that?

I got you to where you admitted it is subjective. That is the point!!! Hence it can be different for different people. That is the next step. It doesn't have to make sense to you, how I believe if it makes sense to me. And so in reverse. Do you get that?

 

[Kfox]

Yeah, we are different subjectively. So what is your point?

My point is, the distinction I use to define man vs woman is completely objective. The distinction YOU use is subjective thus meaningless.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

My point is, the distinction I use to define man vs woman is completely objective. The distinction YOU use is subjective thus meaningless.

And you choise to use science is subjective therefore meaningless.

The problem is that both case of meaningless are subjective, therefore that is meaningless is meaningless. And that is meaningless. So your point is meanigless.

Do you really want to play the game that your subjective point is better because of reason that are subjective and mine is subjectively meaningless, because of your subjective reaoning.
Is that it?

 

[Kfox]

And you choise to use science is subjective therefore meaningless.

No it's not meaningless, because I know the difference between a man and a woman; you don't!

 

[icehorse]

No, logic is working in some cases. You just have to show that it applies to the legal, which is morality in the end, as far as I can tell.
I am not claiming logic doesn't work. I am asking for evidence that you can do it with morality as for harm and bad men.
That is all.

You claim you can aviod relativism. Fair enough, but that is only a claim. You actually have to show that you can avoid it, for it to mean anything in practice. Saying it, but not showing it, won't cut it.
Stop claiming you can do it. DO IT!!!

You talking to me?

 

[McBell]

My point is, the distinction I use to define man vs woman is completely objective.

If this were actually true, there would not be men feeling like women and women feeling like men.

The distinction YOU use is subjective thus meaningless.

You keep using the word meaningless in a manner that strongly points to personal subjectivity.

 

[Kfox]

If this were actually true, there would not be men feeling like women and women feeling like men.

Rachel Dolzol wore dark Make up, and wigs to look more black because she FELT like she was black. Was she black? No! Just because you feel like something does not mean that you are that something.

You keep using the word meaningless in a manner that strongly points to personal subjectivity.

Yes! The people who divorce gender from biology perceive gender as completely subjective; making it meaningless to everybody but themselves. That's why you have some of the most brilliant people in the world who are unable to tell you what a woman is..... because there is no objective meaning behind the word for them. But for me, there is.

 

[McBell]

Rachel Dolzol wore dark Make up, and wigs to look more black because she FELT like she was black. Was she black? No! Just because you feel like something does not mean that you are that something.

WTF does that have to do with gender identity?

Yes! The people who divorce gender from biology perceive gender as completely subjective; making it meaningless to everybody but themselves. That's why you have some of the most brilliant people in the world who are unable to tell you what a woman is..... because there is no objective meaning behind the word for them.

So now for you, the meaning of gender is useless?
Sounds like a you problem to me.
Why is your personal feeling concerning the meaningfulness of the word my, or any one else's, concern?

 

[McBell]

Yes! The people who divorce gender from biology perceive gender as completely subjective; making it meaningless to everybody but themselves. That's why you have some of the most brilliant people in the world who are unable to tell you what a woman is..... because there is no objective meaning behind the word for them.

I was actually talking about your personal meanings of the word meaningless.
That the words are subjective and not objective like you want...
yeppers, definitely a you problem.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

We depend on logic, our society would literally fall apart without it.

I’m flattered.

Does this mean that I get to call myself an applied mathematician?

They never paid me nearly enough for all that I do to literally hold society together.

 

[Kfox]

WTF does that have to do with gender identity?

Because there are people who believe your gender is based your feelings. I’m saying your feelings are not always based on reality

So now for you, the meaning of gender is useless?

No; as I told the other guy, for me gender is based on your sexual biology, which is objective.

Why is your personal feeling concerning the meaningfulness of the word my, or any one else's, concern?

Who said it was anybody’s concern?

I was actually talking about your personal meanings of the word meaningless.

When people redefine a term in a way that nobody knows what that word means....... Sounds like meaningless to me!

That the words are subjective and not objective like you want...

I know you are a bit new to this conversation, but if you look back at our previous conversations, I never said that I wanted his new redefinition of the word to be objective, I was only pointing out that it was not.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You talking to me?

Yes, stop saying you can do it. Show your system for how it actually works.

 

[icehorse]

Yes, stop saying you can do it. Show your system for how it actually works.

I'm lost here, sorry. Stop saying I can do what? Use logic?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm lost here, sorry. Stop saying I can do what? Use logic?

No, you can say it all you like. But that doesn't mean that you do it, besides saying it.

 

[icehorse]

Yes, stop saying you can do it. Show your system for how it actually works.

I'm lost here, sorry. Stop saying I can do what? Use logic?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm lost here, sorry. Stop saying I can do what? Use logic?

No, you can say it all you like. But that doesn't mean that you do it, besides saying it.

Edit - the server is acting up

 

[icehorse]

No, you can say it all you like. But that doesn't mean that you do it, besides saying it.

Edit - the server is acting up

Seriously, what are you talking about? What is this post of yours referring to?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Seriously, what are you talking about? What is this post of yours referring to?

That you demand we use logic in the everyday life.

We depend on logic, our society would literally fall apart without it.

Our society would also fall apart if we all viewed the world thru the relativist lens you're using in this thread.

You can make a case for logic in one case, but from there doesn't follow that you can use logic in all cases.
So if you in effect claim you can do the legal and morality using logic, you have to show it other than claiming it is so. "We depend on logic"