Gay/Transgender

[mican333]

I'm confused by this challenge. They are arguing that their thoughts are what dictate their true gender, as opposed to expressed biology.

I disagree. I've never heard a transgendered person argue that nor am I aware of this being their position. So again, support or retract your assertion.

What about "sense of self" is immune to change over time? Seems that there is nothing that tethers that to some objective truth, even if people tend to not change(which I don't think is the case) I mean, it seems there are certain senses of our selves that naturally change over time. The sense of self as a child vs adult. (which isn't connected to any specific age... and varies from person to person). The sense of self as dependent or independent. Free or in bondage (think of personal tragedies). Also, this is specifically referring to a "thought" this "sense" is firmly in the realm of thought. So my use is not incorrect or out of context. While you may not personally see it, the idea that people can change their own thoughts seems to be pretty central to all sorts of typical human experiences.

The definition your provided said "sense of self" and did not say "thought". I am not obliged to agree with your strange interpretation that "sense of self" and "thought" are the same thing nor do I.

Let me put it this way. My "sense of self" is that of a male. I can have any thought I want. I can imagine that I am a girl and therefore at the moment I can have the thought that I am a girl. This is no way alters my sense of self regarding my male gender nor is it possible for me to change my male sense of self via having thoughts. From ALL EVIDENCE, my gender identify as male is immutable and is certainly not alterable by choice.

"Thoughts" and "sense of self" have some common ground as in they are both related to the brain but they are not the same thing and therefore any argument that is based on the premise that they are essentially the same is based on a false premise and fails for that reason.

I'm confused by the relevance of this post. It doesn't seem to contradict anything I said. I was not making an argument on semantics.
What you quote does not contradict that point.

You said:

"That is the problem with semantic arguments, they destroy meaning, and seek to win arguments by destroying language used to describe the opposing position."

I did not make that up. I directly copied it from one of your posts and I rebutted it. If you don't think this point is particularly relevant to any argument that is currently going on, then the correct action is to drop this particular point and not discuss this any further.

But if you say that you didn't make the argument, I will have to challenge that.

So let's drop this point, alright?

Semantic inconsistency. the term "boy/male" and "girl/femaile" as well as "she/he" is undefined as you have used it. Making it meaningless statements.
Hence the problem with the semantic argument. Sure, you have accurately translated my use, but you have not given any recognizable meaning to the new use of the words.
So your argument is gibberish.

That's a weird complaint considering that my argument forwarded that we use the very definitions of gender that you yourself forwarded. So I'm just going to ignore this complaint as it seems pretty nonsensical and move on to your argument.

Here is what you would have to say to be consistent.
Boy = XY
Girl = XX

And that's exactly what I forwarded in my last post.

A transgender person believes that their sense of self XY does not correspond with their birth sex of XX.

.. and that is a denial of the reality.

No it's not.

If the belief that one's sense of self XY does not correspond with their birth sex of XX is a denial of reality then obviously the opposite is true and sense of self XY DOES CORRESPOND with their birth sex of XX.

But obviously if one is transgendered then they fit the definition you provided. Which is:

"denoting or relating to a person whose sense of personal identity and gender does not correspond with their birth sex."

So they feel that they don't correspond and in fact, they don't correspond. Their belief regarding corresponding completely aligns with the reality that they don't correspond.

If they thought they corresponded despite the fact that they don't, THEN they would be denying reality.

In order for the sense of self to deny the birth designation they must assert that there is a mistake or inconsistency where there is non in reality (this is the "does not correspond" part of the definition)

Then I see no reason to substitute "does not correspond" with "mistake" or "inconsistency". So they assert that their gender identity does not correspond to their physical gender and they are completely correct. By adhering to the very definition of transgenderism that you forwarded, they are people who's gender identity does not correspond. The notion that they must call this a "mistake" or an "inconsistency" is not valid.

If you want to call it that, that's up to you. But no one is obliged to agree with you.

If you wish to say that this "sense of self" is not a denial of reality, you will need to define it in a way that is coherent and not contradictory.

Shifting the burden. You are the one who is arguing that they are denying reality so I will concern myself with explaining how they are not denying reality once you succeed in showing that they are.

They deny that the fact that they are in total a male or female.

So this is the "objective fact" that you are forwarding. To that I say:

Support or retract that it's an objective fact that they in total a male or female. And until you do support that this is an objective fact, the notion that they are denying an objective fact is not supported.

Their biology is not wrong the XY or XX is what defines them, not their "sense" of something that doesn't correspond to reality (IE birth gender). Their thoughts (Ie sense of self) are simply incorrect, and incoherent.

Support or retract that this is an objective fact.

To my mind, what defines a person as male of female is subjective. I actually have a transgendered friend who was born a female and has transitioned to male. Whether I define this person as a male or female is MY CHOICE and therefore is a subjective issue. I am not objectively wrong or right to define him as a male and I am denying absolutely no objective facts about by friend.

I acknowledge his XX chromosomes but choose to define him as a male. This is a subjective choice on my part and likewise a decision to define my friend as female (which is what I assume you would do) would likewise be subjective.

So your argument that a person's gender is to be defined solely by chromosomes is apparently a subjective position and therefore not a basis for an argument about how transgendered people are objectively wrong about anything.

If you want to argue that I am objectively wrong in defining my friend who has XX chromosomes as a male, you will need to support it. I will concede that I am subjectively wrong (since I acknowledge your subjective opinion that I am wrong) so there's no need for you to argue that I am wrong in any subjective sense.

The trans gender female, thinks that their XX is incorrect(IE doesn't correspond), and that their thoughts are in fact belonging to an xy. Even if they do not have a problem living in that inconsistency(body dismorphia), they still claim an inconsistency exists, where non does.

Again, the very definition of transgenderism says that ones gender identity does not not correspond to their physical gender so by the very definition of transgenderism this "inconsistency" exists. The only way that this "inconsistency" does not exist is if transgendered people do not exist.

Questions about the position you are defending.

1) What does it mean to have a sense of self being a man(XY), if they are in fact a woman (XX) by birth. Please give that sentence some meaning even if you have to redefine terms. Just be clear.

2) How would a XY know what an XX feels like to begin with so as to accurately distinguished between the two and assert correctly that their sense does not correspond with their actual body?

In other words, if a turtle thinks it is really a lion, how would it even know what it is like to be a lion or what the thoughts of a lion are? How can it know that it is not simply feeling what a turtle feels when it thinks it is a lion?

As I've said before, questions are not arguments. I have no problem answering questions about arguments that I have forwarded in order to clear up something that I did not explain clearly enough.

But what you are forwarding is an argument against transgenderism made by a series of questions and this assumes that if I can't find an adequate answer to your questions, then you have a made valid point against transgenderism. In short, I think you are making your own argument and forwarding it with questions instead of statements. So if you want to make an argument regarding this issue, go ahead and I will likely address it. But questions are not arguments so I have response to these questions. They certainly are not in regards to any arguments that I have made.

I mean, men everywhere have been trying to understand the thoughts of a woman. to suggest that transgender have not only solved that riddle, but actually have achieved a state of substituting female thoughts for male ones.. is quite a claim. I would say an EXTRAORDINARY claim, that requires some extraordinary evidence.

But then I've never made such a claim so I have no burden to support this claim. To challenge this claim is to challenge a straw-man argument.

[Belthazor]

I didn't realize you had other links of this guy criticizing the DSM.

Good

---------- Post added at 06:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:50 PM ----------

So, after reading his 10 things to avoid, I do not see him disagree with anything regarding tg or sexual identity.

Where did I say anything to the contrary?

Are you sure you are reading my posts? I know you say yes, but your responses to other people are usually MUCH more substantive than the ones you at making to me in this thread.....

---------- Post added at 06:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:53 PM ----------

He obviously has problems with the DSM-V. He says it is flawed. However, none of it is relevant in the debate in this thread.

So DSM is "flawed" (according to him), but if that is so, it matters not???
(unless he specifically states a particular disorder?....?????)

---------- Post added at 07:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:56 PM ----------

His opposition to the definition of grief was exactly as I presented it.

No, it most definitely is not.
He did NOT specify "two weeks" as any criteria for when grief can be considered "pathological", other than two say it can not be diagnosed as (to paraphrase) "pathological in as little as two weeks after the event". He did not get into the criteria for when it could be diagnosed as pathological, just when it "could not"!
(emphasis mine!)

[MindTrap028]

I disagree. I've never heard a transgendered person argue that nor am I aware of this being their position. So again, support or retract your assertion.

I did, when I linked to the definition. On the flip side I haven't heard anyone argue your position before, so what weight as a rebuttal is that?

The definition your provided said "sense of self" and did not say "thought".

This is again a meaningless semantic argument on your part. Yes it is not the same word, good catch. It is however the same meaning. "sense of self' is in the mind, to repeat myself from the last post, I have used the meaning of "thoughts" accurately in relation to this topic. Your denial of it, is not a valid rebuttal.

I am not obliged to agree with your strange interpretation that "sense of self" and "thought" are the same thing nor do I.

Let me put it this way. My "sense of self" is that of a male. I can have any thought I want. I can imagine that I am a girl and therefore at the moment I can have the thought that I am a girl. This is no way alters my sense of self regarding my male gender nor is it possible for me to change my male sense of self via having thoughts. From ALL EVIDENCE, my gender identify as male is immutable and is certainly not alterable by choice.

"Thoughts" and "sense of self" have some common ground as in they are both related to the brain but they are not the same thing and therefore any argument that is based on the premise that they are essentially the same is based on a false premise and fails for that reason.

This is not a meaningful distinction nor does it put "sense of self" in some other category than that of thoughts and states of mind.

You said:

"That is the problem with semantic arguments, they destroy meaning, and seek to win arguments by destroying language used to describe the opposing position."

I did not make that up. I directly copied it from one of your posts and I rebutted it. If you don't think this point is particularly relevant to any argument that is currently going on, then the correct action is to drop this particular point and not discuss this any further.

But if you say that you didn't make the argument, I will have to challenge that.

So let's drop this point, alright?

no mican you misunderstand. I was not denying that I made the argument you quoted.
I deny that my argument is semantically. I am not arguing that we must use a specific word, or that a word must be used in any particular way. My argument rests on ideas, and your argument destroys meaning as it is semantic in nature and ignores the meanings and ideas those words represent.

That's a weird complaint considering that my argument forwarded that we use the very definitions of gender that you yourself forwarded. So I'm just going to ignore this complaint as it seems pretty nonsensical and move on to your argument.

no, you used she without defining it, and you did not use it as I did.
This is a very relevant distinction and is important if your argument is to change the meaning of words.

No it's not.

If the belief that one's sense of self XY does not correspond with their birth sex of XX is a denial of reality then obviously the opposite is true and sense of self XY DOES CORRESPOND with their birth sex of XX.

But obviously if one is transgendered then they fit the definition you provided. Which is:

"denoting or relating to a person whose sense of personal identity and gender does not correspond with their birth sex."

So they feel that they don't correspond and in fact, they don't correspond. Their belief regarding corresponding completely aligns with the reality that they don't correspond.

If they thought they corresponded despite the fact that they don't, THEN they would be denying reality.

This is actually the only substance you have offered.
It also represents a misunderstanding on what I am saying is a denial of reality.
The very idea of saying your sense of self doesn't correspond to birth, is to say that your sense of self does not line up with reality.
Your sense is denying a reality. As long as boy is defined as XY, to identify or have the sense of XX, is a denial of the reality.
It is an incoherent statement for one, hence my question to you to explain what it means.. because it makes no sense.
"I the turtle don't have the sense of being a turtle". It's just contradictory language pushed together, and opens you up to the questions I posed, which you refuse to answer.

So this is the "objective fact" that you are forwarding. To that I say:

Support or retract that it's an objective fact that they in total a male or female. And until you do support that this is an objective fact, the notion that they are denying an objective fact is not supported.

No mican you denying my arguments or ignoring them does not equate to me not having offered support. In this case in the form of argumentation.
Your acceptance =/= offering of support.
Clearly you are intent to rely on challenges in the place of argumentation, or even a conversation where you answer simple questions in order to help the other side understand your position.

Support or retract that this is an objective fact.

To my mind, what defines a person as male of female is subjective. I actually have a transgendered friend who was born a female and has transitioned to male. Whether I define this person as a male or female is MY CHOICE and therefore is a subjective issue. I am not objectively wrong or right to define him as a male and I am denying absolutely no objective facts about by friend.

I acknowledge his XX chromosomes but choose to define him as a male. This is a subjective choice on my part and likewise a decision to define my friend as female (which is what I assume you would do) would likewise be subjective.

So your argument that a person's gender is to be defined solely by chromosomes is apparently a subjective position and therefore not a basis for an argument about how transgendered people are objectively wrong about anything.

If you want to argue that I am objectively wrong in defining my friend who has XX chromosomes as a male, you will need to support it. I will concede that I am subjectively wrong (since I acknowledge your subjective opinion that I am wrong) so there's no need for you to argue that I am wrong in any subjective sense.

Your not making any sense.
What does it mean to be a male that does not have XY chromosomes? What are you defining "male" as?
I asked you this already, and you did not explain yourself or clarify your position. Your ability to speak jibberish does not make for an actual argument or counter argument.
As long as your intent on using language in an undefined and unclear way, I am forced to think you have not rebutted my arguments.

Again, the very definition of transgenderism says that ones gender identity does not not correspond to their physical gender so by the very definition of transgenderism this "inconsistency" exists. The only way that this "inconsistency" does not exist is if transgendered people do not exist.

yes, which is another way of saying that their thoughts do not line up with reality.

As I've said before, questions are not arguments. I have no problem answering questions about arguments that I have forwarded in order to clear up something that I did not explain clearly enough.

But what you are forwarding is an argument against transgenderism made by a series of questions and this assumes that if I can't find an adequate answer to your questions, then you have a made valid point against transgenderism. In short, I think you are making your own argument and forwarding it with questions instead of statements. So if you want to make an argument regarding this issue, go ahead and I will likely address it. But questions are not arguments so I have response to these questions. They certainly are not in regards to any arguments that I have made.

This just shows that you don't understand what your even saying. When you use the word "transgender" you are appealing to the concepts I asked you to clarify.
If you are retracting your use of the transgender word, then you can escape the validity of my question.
Questions are a form of argumentation. So.. your statement is false, though I recognize that you refuse to answer questions because you are intent on engaging in a semantic argument designed to destroy meaning and thus to refuse communication.
So if you don't want to communicate, then I guess we are done.
If you do wish to engage in the debate, please explain your position by answering the direct questions above.

Thanks for playing, but I think you would rather just lean on the challenge button, while speaking jibberish as responses.

But then I've never made such a claim so I have no burden to support this claim. To challenge this claim is to challenge a straw-man argument

Then you don't understand the words you have been saying or what they mean... no surprise.

[Belthazor]

I think you are conflating his critique of some aspects of the DSM and a belief that the whole manual is to be disregarded. This is false.

Well, "what you think", is again, incorrect in this case.

I showed DSM to be flawed. Who knows which parts, or all, are flawed without taking them one at a time? I have never claimed it should not be used at all, nor that the Dr. had said such a thing.

Again, your posts to me in this thread are not responding to my concerns at all, I don't get it????

[mican333]

Please note that there are currently no challenges in this post. Any existing challenges have been withdrawn. In one instance, the challenge has been replaced with a question, which I assume is more acceptable to you.

I did, when I linked to the definition. On the flip side I haven't heard anyone argue your position before, so what weight as a rebuttal is that?

First off, the original burden is yours so I have no need to offer a rebuttal before you've supported your argument.. And there is no mention of the word "thoughts" in the definition that you provided nor is there a synonym of "thought" in the dictionary. So you have provided no definition that supports your argument.

This is again a meaningless semantic argument on your part. Yes it is not the same word, good catch. It is however the same meaning. "sense of self' is in the mind, to repeat myself from the last post, I have used the meaning of "thoughts" accurately in relation to this topic

If the definition of "thought" is "whatever is in the mind" I would agree. But then there is PLENTY that is in the mind that are not thoughts.

Here is the definition of "thought".

"an individual act or product of thinking"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/thought

And clearly one's sense of self is based on much more than whatever thoughts they have. My gender identify is certainly part of my sense of self and my male gender identity is not based primarily on me having the thought that I should be male.

So I have supported that "thought" and "sense of self" do not mean the same thing.

no mican you misunderstand. I was not denying that I made the argument you quoted.
I deny that my argument is semantically. I am not arguing that we must use a specific word, or that a word must be used in any particular way. My argument rests on ideas, and your argument destroys meaning as it is semantic in nature and ignores the meanings and ideas those words represent.

But I have to address the argument you actually make - the one that you write into your post which means that I have to address the very words that you use. When write something that is wrong because you are misusing a word, then I have to point out that your use of the word is wrong. Quite simply, your argument is incorrect because you have semantically misused the word "thought" so if anyone is destroying meaning of words, it's you. And me pointing out that you are semantically incorrect is the appropriate response to that.

Really, am I suppose to adopt your incorrect definition of "thought" and concede the point? Of course not. My rebuttal is to point out that your use is semantically incorrect and therefore your argument is wrong because of that.

It also represents a misunderstanding on what I am saying is a denial of reality.
The very idea of saying your sense of self doesn't correspond to birth, is to say that your sense of self does not line up with reality.

What aspect of reality does it not line up with?

Your sense is denying a reality. As long as boy is defined as XY, to identify or have the sense of XX, is a denial of the reality.

What aspect of reality are you referring to?

It is an incoherent statement for one, hence my question to you to explain what it means.. because it makes no sense.
"I the turtle don't have the sense of being a turtle". It's just contradictory language pushed together, and opens you up to the questions I posed, which you refuse to answer.

But "I am physically a male but feel like I'm a female" is coherent. In regards to my gender, I can say two relevant things about myself.

1. I am physically a man
2. I feel like I am a man.

So I know what it is like to have a man's body and likewise feel like a man. And while I don't know what it feels like to be a woman, I imagine that most women do know what it's like. So if I felt like the typical woman I would feel like a woman and if I had my current body, I would still know what it's like to have a man's body. So this makes sense to me.

Your ability to play around with the concept using different words to create an incoherent sentence regarding transgenderism doesn't change that. Your inability to understand transgenderism doesn't change that.

And since species and gender are different and I can explain how one can sense they are gender while have the body of another gender coherently, I see no need to answer questions regarding your analogy.

No mican you denying my arguments or ignoring them does not equate to me not having offered support. In this case in the form of argumentation.

A challenge to an argument is neither denying the argument or ignoring it.

Your acceptance =/= offering of support.

I wasn't offering support. I was challenging you to provide support. I guess you don't like those challenges but it's perfectly reasonable to challenge an unsupported argument. But as you will see below, I withdraw my challenge.

Clearly you are intent to rely on challenges in the place of argumentation, or even a conversation where you answer simple questions in order to help the other side understand your position.

If you think you need those questions answered to understand my position, then you don't understand my position well enough to ask the right questions for clarification. I made no argument that relies on you understanding the answer to those questions to understand what I'm arguing. But regardless, as you can see below I did answer the questions despite that.

And interestingly, really the point of my challenge is to get you to better define your argument - as in I expect that if you did address my challenge, it will be necessary for you to explain your argument better. But it seems pretty obvious that you would much prefer that I ask you for clarification in the form of a question instead of offering a challenge and therefore I withdraw my challenge and instead ask a question.

In regards to your claim that transgendered people "deny that the fact that they are in total a male or female" what do you mean by "in total a male or female"? What does being "in total a male" mean?

In this instance, I really do need to know what you mean by "in total a male" before I can understand your argument well enough to consider accepting it.

Your not making any sense.
What does it mean to be a male that does not have XY chromosomes? What are you defining "male" as?

That question is irrelevant to my point. My point is however I choose to define male, it is MY CHOICE and therefore my definition, no matter what it is, will be subjective. So how exactly I would do it has no bearing on whether my choice is subjective.

So do agree that my choice would be subjective? Yes or no? If not, why not?

And assuming you agree that my choice would be subjective, then it stands to reason that whatever criteria you CHOOSE to define male and female would also be subjective. Do you agree? If not, why not?

yes, which is another way of saying that their thoughts do not line up with reality.

No, it doesn't. If a person thinks that they are transgendered and actually are transgendered, then their thoughts line up with reality.


The rest of your comments seem to boil down to complaining about me and even personal attacks. They will not be responded to for that reason.

And I said I will respond to your questions and I will. And I will say in advance that one the reasons that I'm often hesitant to answer questions is that sometimes my opponent will start challenging my answers with more questions and indicate that my argument fails if I don't answer the follow-up questions and the follow-ups to those questions and so on. in that scenario, the questions essentially shift the burden of the debate and now I have to defend some position that wasn't even one that I introduced into the debate. And while I don't see any of my answers as really clarifying something you need to understand in order to understand my position, they are easy enough to answer so I will. On the other hand, if this is a stepping-off point for you to attack whatever answer I give and take the debate there with me on the defensive based on my answers, then you are indeed using questions to shift the burden and my earlier refusal to respond is quite justified (and will be reinstated for that reason). But I'll assume this is just for clarification and once I answer the questions you will have the better understanding that you seek. So here's my answers.

1) What does it mean to have a sense of self being a man(XY), if they are in fact a woman (XX) by birth.

As I said earlier, I can understand what it's like to have a male body and a male gender identity and I also can tell them apart. So if I were to have a female body, I would imagine that how I feel about myself would be pretty much like it is now but my body would have the obvious physical differences that would make it female.

So I think that pretty describes what it would mean to have a male gender identity and a female body.

How would a XY know what an XX feels like to begin with so as to accurately distinguished between the two and assert correctly that their sense does not correspond with their actual body?

I imagine that one can observe other males and females and understand that mentally they are like the males.

In other words, if a turtle thinks it is really a lion, how would it even know what it is like to be a lion or what the thoughts of a lion are? How can it know that it is not simply feeling what a turtle feels when it thinks it is a lion?

Assuming that the animals were intelligent enough to consciously recognize such differences, they would observe the other species and realize that they identify as that species more than their own.

Now I should say that I don't see the necessity of answering these questions to supporting any argument I forwarded. I just seemed to be filling in details that are not necessary for my argument but instead of refusing to answer questions on the basis, I decided to answer to move things along.

[MindTrap028]

First off, the original burden is yours so I have no need to offer a rebuttal before you've supported your argument.. And there is no mention of the word "thoughts" in the definition that you provided nor is there a synonym of "thought" in the dictionary. So you have provided no definition that supports your argument.

The "sense of self" exist in the mind, and that is as a thought. it's pretty strait forward.

If the definition of "thought" is "whatever is in the mind" I would agree. But then there is PLENTY that is in the mind that are not thoughts.

Here is the definition of "thought".

"an individual act or product of thinking"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/thought

And clearly one's sense of self is based on much more than whatever thoughts they have. My gender identify is certainly part of my sense of self and my male gender identity is not based primarily on me having the thought that I should be male.

So I have supported that "thought" and "sense of self" do not mean the same thing.

What do you mean "clearly", nothing you have pointed to is anything other than thoughts of one kind or another.
Or, are you saying that it's like a subconcioius thing, and thus doesn't count as thoughts?

You seem to agree that "in the mind" is not a problem, but the word "thoughts" are. I'm using "thoughts" to indicate what is in the mind.
So, I'm not seeing the validity of your distinction.

But I have to address the argument you actually make - the one that you write into your post which means that I have to address the very words that you use. When write something that is wrong because you are misusing a word, then I have to point out that your use of the word is wrong. Quite simply, your argument is incorrect because you have semantically misused the word "thought" so if anyone is destroying meaning of words, it's you. And me pointing out that you are semantically incorrect is the appropriate response to that.

Really, am I suppose to adopt your incorrect definition of "thought" and concede the point? Of course not. My rebuttal is to point out that your use is semantically incorrect and therefore your argument is wrong because of that.

This is not relevant to the where this particular line of exchange started.
Your original fallacious accusation(see post 236) that I was engaging in a semantical argument was based on your false assertion that I was using gender related words in a semantic way.

That is false, and what you have responded here is not connected to that line in anyway that I can see. You have moved instead to some semantic argument of "thought", which again.. I'm not married to the words
I'm trying to communicate the idea.
As you seem to understand "in the mind" and find that acceptable over "thought" I can use that word just fine. My point is not weakened by it.

What aspect of reality does it not line up with?

Birth

What aspect of reality are you referring to?

Birth
Assuming birth is a reality..

But "I am physically a male but feel like I'm a female" is coherent. In regards to my gender, I can say two relevant things about myself.

How so?
How can a XY feel like an XX? How would it even know what an XX feels like?
The objective fact would be, no you are an XY that thinks it feels like an XX when you are just an XY, feeling like an XY who thinks it feels like an XX.

So I know what it is like to have a man's body and likewise feel like a man.

Yes.. and why is that? It is because it is self defining. IE because you are a man, anything you feel like is going to be what a man feels like.
You may be a happy man, a confident man, or a sad man and a depressed man. But that is all by definition what a man thinks.

And while I don't know what it feels like to be a woman, I imagine that most women do know what it's like.

Yes, and why is that.. but for the same reason above. The too are self defined.

So if I felt like the typical woman I would feel like a woman and if I had my current body, I would still know what it's like to have a man's body. So this makes sense to me.

Define what it feels like to be a typical woman.

[QUOTE-MICAN] Your ability to play around with the concept using different words to create an incoherent sentence regarding transgenderism doesn't change that. Your inability to understand transgenderism doesn't change that.

And since species and gender are different and I can explain how one can sense they are gender while have the body of another gender coherently, I see no need to answer questions regarding your analogy. [/QUOTE]
Well, it isn't the words but the meaning that creats the incoherency. It is the transgender position that is conflating meaning to engage in a semantic argument designed to destroy meaning.

In regards to your claim that transgendered people "deny that the fact that they are in total a male or female" what do you mean by "in total a male or female"? What does being "in total a male" mean?

In this instance, I really do need to know what you mean by "in total a male" before I can understand your argument well enough to consider accepting it.

See above. It's about what you are. If your born a man, then .. your man by definition. Brains states are then brain states of a man.

That question is irrelevant to my point. My point is however I choose to define male, it is MY CHOICE and therefore my definition, no matter what it is, will be subjective. So how exactly I would do it has no bearing on whether my choice is subjective.

So do agree that my choice would be subjective? Yes or no? If not, why not?

And assuming you agree that my choice would be subjective, then it stands to reason that whatever criteria you CHOOSE to define male and female would also be subjective. Do you agree? If not, why not?

So.. your not trying to use a common language?
your being inconsistent.

Below quoted, you argued that you were appealing to some objecitve standard, which I should adhere to, but now you are arguing that you don't intend to use words according to that standard, but according to your own "subjective" standard.
Which means you are contradicting the standard you were holding me to.

There is no discussion to be had if you are going to continue down that track.

If the definition of "thought" is "whatever is in the mind" I would agree. But then there is PLENTY that is in the mind that are not thoughts.

Here is the definition of "thought".

"an individual act or product of thinking"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/thought

And clearly one's sense of self is based on much more than whatever thoughts they have. My gender identify is certainly part of my sense of self and my male gender identity is not based primarily on me having the thought that I should be male.

So I have supported that "thought" and "sense of self" do not mean the same thing.

No, it doesn't. If a person thinks that they are transgendered and actually are transgendered, then their thoughts line up with reality.

That sentence doesn't actually add any meaning to the debate.
It is a truism, and one which doesn't refer to what I am referring to.
Basically, take that idea, and draw a circle around it.. now, i'm comparing that circle, to the outside world of reality.

As I said earlier, I can understand what it's like to have a male body and a male gender identity and I also can tell them apart. So if I were to have a female body, I would imagine that how I feel about myself would be pretty much like it is now but my body would have the obvious physical differences that would make it female.

So I think that pretty describes what it would mean to have a male gender identity and a female body.

First, thanks for answring questions.. because .. well, they are relevant to the debate and your hidden assumptions, and why ou dismiss without addressing some of the things I have said.
So in this instance, you imagine something, that My assertion is, is not possible. Because you are a man, your thoughts are going to be that of a man by definition.
So, when you dismiss that and deny that I am pointing to some objecitve reality (namely actaually being a man) then your simply assuming your position is true without addressing mine.

I imagine that one can observe other males and females and understand that mentally they are like the males.

Again, thanks for answering the question.
Note that my argument is that this is not how reality works. To the extent that you assume this to be true and ask me "what reality" is how you are missing the evidence I am offering.

Assuming that the animals were intelligent enough to consciously recognize such differences, they would observe the other species and realize that they identify as that species more than their own.

Right that is consistent with what you said before. To clarify, the "reality" that I keep pointing to, is that no matter what the turtle thinks, it is inherently turtle thoughts.
So no matter what the brain state of the turtle is, no matter how much it identifies with a lion, or thinks it's thoughts are like a lion. They are by definition of the objective reality of being born a turtle.. turtle thoughts and turtle brain states.


Notice, i'm not challenging what you are saying, i'm trying to explain my position to you in a way that you can understand so that you don't repeat questions that I have answered because you are opperating so completly from a different position that you are unable to see how my answer relates to your question.


So, your question/challenge, as to what reality the transgender is denying or in contradiction of.. should be clearly stated for you now. To the extent that the transgender claims to have the thoughts of a woman when they are born a man, they are objectivly incorrect and claiming a definitionally incoherent thing.
Changing the meaning of the words won't actually change that reality, and the opposition is certainly no under any obligation to accept those changes.

[mican333]

What do you mean "clearly", nothing you have pointed to is anything other than thoughts of one kind or another.
Or, are you saying that it's like a subconcioius thing, and thus doesn't count as thoughts?

I'd say it's even more basic than that but generally, yes. And I have supported that by providing the definition of "thought".

Again,

"an individual act or product of thinking"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/thought

To be even more clear, a thought arrives from the act of thinking. So yes, if it's subconscious or something that one doesn't activity generate by an act, then it's not a thought.

You seem to agree that "in the mind" is not a problem, but the word "thoughts" are. I'm using "thoughts" to indicate what is in the mind.
So, I'm not seeing the validity of your distinction.

The distinction is that "thought" does not mean "in the mind" and therefore you are using the word incorrectly. Since I am using the word "thought" correctly and will continue to do so, your misuse of the word forwards a false statement. Even if you are intentionally using the word incorrectly, it does not change the fact that your argument, as written, is incorrect and rejected on that basis.

So if you want to communicate "in the mind" then just say "in the mind".

Birth

That is so vague that it is incoherent. I would say that they all recognize that people are born so they do recognize the reality of birth. And I would imagine that that is not what you mean when you answered "birth". And of course your answer is so vague that I don't know what you mean and therefore it is incoherent and a non-answer.

So you have not clearly identified any reality that they are denying.

How so?
How can a XY feel like an XX? How would it even know what an XX feels like?

I've answered that question already. And the definition of transgender indicates that that is exactly what they are. They have the "sense of self" of one gender and the physical body of the other gender. The fact that such people exist is supported. So your personal confusion on the issue and the need to ask such questions does not counter the ample support that such people exist and the concept is coherent to most people.

At this point your objection amounts to basically "Nuh-uh" and "I don't understand how that's possible so I'm asking you to explain it to me".

Yes.. and why is that? It is because it is self defining. IE because you are a man, anything you feel like is going to be what a man feels like.

Please support that that is what it means to feel like a man.

Well, it isn't the words but the meaning that creats the incoherency. It is the transgender position that is conflating meaning to engage in a semantic argument designed to destroy meaning.

Since, as I've said, semantic arguments don't destroy meaning, this argument is incorrect.

See above. It's about what you are. If your born a man, then .. your man by definition.

Look, I'm compromising when I withdrew the challenge and instead asked an a question. But you have to meet me half-way and actually present a clear answer to the question that I asked in lieu of a challenge. So please answer the question directly and give a concise, coherent, clear answer or I'm going back to challenging your argument with a challenge.

In regards to your claim that transgendered people "deny that the fact that they are in total a male or female" what do you mean by "in total a male or female"? What does being "in total a male" mean?

So.. your not trying to use a common language?
your being inconsistent.

Below quoted, you argued that you were appealing to some objecitve standard, which I should adhere to, but now you are arguing that you don't intend to use words according to that standard, but according to your own "subjective" standard.
Which means you are contradicting the standard you were holding me to.

Well, I'm asking you to present an objective fact that you believe that transgendered people are denying but I didn't hold you to any objective standard that I'm aware of.

And it looks like you are blowing off my argument with this odd complaint. So I'm going to repeat my argument.

My point is however I choose to define male, it is MY CHOICE and therefore my definition, no matter what it is, will be subjective. So how exactly I would do it has no bearing on whether my choice is subjective.

So do agree that my choice would be subjective? Yes or no? If not, why not?

And assuming you agree that my choice would be subjective, then it stands to reason that whatever criteria you CHOOSE to define male and female would also be subjective. Do you agree? If not, why not?

That sentence doesn't actually add any meaning to the debate.
It is a truism, and one which doesn't refer to what I am referring to.
Basically, take that idea, and draw a circle around it.. now, i'm comparing that circle, to the outside world of reality.

You have yet to show any specific aspect of reality that transgenderism does not align with.

Please state one objective fact that transgendered people routinely deny. And please be specific. Just saying "Birth" is not a fact. If you want to talk about a fact regarding birth, then state that fact.

First, thanks for answring questions.. because .. well, they are relevant to the debate and your hidden assumptions, and why ou dismiss without addressing some of the things I have said.
So in this instance, you imagine something, that My assertion is, is not possible. Because you are a man, your thoughts are going to be that of a man by definition.
So, when you dismiss that and deny that I am pointing to some objecitve reality (namely actaually being a man) then your simply assuming your position is true without addressing mine.

I don't assume you are pointing to some objective reality. I have yet to hear you provide a clear, coherent aspect of objective reality that transgendered people allegedly routinely deny.

Again, thanks for answering the question.
Note that my argument is that this is not how reality works. To the extent that you assume this to be true and ask me "what reality" is how you are missing the evidence I am offering.

Then you will need to support that reality works as you say it does. I don't agree that whatever a man thinks is what a male think. I'm a man and I don't like olives. So while you can say that a particular man doesn't like olives, this male's thought says nothing about what defines a male gender identity.

So your position, IMO, sounds ridiculous. So you will need to either support it or explain it better.

Right that is consistent with what you said before. To clarify, the "reality" that I keep pointing to, is that no matter what the turtle thinks, it is inherently turtle thoughts.
So no matter what the brain state of the turtle is, no matter how much it identifies with a lion, or thinks it's thoughts are like a lion. They are by definition of the objective reality of being born a turtle.. turtle thoughts and turtle brain states.

And since species and gender are not the same thing, this analogy doesn't necessarily apply to gender.

Notice, i'm not challenging what you are saying, i'm trying to explain my position to you in a way that you can understand so that you don't repeat questions that I have answered because you are opperating so completly from a different position that you are unable to see how my answer relates to your question.

I think a very, very good way for you to explain your position is to offer a definition of what makes one a "man". Use whatever definition you want but please spell out what YOU think it means to be a man.

I mean is it having XY chromosome and being born with a penis? Is that nothing more and nothing less than what qualifies one as a man in your view? If so, we'll use that. If not, then give me your definition. But we really can't move forward until there it is known what how you define "male".

So, your question/challenge, as to what reality the transgender is denying or in contradiction of.. should be clearly stated for you now. To the extent that the transgender claims to have the thoughts of a woman when they are born a man, they are objectivly incorrect and claiming a definitionally incoherent thing.
Changing the meaning of the words won't actually change that reality, and the opposition is certainly no under any obligation to accept those changes.

Again. Until you define what a "man" is, your argument is not clear enough to be considered valid.