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