Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Results 1 to 20 of 247

Thread: Gay/Transgender

Threaded View

  1. #35
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    East Lansing, MI
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by mican333; January 31st, 2018 at 06:31 PM.



Tags for this Thread


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts