re: God dictates gender, which does not exist on a spectrum and cannot be changed

quote:

---

gender is not defined by culture. it is defined by your biological sex.

---

No, it isn't. I have a boat, she's a beauty. You think my boat has a sex? She does not. You don't think that's culturally dependent gender assignment to a boat?

You can have gender without sex.

quote:

---

it's your cognitive realization of your sex.

---

You're conflating gender and sex again.

Let me reiterate:

Gender = masculine/feminine
Sex = male/female

That's it, that's all. You're buying into this new-age redefinition of what "gender" means, and I'm not buying it.
Here we go again...

I said:

quote:

---

three genders are recognized: masculine, feminine, and neuter

---

Here's your response:

quote:

---

neuter pronouns are not a sex all their own.

---

I didn't say they were a "sex", I said they were a "gender". Why are you insisting on equating sex with gender?

quote:

---

you have been given an analogy/parody of the slippery slope involved in this. i'm not sure why you are ignoring it.

---

Because it doesn't make any sense. Just try to give clear, concise definitions of gender and sex. Try not to use analogies, parodies or metaphors in your definitions.

fenêtres have been feminine for a thousand years, and yet windows have no sex. You don't think that's culturally dependent gender assignment to a window? Some cultures think windows are feminine, other cultures do not.

It's funny to watch you fall into their trap, and struggle to try to deny it.

quote:

---

I have never understood why so many people continue to insist that the concepts of sex and gender MUST be coextensive in all cases, simply because they HAVE historically been basically coextensive in OUR Western culture for many years.

---

I don't doubt people find this perplexing. Your observation is a valuable fact for analysis.

What in your opinion specifically have set the West apart placing it in the forefront of humane and liberal (in its old sense) advances in government, the sciences, industry, technology, personal liberties, and (add your favorite here)?

And why do you think after so long a time in the Sun, ascendant, the West seems to be receding into a dim, unremarkable sunset?

Is it possible that this historical Western sex/gender equivalence has a solid basis and has been a valuable positive and stabilizing factor in Western Society and Culture? That the West has, in some way, gotten this right for so many centuries?

quote:

---

I brought it up as an example of the Vatican rejecting science when it contradicts their views

---

and i explained how you were wrong about that

quote:

---

that doesn’t mean that they accept the findings that are perceived to contradict their stature

---

the galileo example fails to show that they did this

quote:

---

Surely you don’t believe that the church welcomed “free speech” in that regard

---

they gave him a hearing. individuals listened to what he had to say. the astronomy is not why he was in trouble

quote:

---

Link?

---

Really?

Did I understate? Obtuse possibly?

How about this? "The West: A suicidal, lemming-like, double jack knife off the cliff to slavery, chaos and a tyrannical socialist living hell on earth"? Uh, and courtesy of the "globalist elite cabal" in there somewhere.

But who really gives a shite and isn't just tickled shitless at the nihilism and socialist insanity foisted on us as liberating and progressive?

But if you need some food for thought...and these are calm and measured. There's more but you're on your own after these.
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK

I dont give a frick what people want to do to their body or what they identify as. I just dont want to pay it, if you want it, you pay for it. Tax payer money should not cover the surgeries.

The pope will change his stance once his SJW constituency gets upset

quote:

---

you are talking about language. the conversation is about the cognitive realization of your biological sex. not language. two totally different things

---

So you admit to totally buying into the new-age crap. Gotcha.

In language, gender works to describe masculine or feminine traits whether you're talking about people, dogs, boats, trannies, windows, or Federal Reserve policy. You're trying to overcomplicate it with your psycho-babble. I'm not falling for it.

quote:

---

contemporary attempts such as yours to redefine it.

---

You think it's some kind of modern invention to refer to a boat as "she"?

quote:

---

if you were to gain understanding of it, you would see why your redefinition of gender is wrong.

---

I have been told that many times by my uber-liberal friends.

The thing is, I'm NOT re-defining it, I'm using the definition that has always been used in language. I don't need a lesson in Psychology to know why I refer to my boat as "she".

quote:

---

no i am using the traditional definition which is also in accord with biology

---

The word "gender" predates "biology" by about 500 years. How was gender defined for those 500 years? Was everyone just waiting around for 5 centuries so a biologist could explain it to them?

Here's what Oxford says in the usage of "gender":

Although the words gender and sex are often used interchangeably, they have slightly different connotations; sex tends to refer to biological differences, while gender more often refers to cultural and social differences and sometimes encompasses a broader range of identities than the binary of male and female

quote:

---

as i have already stated, it is epigenetic proclivities. the same as a person wants to express pyromania or obesity through consumption, etc.

---

There's no objective way to determine what it feels like to be a woman. If you were isolated on an island, without knowledge of women, you wouldn't be able to say that you felt like a woman (or a man, for that matter). You would just know what it feels like to be you. It takes a social context to tell you that what you are feeling are feminine or masculine traits - unless you are having your period, then, you most certainly would know what it feels like to be a woman.

quote:

---

So you admit to totally buying into the new-age crap

---

completely wrong. until this century in the west, sex and gender were coextensive. there's nothing new age about it.

quote:

---

In language, gender works to describe masculine or feminine traits whether you're talking about people, dogs, boats, trannies, windows, or Federal Reserve policy

---

for the fifth time, we aren't talking about language. language is a totally different topic. i'm not sure why you can't understand that

quote:

---

You're trying to overcomplicate it with your psycho-babble

---

what in the world are you talking about. i am simplifying it by saying sex and gender are coextensive. if you are a male biologically, you are a male in gender. it's that simple. the redefinition that gender is fluid or culturally dependent is significantly more complicated for multiple reasons, one of which was the slippery slope analogy you were given that you didn't understand. you're making this way more difficult than it is

quote:

---

You think it's some kind of modern invention to refer to a boat as "she"?

---

i have already told you that language is not applicable to this conversation and there's no reason for you to introduce that element. my comment that you are responding to here is that your position of gender being culturally dependent, and thus fluid, is a novel, mainly western invention

quote:

---

I'm NOT re-defining it

---

yes you are. you are trying to say that gender is culturally dependent and you are strangely trying to use language as substantiation. it makes no sense.

quote:

---

I'm using the definition that has always been used in language

---

language has nothing to do with the situation. nothing at all.

quote:

---

I don't need a lesson in Psychology to know why I refer to my boat as "she".

---

we're not talking about boats. we're talking about ontology. how you identify yourself. it has nothing to do with how language refers to inanimate objects.

quote:

---

How was gender defined for those 500 years?

---

as coextensive with your biological sex

quote:

---

Here's what Oxford says in the usage of "gender"

---

that is a contemporary definition without the contextual etymology. i do not know of any instances when cross dressing or sex change attempts have been normative in historically previous cultures. sex and gender have been coextensive. gender has never been culturally derived that i am aware of in any society historically. semiotics has nothing to do with the ontology of the matter

quote:

---

There's no objective way to determine what it feels like to be a woman

---

i have not disagreed with this

quote:

---

You would just know what it feels like to be you

---

this is a very slippery assertion. your epigentic tendencies cause you to alter your behavior depending on how much you allow it to. i.e. causes you to "feel different than you are." that is why people change their behavior, sometimes without explanation. people are often surprised at someone's behavior that doesn't seem to match the character they present on a daily basis. that is because of your nature, your epigenetic makeup that exerts itself upon you. sometimes people act on it, sometimes they don't.

i have already explained this to you but apparently you don't understand it. it's not so much that a person says "i feel like a woman" as much as it is "i don't feel like a man, therefore, i must be a woman." this phenomenon is pretty well documented just as a pyromaniac might start to act upon their tendencies to ignite things. they weren't doing so before and felt the need to do something different. in the case of gender, it is not healthy to start acting like, or giving in to, the proclivity that you are a different sex/gender. that is an unhealthy coping mechanism. thus, the idea that gender is fluid or culturally derived is a placebo or artificial

quote:

---

It takes a social context to tell you that what you are feeling

---

no it does not and you are wrong on this matter. society does not need to tell someone who has an eating disorder that they need to start eating or not. that is their epigenetic tendencies expressing themselves and it is completely independent of any cultural forces. you would face the same internal pressures even if you were alone on an island because it is your nature. it is who you are. it is your identity and ontology. it has NOTHING to do with culture. now, how a person RESPONDS to those latent tendencies CAN be affected by cultural forces. i.e. an alcoholic can go to aa to get sober. or could hang around at bars and be influenced to give in to the latent epigenetic tendency to be an alcoholic. but the tendency was there from the beginning existing apart from any cultural forces.

modern western culture has trained people to think that gender is culturally derived and thus can be fluid. modern culture has bifurcated sex and gender and hank proved that in this thread when he made the stupid complaint that people were treating the two as coextensive. when the two are untethered, which is inappropriate, gender can be shaped by culture and be fluid. i hope that explains the issue to you in a way you can understand

quote:

---

We may not be talking about language, but we use language to talk

---

and you are referring to semiotics that signify inanimate objects. i'm talking about gender.

quote:

---

Why do you use quotes there?

---

because it is a psychological expression of ontology/identity. not a reference to an inanimate object in the empirical world. my gosh this concept is REALLY escaping you

quote:

---

How is this person identifying themselves?

---

through though, not boats

quote:

---

Could it possibly be that they are using language

---

thoughts do not have to be in verbal, spoken language. das ding an sich? synthetic a priori? qualia? if you are familiar with those concepts, then you know that thoughts don't necessarily equate to the language of the empirical world. viz wittgenstein

quote:

---

to figure out their identity?

---

no. the thoughts about identity are upstream of verbal, spoken language. and that is probably where you are getting confused. hence, a priori. as in rationalism vs empiricism. the categories that kant referred to are not culturally dependent and occur prior to empirical knowledge, i.e. boats and stuff. it seems you haven't covered epistemology before.

quote:

---

The earliest meanings were ‘kind, sort, genus’

---

do you know what this means in the context of the discussion?

quote:

---

It was more closely related to "genre" than sex

---

yet, it came to be related to sex. again, something NOT culturally defined. it is ontological/psychological and is coextensive with biological sex. this has been explained numerous times in different ways. i'm sorry you aren't understanding it.

quote:

---

Why should he not skip, jump, and press wild flowers?

---

again, you are referring to chosen behaviors, not a person's psychological/emotional recognition of what sex they are. once this hypothetical person were to see a different sex, they would know IMMEDIATELY they are different. cultural forces would only serve to reinforce this distinction or to erase it. but the epigenetics would have been there from the beginning regardless. again, you are referring to things downstream or the effects. not causes (epigenetics or nature). this is probably because of an epistemological deficiency. Nihil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in sensu has been disproven by rationalists such as descartes, kant, etc. you are trying to argue the opposite, that nurture supersedes nature. it is wrongheaded

quote:

---

He's male with feminine traits

---

you are proving my point for me. the a priori nature of epigenetic proclivities. they are upstream of social forces. they are inherent. they are tied to your biological sex. they are not culturally derived no matter what contemporary western socio-political thinking says.

quote:

---

he was gender neutral

---

false. you are wrong on this matter and your assertion is easily disproven. a male could absolutely exhibit culturally masculine or feminine behaviors even though there were no society to semiotically contextualize it one way or the other.

quote:

---

his behavior was not typically associated with maleness

---

again, you are referring to chosen, social, cultural behaviors that are downstream of nature/identity/ontology/epigenetics. i'm sorry you aren't understanding this

quote:

---

he wouldn't know that his behavior isn't typically associated with his sex

---

yet he could still exhibit gender behaviors one way or another because of his nature. society would merely give him a semiotic nomenclature framework for his actions

quote:

---

masculine:
adjective
1. Having qualities or appearance traditionally associated with men.

---

just as i said earlier. i am using the traditional definition. that they are coextensive and not culturally relative.

quote:

---

2. Grammar

---

notice there is a whole separate bullet point for language.

quote:

---

Traditions and conventions are cultural

---

gender is not

WT, he is wrong. He is always wrong, but he is always self-assured. He throws a couple of technical-sounding words (that he does not understand very well), and he thinks he sounds erudite.

What he ”sounds” is Asperger. I am convinced of it.

What he “is” is a tar baby. Let go, if you are able.