|
Keep discussion objective and civil.
Blindly spewing uninformed non-sense will lead to moderation action. |
On December 05 2012 12:10 Shakattak wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 12:08 sam!zdat wrote:so what is the semiotic structure of "spectrum" if there are no binaries, and only spectra how does one conceptualize them? edit: @above, you are welcome  that is not a very good article at explaining but it's an important thing, this Greimas square A spectrum starts with two binary points Male --------------Female conceptualizing it would be like Male ------Hermaphrodite -------Female with transexuals im not sure where to put them since gender wise they identify as female but sexually they could be a mix of either.
ah interesting
see you if you can apply the greimas square to it
look around the web and see, I bet my left nut lots of people have talked about this question in these terms
|
On December 05 2012 12:05 Shakattak wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 12:03 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 11:46 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 11:43 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 11:36 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 11:32 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 11:29 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 11:20 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 04:55 packrat386 wrote:On December 05 2012 04:07 Hren wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but could the title of this thread be misleading? From what I understand, transgenderism will still be considered a mental disorder, the difference being it won't be grouped with other sexual disorders anymore and it's name changed (to oppose the discrimination that is occuring on a daily basis to a certain number of people). I believe that you are incorrect. Before this change there was a disorder in the APA handbook called Gender Identity Disorder (GID) which could be described as someone who identifies with a gender other than the one that they were assigned at birth. The issue with this is that it treats the persons self identified gender as the problem, and not the fact that their body doesn't match their identity. After this change, transgendered individuals would be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, i.e. your body does not match match you self-identified gender. In this case treatment would focus on helping these people live comfortably as a member of the gender they identify with, and not trying to convince them to live as the gender that they were assigned at birth. The problem with this is that in neither case do we have a clear cut reasoning to explain which one is really the problem. Without knowledge of the brain or hormones, people believed it was a mental disorder. Now that we are examining the brain, people believe the entire rest of the physical body is the one at odds, and not the brain, despite describing it as an issue within the brain that believes the gender is wrong. Its like changing the whole body of a car around an engine, instead of an engine around the car. The idea is that we discover that the brain is in fact causing an issue, but then we say it's the rest of the body that has the issue, not the brain. How do we know that for certain? On December 05 2012 11:20 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 11:01 thisisstupid1 wrote:[quote] Life is binary, in all senses. You are either alive or dead. You are either male, physically, or female. You are either asleep or awake. That isn't to say we can't allow people to choose their preference in what they want to do. A boy wants to play with dolls? Fine. He might not even be gay, just a sensitive guy, who enjoys interpersonal relationships more than dominating. Where it happens to go wrong is the point on which we assume that a sensitive guy must be gay. Have you guys even looked into the feminist agenda, the male hate complex, etc? http://scallywagandvagabond.com/2011/03/where-have-all-the-nice-guys-gone-why-you-girls-are-stuck-dating-players-and-losers/It's really unpleasant to see, but the nicest males never get what they want, and females complain even after choosing the "manlier" men, the egoistic and self centered ones who think they deserve it all without having to give any in return. This isnt new at all. This is ages old. In our post feminist society, however, the feeling of being a man is so closely tied to success with females, and to behaving in very stereotypical ways. edit: Nicol's post echos my thoughts so much more coherently than I can say it at the moment. There are tribes that the kid is born as a male or female cant remember but when they hit puberty there body undergoes natural changes that change their gender , life is anything but binary there are alot of differences and things that cause life to be not binary , its just easier to think that way . you're exhibiting binary behavior to show that life isn't binary. if their "gender" can "Change", that means it's going from one state to another. Binary is the change from 0 state to 1, in computer terms, or rather from one state to another. That argument doesn't support itself. Neither does talking about computer language , my argument is stating that sex and gender are on a spectrum and is definately not binary . Prove it's a spectrum. Your argument didn't support that at all, because you used binary language to define your argument. I did but you were not comprehending instead you used a binary argument to explain humans which makes no sense , there are people born biologically male or female and undergo changes when in puberty that causes them to change to physically male or female , how is that black and white ? They are biologically male still but look female or the other way around . You used an ad hominem . "you have a comprehension problem, I didn't explain it poorly". You just stated that they move from ONE to ANOTHER state. That is black and white. Regardless of how i am stating it which could be poorly , your the one avoiding the things im saying , it isnt black and white for them cause just cause they are physically male or female doesnt mean they biologically are thats the point. Thats like saying just because a frog is physically a frog, it isn't one biologically. if you actually HAD a logically derived argument based on your own thorough investigation as to the Factuality of what you;'re saying, you could actually explain it better than this. You continue to digress form the argument to say i suck at arguing without actually proving any of YOUR points. I gave examples and the most you could say was "nope". http://www.genderspectrum.org/about/understanding-gender
I haven't at all. You didn't give any proof. you cited an example, and declared it as proof without validating it. You did not explain WHY your example proves it. When I questioned that, you gave an ad hominem the first time. The burden of proof is on you, because you're attempting to say that what you have shown is correct. I am not a person that is swayed by arguments based on feelings.
On December 05 2012 12:06 Shakattak wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 12:05 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 12:03 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 12:01 iamahydralisk wrote:On December 05 2012 11:58 Crawdad wrote:On December 05 2012 11:53 Shakattak wrote:
Your argument also doesnt explain hermaphrodites are they strictly one or the other ? Intersex people usually identify as a specific gender, but they are born with both male and female sex characteristics, and I'm sure there are intersex people who identify as non-binary. To throw my hat into the ring... I consider myself to be intersex, at least mentally. When I was younger, I had transsexual feelings that intensified to the point that I nearly transitioned from M to F when I was 19 years old. I stopped at the last second (personal reasons), and while I feel more comfortable in my male body now than I did then, I still don't identify fully as a man or a woman. The urges to transition are still there and they come and go. Some days they're really strong and other days, not so much. I don't consider myself to be a part of the gender binary. I feel like I'm somewhere in the middle. ^^ thank you this is what im getting at , a binary system is inadequate to describe humans who are anything but. This is an argument going back to the concept of "the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts". Neurons either fire or dont fire. Memories either exist or they don't. Genes are either ON or OFF. We are built on binary designs. When we go so far as to say that "humans are too complex to be binary", we're either saying that we have inadequately explored our subject, or that we decide to believe in things that aren't true. You were socialized to believe things are binary without it actually being explained to you other then this is right just cause .
No, I wasn't. Unless you consider going through science and bio and comp and psych classes "socialized to believe in binary things".
Things only exist in two possible states for Schroedinger's cat. Try again.
|
On December 05 2012 12:05 thisisstupid1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 12:03 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 12:01 iamahydralisk wrote:On December 05 2012 11:58 Crawdad wrote:On December 05 2012 11:53 Shakattak wrote:
Your argument also doesnt explain hermaphrodites are they strictly one or the other ? Intersex people usually identify as a specific gender, but they are born with both male and female sex characteristics, and I'm sure there are intersex people who identify as non-binary. To throw my hat into the ring... I consider myself to be intersex, at least mentally. When I was younger, I had transsexual feelings that intensified to the point that I nearly transitioned from M to F when I was 19 years old. I stopped at the last second (personal reasons), and while I feel more comfortable in my male body now than I did then, I still don't identify fully as a man or a woman. The urges to transition are still there and they come and go. Some days they're really strong and other days, not so much. I don't consider myself to be a part of the gender binary. I feel like I'm somewhere in the middle. ^^ thank you this is what im getting at , a binary system is inadequate to describe humans who are anything but. This is an argument going back to the concept of "the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts". Neurons either fire or dont fire. Memories either exist or they don't. Genes are either ON or OFF. We are built on binary designs. When we go so far as to say that "humans are too complex to be binary", we're either saying that we have inadequately explored our subject, or that we decide to believe in things that aren't true.
That's complete bullshit biologically speaking. Neurons fire in degrees. The quantity of neurotransmitters involved across the synapse defines how hard or softly a neuron fires. Gene expression is also something that happens in varying degrees. Memories can be half-remembered.
You keep inventing these binary distinctions that simply don't exist in reality.
|
On December 05 2012 12:08 sam!zdat wrote:so what is the semiotic structure of "spectrum" if there are no binaries, and only spectra how does one conceptualize them? edit: @above, you are welcome that is not a very good article at explaining but it's an important thing, this Greimas square edit: we would do well to keep in mind that binary oppositions are an unreasonably effective means of conceptualizing the world, even if we want to maintain some distance from any naive assertions of their ontological status or representational completeness
There really are binaries. And paradigms. There is black, and there is white. But to take an argument from Wittgenstein (remarks on the foundations of mathematics - the section about black and white in part I).... there's no "essence" to the black or the white. Look, we could've defined the binary as red and purple. It might not have been as useful as black and white, but there's no reason why we couldn't have defined it in some other way. There's nothing "necessary" about the paradigm of black and white.
We do have binaries, and they are real. But we constructed them. They could've been some other way.
|
On December 05 2012 12:12 thisisstupid1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 12:05 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 12:03 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 11:46 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 11:43 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 11:36 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 11:32 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 11:29 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 11:20 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 04:55 packrat386 wrote:
[quote]
I believe that you are incorrect. Before this change there was a disorder in the APA handbook called Gender Identity Disorder (GID) which could be described as someone who identifies with a gender other than the one that they were assigned at birth. The issue with this is that it treats the persons self identified gender as the problem, and not the fact that their body doesn't match their identity. After this change, transgendered individuals would be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, i.e. your body does not match match you self-identified gender. In this case treatment would focus on helping these people live comfortably as a member of the gender they identify with, and not trying to convince them to live as the gender that they were assigned at birth.
The problem with this is that in neither case do we have a clear cut reasoning to explain which one is really the problem. Without knowledge of the brain or hormones, people believed it was a mental disorder. Now that we are examining the brain, people believe the entire rest of the physical body is the one at odds, and not the brain, despite describing it as an issue within the brain that believes the gender is wrong. Its like changing the whole body of a car around an engine, instead of an engine around the car. The idea is that we discover that the brain is in fact causing an issue, but then we say it's the rest of the body that has the issue, not the brain. How do we know that for certain? On December 05 2012 11:20 Shakattak wrote:
[quote]
There are tribes that the kid is born as a male or female cant remember but when they hit puberty there body undergoes natural changes that change their gender , life is anything but binary there are alot of differences and things that cause life to be not binary , its just easier to think that way .
you're exhibiting binary behavior to show that life isn't binary. if their "gender" can "Change", that means it's going from one state to another. Binary is the change from 0 state to 1, in computer terms, or rather from one state to another. That argument doesn't support itself. Neither does talking about computer language , my argument is stating that sex and gender are on a spectrum and is definately not binary . Prove it's a spectrum. Your argument didn't support that at all, because you used binary language to define your argument. I did but you were not comprehending instead you used a binary argument to explain humans which makes no sense , there are people born biologically male or female and undergo changes when in puberty that causes them to change to physically male or female , how is that black and white ? They are biologically male still but look female or the other way around . You used an ad hominem . "you have a comprehension problem, I didn't explain it poorly". You just stated that they move from ONE to ANOTHER state. That is black and white. Regardless of how i am stating it which could be poorly , your the one avoiding the things im saying , it isnt black and white for them cause just cause they are physically male or female doesnt mean they biologically are thats the point. Thats like saying just because a frog is physically a frog, it isn't one biologically. if you actually HAD a logically derived argument based on your own thorough investigation as to the Factuality of what you;'re saying, you could actually explain it better than this. You continue to digress form the argument to say i suck at arguing without actually proving any of YOUR points. I gave examples and the most you could say was "nope". http://www.genderspectrum.org/about/understanding-gender I haven't at all. You didn't give any proof. you cited an example, and declared it as proof without validating it. You did not explain WHY your example proves it. When I questioned that, you gave an ad hominem the first time. The burden of proof is on you, because you're attempting to say that what you have shown is correct. I am not a person that is swayed by arguments based on feelings.
That's the funny part. Science has already determined whether what he's saying is true or not. Science has already determined that gender and sex aren't the same. That gender dysphoria is a real thing and not merely something someone does because they feel like being an effeminate male and don't want to be stigmatized for it. And so forth.
He doesn't need to prove his assertions because his assertions have already been demonstrated in the psychological literature. It's your viewpoint that is without evidence.
|
On December 05 2012 12:12 thisisstupid1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 12:05 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 12:03 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 11:46 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 11:43 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 11:36 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 11:32 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 11:29 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 11:20 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 04:55 packrat386 wrote:
[quote]
I believe that you are incorrect. Before this change there was a disorder in the APA handbook called Gender Identity Disorder (GID) which could be described as someone who identifies with a gender other than the one that they were assigned at birth. The issue with this is that it treats the persons self identified gender as the problem, and not the fact that their body doesn't match their identity. After this change, transgendered individuals would be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, i.e. your body does not match match you self-identified gender. In this case treatment would focus on helping these people live comfortably as a member of the gender they identify with, and not trying to convince them to live as the gender that they were assigned at birth.
The problem with this is that in neither case do we have a clear cut reasoning to explain which one is really the problem. Without knowledge of the brain or hormones, people believed it was a mental disorder. Now that we are examining the brain, people believe the entire rest of the physical body is the one at odds, and not the brain, despite describing it as an issue within the brain that believes the gender is wrong. Its like changing the whole body of a car around an engine, instead of an engine around the car. The idea is that we discover that the brain is in fact causing an issue, but then we say it's the rest of the body that has the issue, not the brain. How do we know that for certain? On December 05 2012 11:20 Shakattak wrote:
[quote]
There are tribes that the kid is born as a male or female cant remember but when they hit puberty there body undergoes natural changes that change their gender , life is anything but binary there are alot of differences and things that cause life to be not binary , its just easier to think that way .
you're exhibiting binary behavior to show that life isn't binary. if their "gender" can "Change", that means it's going from one state to another. Binary is the change from 0 state to 1, in computer terms, or rather from one state to another. That argument doesn't support itself. Neither does talking about computer language , my argument is stating that sex and gender are on a spectrum and is definately not binary . Prove it's a spectrum. Your argument didn't support that at all, because you used binary language to define your argument. I did but you were not comprehending instead you used a binary argument to explain humans which makes no sense , there are people born biologically male or female and undergo changes when in puberty that causes them to change to physically male or female , how is that black and white ? They are biologically male still but look female or the other way around . You used an ad hominem . "you have a comprehension problem, I didn't explain it poorly". You just stated that they move from ONE to ANOTHER state. That is black and white. Regardless of how i am stating it which could be poorly , your the one avoiding the things im saying , it isnt black and white for them cause just cause they are physically male or female doesnt mean they biologically are thats the point. Thats like saying just because a frog is physically a frog, it isn't one biologically. if you actually HAD a logically derived argument based on your own thorough investigation as to the Factuality of what you;'re saying, you could actually explain it better than this. You continue to digress form the argument to say i suck at arguing without actually proving any of YOUR points. I gave examples and the most you could say was "nope". http://www.genderspectrum.org/about/understanding-gender I haven't at all. You didn't give any proof. you cited an example, and declared it as proof without validating it. You did not explain WHY your example proves it. When I questioned that, you gave an ad hominem the first time. The burden of proof is on you, because you're attempting to say that what you have shown is correct. I am not a person that is swayed by arguments based on feelings. Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 12:06 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 12:05 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 12:03 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 12:01 iamahydralisk wrote:On December 05 2012 11:58 Crawdad wrote:On December 05 2012 11:53 Shakattak wrote:
Your argument also doesnt explain hermaphrodites are they strictly one or the other ? Intersex people usually identify as a specific gender, but they are born with both male and female sex characteristics, and I'm sure there are intersex people who identify as non-binary. To throw my hat into the ring... I consider myself to be intersex, at least mentally. When I was younger, I had transsexual feelings that intensified to the point that I nearly transitioned from M to F when I was 19 years old. I stopped at the last second (personal reasons), and while I feel more comfortable in my male body now than I did then, I still don't identify fully as a man or a woman. The urges to transition are still there and they come and go. Some days they're really strong and other days, not so much. I don't consider myself to be a part of the gender binary. I feel like I'm somewhere in the middle. ^^ thank you this is what im getting at , a binary system is inadequate to describe humans who are anything but. This is an argument going back to the concept of "the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts". Neurons either fire or dont fire. Memories either exist or they don't. Genes are either ON or OFF. We are built on binary designs. When we go so far as to say that "humans are too complex to be binary", we're either saying that we have inadequately explored our subject, or that we decide to believe in things that aren't true. You were socialized to believe things are binary without it actually being explained to you other then this is right just cause . No, I wasn't. Unless you consider going through science and bio and comp and psych classes "socialized to believe in binary things". Things only exist in two possible states for Schroedinger's cat. Try again.
Well its not feelings i have taken sex and gender anthro courses in university , im basically paraphrasing im aware of this.
You realize school curriculum's are written by the government who want to do nothing more then socialize us and make good citizens of us, you havent proven your point either or explained to to me adequately.
Read the second paragraph in the article ffs i doubt you even read it. Remeber these are both models as someone who took science i would expect you to understand that and just cause i follow a different model does not mean that i am required to prove it to you.
"The Gender Spectrum
Western culture has come to view gender as a binary concept, with two rigidly fixed options: male or female. When a child is born, a quick glance between the legs determines the gender label that the child will carry for life. But even if gender is to be restricted to basic biology, a binary concept still fails to capture the rich variation observed. Rather than just two distinct boxes, biological gender occurs across a continuum of possibilities. This spectrum of anatomical variations by itself should be enough to disregard the simplistic notion of only two genders.
But beyond anatomy, there are multiple domains defining gender. In turn, these domains can be independently characterized across a range of possibilities. Instead of the static, binary model produced through a solely physical understanding of gender, a far more rich texture of biology, gender expression, and gender identity intersect in multidimensional array of possibilities. Quite simply, the gender spectrum represents a more nuanced, and ultimately truly authentic model of human gender."
|
when a MAN wants his weewee chopped off so he can be a woman, that's perfectly normal?
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On December 05 2012 12:16 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 12:12 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 12:05 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 12:03 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 11:46 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 11:43 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 11:36 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 11:32 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 11:29 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 11:20 thisisstupid1 wrote:
[quote]
The problem with this is that in neither case do we have a clear cut reasoning to explain which one is really the problem.
Without knowledge of the brain or hormones, people believed it was a mental disorder.
Now that we are examining the brain, people believe the entire rest of the physical body is the one at odds, and not the brain, despite describing it as an issue within the brain that believes the gender is wrong. Its like changing the whole body of a car around an engine, instead of an engine around the car.
The idea is that we discover that the brain is in fact causing an issue, but then we say it's the rest of the body that has the issue, not the brain. How do we know that for certain?
[quote]
you're exhibiting binary behavior to show that life isn't binary. if their "gender" can "Change", that means it's going from one state to another. Binary is the change from 0 state to 1, in computer terms, or rather from one state to another.
That argument doesn't support itself. Neither does talking about computer language , my argument is stating that sex and gender are on a spectrum and is definately not binary . Prove it's a spectrum. Your argument didn't support that at all, because you used binary language to define your argument. I did but you were not comprehending instead you used a binary argument to explain humans which makes no sense , there are people born biologically male or female and undergo changes when in puberty that causes them to change to physically male or female , how is that black and white ? They are biologically male still but look female or the other way around . You used an ad hominem . "you have a comprehension problem, I didn't explain it poorly". You just stated that they move from ONE to ANOTHER state. That is black and white. Regardless of how i am stating it which could be poorly , your the one avoiding the things im saying , it isnt black and white for them cause just cause they are physically male or female doesnt mean they biologically are thats the point. Thats like saying just because a frog is physically a frog, it isn't one biologically. if you actually HAD a logically derived argument based on your own thorough investigation as to the Factuality of what you;'re saying, you could actually explain it better than this. You continue to digress form the argument to say i suck at arguing without actually proving any of YOUR points. I gave examples and the most you could say was "nope". http://www.genderspectrum.org/about/understanding-gender I haven't at all. You didn't give any proof. you cited an example, and declared it as proof without validating it. You did not explain WHY your example proves it. When I questioned that, you gave an ad hominem the first time. The burden of proof is on you, because you're attempting to say that what you have shown is correct. I am not a person that is swayed by arguments based on feelings. That's the funny part. Science has already determined whether what he's saying is true or not. Science has already determined that gender and sex aren't the same. That gender dysphoria is a real thing and not merely something someone does because they feel like being an effeminate male and don't want to be stigmatized for it. And so forth. He doesn't need to prove his assertions because his assertions have already been demonstrated in the psychological literature. It's your viewpoint that is without evidence.
Thank you NicolBolas at least im getting through to someone >.>
|
On December 05 2012 12:18 Warillions wrote:
when a MAN wants his weewee chopped off so he can be a woman, that's perfectly normal?
you misunderstand mentally and emotionally they identify as female for them its changing their body to match their view of themselves. Its like being a female but born with a penis wouldn't that seem wrong to you ?
|
On December 05 2012 12:18 Warillions wrote:
when a MAN wants his weewee chopped off so he can be a woman, that's perfectly normal?
If you are so far down your rabbit hole that you won't even accept trans women as women, how can we take your question seriously?
|
On December 05 2012 12:21 Crawdad wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 12:18 Warillions wrote:
when a MAN wants his weewee chopped off so he can be a woman, that's perfectly normal? If you are so far down your rabbit hole that you won't even accept trans women as women, how can we take your question seriously?
I tried.
|
On December 05 2012 12:21 Crawdad wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 12:18 Warillions wrote:
when a MAN wants his weewee chopped off so he can be a woman, that's perfectly normal? If you are so far down your rabbit hole that you won't even accept trans women as women, how can we take your question seriously?
It would be better if we all just ignored posts like this. Personally, I will let the mods deal with it. It's obviously a one liner that is meant to be offensive and not add to the discussion. There's no reason to reply.
|
On December 05 2012 12:15 shinosai wrote:
Wittgenstein
Hmm, yes, I'm not sure I agree with old Ludwig on this point but that would be a question for another time. At any rate, as far as applied semiotics goes I'm happy to point people to the best tool in the biz and let them go their own way, this is not a topic in particular which is near and dear to my heart
|
On December 05 2012 12:21 Shakattak wrote:
I tried.
I know, and it's good that there are people who still try.
But after trying to educate people on Reddit, I learned that choosing my battles more carefully, is much better for my mental health.
|
On December 05 2012 12:18 Warillions wrote:
when a MAN wants his weewee chopped off so he can be a woman, that's perfectly normal?
if a man chopped his penis off to become a woman, that would definitely be an issue. however, since that's not what transsexualism is (transsexualism is when a WOMAN is born with the sex of a man and vice versa), I don't see what your point has to do with the topic at hand.
|
On December 05 2012 12:24 iamahydralisk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 12:18 Warillions wrote:
when a MAN wants his weewee chopped off so he can be a woman, that's perfectly normal? if a man chopped his penis off to become a woman, that would definitely be an issue. however, since that's not what transsexualism is (transsexualism is when a WOMAN is born with the sex of a man and vice versa), I don't see what your point has to do with the topic at hand.
Lawyer-ed. thats what i was trying to say to him but less eloquently
|
On December 05 2012 12:13 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 12:05 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 12:03 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 12:01 iamahydralisk wrote:On December 05 2012 11:58 Crawdad wrote:On December 05 2012 11:53 Shakattak wrote:
Your argument also doesnt explain hermaphrodites are they strictly one or the other ? Intersex people usually identify as a specific gender, but they are born with both male and female sex characteristics, and I'm sure there are intersex people who identify as non-binary. To throw my hat into the ring... I consider myself to be intersex, at least mentally. When I was younger, I had transsexual feelings that intensified to the point that I nearly transitioned from M to F when I was 19 years old. I stopped at the last second (personal reasons), and while I feel more comfortable in my male body now than I did then, I still don't identify fully as a man or a woman. The urges to transition are still there and they come and go. Some days they're really strong and other days, not so much. I don't consider myself to be a part of the gender binary. I feel like I'm somewhere in the middle. ^^ thank you this is what im getting at , a binary system is inadequate to describe humans who are anything but. This is an argument going back to the concept of "the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts". Neurons either fire or dont fire. Memories either exist or they don't. Genes are either ON or OFF. We are built on binary designs. When we go so far as to say that "humans are too complex to be binary", we're either saying that we have inadequately explored our subject, or that we decide to believe in things that aren't true. That's complete bullshit biologically speaking. Neurons fire in degrees. The quantity of neurotransmitters involved across the synapse defines how hard or softly a neuron fires. Gene expression is also something that happens in varying degrees. Memories can be half-remembered. You keep inventing these binary distinctions that simply don't exist in reality.
Memories are "half remembered" because when you access them, they change, form new connections, and become different. again, binary.
Im aware of the bahavior of neurons. Try this experiemnt. Stick your hand in a fire and see how long you go before neurons tell you you're being damaged. Then, see how long you can prevent your CNS from pulling your hand out of the fire.
These are all degrees taht you're speaking of. Enough neurons need to fire to promote the conscious awareness of damage, e.g. pain. Enough neurons need to fire to override the neurons that you are consciously using to keep your hand in the fire. All of that behavior is still binary, as the same can be written in programming language.
Gene "expression" is affected by other genes all working together. But the genes themselves are either on or off.
This is all some mysticism spouted because of this "irreducible complexity" mentality at work. It didn't hold up to scrutiny in the 1500's, and it doesn't hold up now.
x marines vs y zerglings. in enough multiplication, X wins. in enough multiplication, Y wins. But it's not that simple right? It also depends on the method of attack, the use of terrain, and the upgrades, etc. However, all of these are STILL not proof that the fight isn't binary. All of these things can be calculated by physical location coordinates and by the other variables which are VERY quantifiable.
But your argument style would be to stop at the point of the terrain, saying that beyond this point, it can't be explainable as binary (irreducible complexity argument), and therefor it proves that success in fights in SC2 between y marines and x zerglings is on a spectrum.
Using the misnomer of the spectrum is the hand waving of today's armchair scientists.
|
On December 05 2012 12:19 Shakattak wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 12:16 NicolBolas wrote:On December 05 2012 12:12 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 12:05 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 12:03 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 11:46 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 11:43 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 11:36 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 11:32 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 11:29 Shakattak wrote:
[quote]
Neither does talking about computer language , my argument is stating that sex and gender are on a spectrum and is definately not binary . Prove it's a spectrum. Your argument didn't support that at all, because you used binary language to define your argument. I did but you were not comprehending instead you used a binary argument to explain humans which makes no sense , there are people born biologically male or female and undergo changes when in puberty that causes them to change to physically male or female , how is that black and white ? They are biologically male still but look female or the other way around . You used an ad hominem . "you have a comprehension problem, I didn't explain it poorly". You just stated that they move from ONE to ANOTHER state. That is black and white. Regardless of how i am stating it which could be poorly , your the one avoiding the things im saying , it isnt black and white for them cause just cause they are physically male or female doesnt mean they biologically are thats the point. Thats like saying just because a frog is physically a frog, it isn't one biologically. if you actually HAD a logically derived argument based on your own thorough investigation as to the Factuality of what you;'re saying, you could actually explain it better than this. You continue to digress form the argument to say i suck at arguing without actually proving any of YOUR points. I gave examples and the most you could say was "nope". http://www.genderspectrum.org/about/understanding-gender I haven't at all. You didn't give any proof. you cited an example, and declared it as proof without validating it. You did not explain WHY your example proves it. When I questioned that, you gave an ad hominem the first time. The burden of proof is on you, because you're attempting to say that what you have shown is correct. I am not a person that is swayed by arguments based on feelings. That's the funny part. Science has already determined whether what he's saying is true or not. Science has already determined that gender and sex aren't the same. That gender dysphoria is a real thing and not merely something someone does because they feel like being an effeminate male and don't want to be stigmatized for it. And so forth. He doesn't need to prove his assertions because his assertions have already been demonstrated in the psychological literature. It's your viewpoint that is without evidence. Thank you NicolBolas at least im getting through to someone >.>
science hasn't determined it as factual. Provide the proof. It's still psychology which requires people to express their "personal belief and feelings", and then correlate that to internal physical parameters of the human body.
As long as it is like that, it will never be factual proof.
|
On December 05 2012 12:15 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 12:08 sam!zdat wrote:so what is the semiotic structure of "spectrum" if there are no binaries, and only spectra how does one conceptualize them? edit: @above, you are welcome that is not a very good article at explaining but it's an important thing, this Greimas square edit: we would do well to keep in mind that binary oppositions are an unreasonably effective means of conceptualizing the world, even if we want to maintain some distance from any naive assertions of their ontological status or representational completeness There really are binaries. And paradigms. There is black, and there is white. But to take an argument from Wittgenstein (remarks on the foundations of mathematics - the section about black and white in part I).... there's no "essence" to the black or the white. Look, we could've defined the binary as red and purple. It might not have been as useful as black and white, but there's no reason why we couldn't have defined it in some other way. There's nothing "necessary" about the paradigm of black and white. We do have binaries, and they are real. But we constructed them. They could've been some other way.
There can't be "some other way". people die without oxygen. people live with oxygen. The universe itself imposes binary logic on everything within it
|
Facts are overrated.
I say this in all seriousness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
