In a discussion with a friend about whether everyone has a gender identity, I mentioned that it wouldn't bother me if people referred to me as a woman. They expressed some skepticism of this; their belief was that everyone has a gender identity, but for people whose identity matches their current body and social role, they don't notice any discomfort or feeling of "wrongness", so they don't end up having any subjective experience of having a gender identity.
The condition is met if I ask my aquaintances to refer to me with she/her pronouns, and then I'll resolve to YES or NO depending on whether I feel like those pronouns make me uncomfortable in some fundamental way. If I haven't done this by the end of 2024, I'll resolve this to N/A, unless I still feel like I might do it soon, in which case I'll extend the deadline a bit.
For reference:
I've identified and mostly been treated as a man for my whole life, which hasn't bothered me. I'm a typical male in most gender and sex related ways.
As a child I had long hair and would often be confused for a girl. I don't remember whether this bothered me at the time.
I have a vague memory of wearing some of my sister's dresses when I was young. I don't remember how often or why I did that.
When speaking to someone I don't know on the phone, they sometimes call me "ma'am". I certainly notice that, since it's strange and I don't think I have a particularly female-sounding voice. It's difficult to say whether any of the feelings around this happening are discomfort or just surprise.
In order to differente general discomfort with change from true gender disphoria, I'll wait several weeks or months into this experiement before resolving this market, to make sure I've had time to become acustomed to the new pronouns.
I will not trade in this market.
1,000If I haven't done this by the end of 2024, I'll resolve this to N/A, unless I still feel like I might do it soon, in which case I'll extend the deadline a bit.
@IsaacKing planning to do this anytime soon?
@Guilhermesampaiodeoliveir It is the sin in fashion right now. The Holy Orthodox Church remains opposed, as it has for 2000 long years.
@JessicaEvans I was thinking "transgender ontological claims are ultimately incoherent" but that works too (and ultimately leads to the same conclusion)
@JessicaEvans It does not lead to the same conclusion, except in your head, where everything by necessity leads to the same conclusion
@stardust Are you familiar with the concept of an unstated premise? Can you reason to the unstated premise here? If not, you are bad at understanding arguments.
@JessicaEvans I think the argument you were trying to make is that if gender isn't real, then gendered norms are incoherent. You are interpreting my argument as "gender isn't real. Sex is real, real things are more important than not-real things and sex is important, transgenderism is incoherent"
But I didn't make any of those claims, actually, I might believe some or all of them, but I just stated that "transgender ontological claims are ultimately incoherent", which is just true if you insist that, say, "woman doesn't exist". If woman doesn't exist, then a "trans woman" is ultimately "identifying" as nothing.
If a "trans woman" is identifying as a female, then he's just wrong
@JessicaEvans Also why is it especially noteworthy than one type of human engages in a universal human nonsense.
@JessicaEvans In the sense that "pizza" exists as a category. Not in the sense that "male" or "female" exist as categories, and a subset of the "male" category, without any similarly close relations to the "female" category. The idea that things can be categorized is not in dispute.
I must refer you to your same unstated premise. Right now I'm just stating that it's nonsense; you made the jump to it being noteworthy, which I may or may not agree with.
@JessicaEvansJessicaEvans Entirely wrong, at least in terms of vulgar and legal definitions of female. Your own definition is doubtlessly an equivocation between these definitions and more exact definitions which you alternate between according to need.
@JessicaEvans Refusal to acknowledge a conclusion does not make it a non-sequitur. I could toss the measuring stick to you and ask what makes a "trans female" a "trans female" without it being fuzzy.
I would like an acknowledgement that transgender ontological claims, namely, "a trans woman is a woman" are nonsensical. I have demonstrated these above and you have not responded, instead opting simply to move on.
But I didn't make any of those claims, actually, I might believe some or all of them, but I just stated that "transgender ontological claims are ultimately incoherent", which is just true if you insist that, say, "woman doesn't exist". If woman doesn't exist, then a "trans woman" is ultimately "identifying" as nothing.
If a "trans woman" is identifying as a female, then he's just wrong
@stardust You have made assertions. You have not demonstrated anything. You presented an argument that was not to the point. I am not the one committing a non sequitur. You are battling an imaginary position I did not advocate informed by other positions I have not advocated.
@JessicaEvans There's no point giving you an argument you're going to auto innoculate yourself against. Not when you haven't even demonstrated the capacity to receive it.
I was thinking "transgender ontological claims are ultimately incoherent" but that works too (and ultimately leads to the same conclusion)
R: It does not lead to the same conclusion, except in your head, where everything by necessity leads to the same conclusion
It either can or can't lead to the same conclusion. Your casuistry does not escape that. Please enlighten me to what this "point" is.
I presented an all-encompassing list of scenarios. Either "gender" is real or it isn't. I agreed for the sake of this argument that it is not real. If a "trans woman" is thus identifying as a "woman", read, something that isn't real, then transgender ontology is incoherent. If a "trans woman" is identifying as a "female", then he's just wrong: read the prior. If a "trans woman" isn't identifying with woman-ness in any sense, then what makes him a "trans woman"?
Simple stuff, really.
@stardust No, because the existence of trans female as an ontological category does not depend on the concept of gender. There are no women. There are females. Most females identify as women, but this does not make them not female, because a fake idea doesn't touch reality.
@JessicaEvans The "existence of trans 'female' as an ontological category" not depending on gender has nothing to do with anything. You can categorize anything you want and say A=A, that is tautological. Transgender ontological claims obviously go beyond "gender dysphoria exists". Lots of things exist.
@stardust Additionally, what is the "female" in "trans 'female'" doing, really? Isn't it perhaps, indicative of something, that we use this component word that we both agree that ""trans females"" are not, instead of "trans males" (i.e. males who are afflicted by transgenderism)? It represents a capitulation to gender ideology, in a sense.
@stardustdysphoria exists as a direct consequence of sexual dimorphism in the brain and nervous system. There is no special ontology involved in this outside of sexual dimorphism
@JessicaEvans Then I'm glad we agree that transgender ontological claims (e.g. that "transgendered women" should be categorized with women) are fundamentally incoherent. I don't disagree with any of your statements on dysphoria. It is a mental illness that should be treated as such, and in a society where we segregate things by male and female, the males should go in the bathroom designated as such.
@JessicaEvans Only one of us cannot refrain from engaging in ad hominems, but I will permit it because you are a woman.
I hope that you will one day see the logical consequence of your claims.
@JessicaEvans I suppose there is no more progress to be made here: as-is with trans-positive liberals when their points are thoroughly refuted. I will leave you with this:
P1: For the sake of argument, gender is not real.
P2: Sex is real
P3: There are real sexual differences which impact sociiety
P4: It makes sense to categorize different things in social life, such as bathrooms, prisons, sports, single-sex schools, legal documentation, with sex, as it is a real, society-wide, and important category.
P5: Transgender ontological claims are ultimately incoherent. If a "trans woman" is identifying of "the woman gender", he is identifying as nothing; he might as well be identifying as a "fwesrhrughergheruig". If a "trans woman" is identifying as a female, he is just factually incorrect.
P6: However, "trans women" (of which I will prefer over the term "trans female", because they are not female) are males.
C1: Thus, it makes sense to acknowledge them as males.
C2: Thus, transgenders should abide by what corresponds to their sex in matters of education, bathrooms, prisons, sports, legality, etc.
P7: Gender identity disorder, or a condition that makes one wish he or she were born the opposite sex, is real/has an ontology.
P8: Gender identity disorder cannot really make someone the other gender or sex (P5)
C3: Thus, gender identity disorder is of the class of disorders that plants a pervasive lie in one's mind, much like schizophrenia, uncontrollable thoughts, hallucinations, etc.
C4: Gender identity disorder should thus be treated similarly to schizophrenia: namely, not by affirming what we have agreed is a lie.
@JessicaEvans I am surely trembling in fear, for your dead woman's switch is perhaps as real as a "transgender identity"!
@Shelvacu In the future I'd suggest reviewing what you're trying to achieve.
If you're trying to get your thoughts out there, one comment and maybe a rebuttal is plenty
If you're hoping to convince someone they're wrong, you must work to keep the belief in your mind that maybe you're wrong. It's only fair, and you'll find you're much better at modeling the other side
If you're hoping to argue on the internet, keep doing what you're doing. You could both be trolls
It can often be helpful to try and focus on narrowing down what's in common and what's not. Try and think of statements you're not sure if the other side agrees with, and ask if they do. This can include vibes/feelings an still be helpful. Try and find a chain of reasoning that starts at a common agreed point and diverges. Athough remember that opinions/beliefs are rarely spawned from a neatly organized single chain of reasoning, and thus when you find a flaw in the chain of reasoning given, you are not finding a flaw in the reason the other side came to believe it, you are just finding a flaw in one particular attempt to simplify it down.
@Shelvacu I appreciate your comment and believe that you honestly believe what you're saying, with that said:
If you're hoping to convince someone they're wrong, you must work to keep the belief in your mind that maybe you're wrong.
There is only one Truth, that which is handed to us by the Church. The Orthodox Church, the body of Christ. There cannot be two "Truth"s, a gray truth, no truth, etc.
If you do not admit Orthodoxy, your worldview ultimately falls into chaos as it cannot ground logic, knowledge, ontology, transcendentals, etc.
We may disagree on empirical claims such as how old the universe is, the best way to build a spaceship, or who will win the 2028 election. However,, the Church's teaching on "gender" issues is clear.
If you're trying to get your thoughts out there, one comment and maybe a rebuttal is plenty
I disagree. This is a sentiment I may have agreed with around a year ago. However, I was very pleasantly surprised at how well the anti-transgender rhetoric worked this election cycle and am very pleasantly surprised at how anti-transgender even Liberal Manifold is. Not as much as I would like, not nearly, but I am merely replicating what I have come to understand works. God did not send us to "be nice", but to spread the Word.