transgenderism is absurd

Nope

JuicyMelonTech
Sex is a biological classification. Gender is not so easily defined. Their are different definitions for gender. I proffer to think of gender as the social aspect often associated with on of the sexes. It is important to note languages are fluid. The meaning of gender continues to evolve. Doctors and biologist may care manly about ones sex but gender is how one wishes to associate themselves with how society views the sexes. As long as society associate some things with one of the sexes their will be people who feel like they are being associated with the wrong group and feel the need to change their gender. 

whiteflame

@JuicyMelonTech

I'll just focus on direct responses to each of your four points.

1) You're rather inconsistent on this argument, and it has a lot of problems to begin with, so that doesn't help. You start off this argument by saying that it is a clear and unambiguous fact that there are differences between the brains of males and females, basing this entire point on the idea that all brains reflect the sex of the individual, yet you end off by acknowledging that there are studies showing that there are incidences of individuals having brains that functionally resemble those most commonly associated with the opposite sex. You're immediately dismissive of this, claiming it to be a small fraction of the transgender population, but a) you don't demonstrate that that's the case, b) even if it is the case, it invalidates your argument that there is no scientific support for transgenderism, and c) it calls your whole argument into question, since this only takes into account brains with all of the common traits of one sex inside the head of someone of the other sex. That last one is particularly damning because you're simply grouping a set of traits, stating that these traits all belong to individuals of either sex, and leaving out literally everyone who doesn't conform to that view. Forgetting the fact that systemizing and empathizing are not, in fact, opposite ways of thinking, there are a bevy of examples of women who clearly engage in the former and men who clearly engage in the latter.

And all of these problems undercut this whole argument. You provide a single piece of scientific evidence to support a claim that all of the evidence favors your argument, which is cherry-picking and overgeneralization. You're invalidating the identity of individuals based on gender using sex as deterministic, yet you haven't supported that argument in the slightest, even with your efforts to characterize how brains work. Even if I accept the entirety of your argument as valid, it does not invalidate transgenderism. Transgenderism is inherently a personal identity, which goes beyond a simple concept of brain chemistry or biology. How someone perceives themselves and wishes to be perceived may have little to do with those traits. An empathizing, sexually female person may still find it hard to associate themselves with the female gender, and may wish to be perceived as something else, whether that is male or otherwise. The capacity to think a certain way does not in any way affect the perception of oneself.

2) It seems like all of your arguments are derived from this sample place: biologically, they are either male or female, ergo they are locked into that state of being and must be gendered as such. You're missing the necessary internal link stating why sex and gender must always be exactly the same. Again, even if I buy that all XX individuals are sexually female and all XY individuals are sexually male (it's not the simple, especially as chromosomes aren't always complete and may not be expressed to the same degree), why does that affect how someone perceives themselves or wishes to be perceived? And I guess we're also ignoring the possibility of nondisjunctions where an individual can end up with three sex chromosomes (XXY or XYY), the issue of hermaphrodites, ambigous genitalia, and differential production of various hormones. Where, exactly, do these people belong in your argument? And, if they do belong to one sex/gender or the other (this is not me acknowledging that the two are interchangeable terms, nor am I treating either sex or gender as binary), who gets to decide that? Your argument is awfully presumptive. It seems like you're using basic biology as a cudgel to affect social change and ignoring a lot of the caveats of that biology in the process.

3) This, I guess, is your first and only attempt at providing some meaningful distinction between gender and sex, though I really don't get it. You argue that gender underpins sex, that it must be clearly known in order to classify individuals as male or female. So many things wrong with this. First, I don't know why someone cannot be classified based on sex simply because they have a different view of their gender. A man who views himself in a feminine light can still be classified as a man sexually, so long as they don't go through any kind of surgery. Physical characteristics define sex, not gender. Second, the idea that we must classify human beings as being part of one of two camps is ridiculous. There is no reason why a binary is absolutely necessary, and "achiev[ing] organization and order" is not made any simpler by telling people they are assigned a gender at birth. There's a reason that gender dysphoria exists, and ignoring that creates a set of circumstances that lead people to have it to hurt themselves and others. Is that organized? Is that order? What's the chaos in allowing people to select their own genders and explain them to others? Isn't that classification as well? Differences can be established without a false dichotomy and, if anything, expanding the number of choices inherently improves our capacity to classify people that do not fall into the two most "obvious" choices. Third, you really need to stop trying to employ basic biology when you don't seem to get how that biology actually works. Naming of species and biological classifications of those species doesn't require much. We can call a human being Homo sapiens and still acknowledge that there are many important subdivisions within that species, particularly with regards to personality, behavior, sexual attraction and identity. Scientists who classify animals don't say "well, these animals are presenting with a trait that doesn't match our expectations, so we're going to classify them how we see fit despite evidence that those traits don't fall into those classifications." If a scientist discovers something that does not match the literature, they challenge the literature. If they do that with any other animal, why should humans be treated differently?

4) This makes as little sense as any of your contentions. No one is arguing that truth is not objective, and that is an insulting way to characterize the argument from those who are transgender and those who support them. The argument is that the truth itself is either unknown (i.e. we do not fully understand the issue of gender and therefore we cannot adequately define every facet of it), or that the truth is known and that it moves beyond a false dichotomy of male vs. female. This argument seems entirely dependent on the truth of the above 3 contentions, though I don't believe you've proven any of them to be true and, even if you had, none of them adequately link to the issue at hand, which is how gender is ascribed based on biological factors. Beyond that, if your argument is that facts cannot be changed, then why are you arguing the fact that people see themselves and wish to be seen as a different gender? That is also factual, yet you state that their mindset is factually wrong, which means you're invalidating their view and dismissing the fact they've presented. You're also dismissing the existence of any gender that is not male or female, dismissing any difference between gender and sex, and dismissing every piece of scientific information and empirical examples that contradict your argument. If you claim to uphold truth and objectivism, explain to me how you manage such a feat while dismissing these facts.

Ampersand

Here you go OP: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Difference+between+sex+and+gender

JuicyMelonTech

Nope said:

JuicyMelonTech
Sex is a biological classification. Gender is not so easily defined. Their are different definitions for gender. I proffer to think of gender as the social aspect often associated with on of the sexes. It is important to note languages are fluid. The meaning of gender continues to evolve. Doctors and biologist may care manly about ones sex but gender is how one wishes to associate themselves with how society views the sexes. As long as society associate some things with one of the sexes their will be people who feel like they are being associated with the wrong group and feel the need to change their gender. 

Gender and sex have been interchangeable terms for all of human history, why are they suddenly disconnected? If a member of a certain gender wishes to act like the other sex, this does not change their gender. A man who acts like a woman is simply a feminine man, not a woman. Sex and gender are not disconnected, they are one and the same. If a man chooses to act in a feminine way, so be it? Why must he be addressed as a woman when he so clearly is not in his biological person?

Ampersand

JuicyMelonTech said:

Nope said:

JuicyMelonTech
Sex is a biological classification. Gender is not so easily defined. Their are different definitions for gender. I proffer to think of gender as the social aspect often associated with on of the sexes. It is important to note languages are fluid. The meaning of gender continues to evolve. Doctors and biologist may care manly about ones sex but gender is how one wishes to associate themselves with how society views the sexes. As long as society associate some things with one of the sexes their will be people who feel like they are being associated with the wrong group and feel the need to change their gender. 

Gender and sex have been interchangeable terms for all of human history, why are they suddenly disconnected? If a member of a certain gender wishes to act like the other sex, this does not change their gender. A man who acts like a woman is simply a feminine man, not a woman. Sex and gender are not disconnected, they are one and the same. If a man chooses to act in a feminine way, so be it? Why must he be addressed as a woman when he so clearly is not in his biological person?

Semantic argument based on a false premise. Languages evolves and changes, that's what it does, and gender itself only came to exist as the difference between male and female in the 15th century ad  https://www.etymonline.com/word/gender

Also we are not robots with electron microscopes for eyes. The prime determiner for whether we consider if someone is male or female is how they look, how they dress, etc. Have you ever, even once in your life, analysed someone's chromosomes before deciding on their gender? If not, why would you argue this is the criteria you go by?

MajoMILSdlGMGV

Ampersand said:

JuicyMelonTech said:

Nope said:

JuicyMelonTech
Sex is a biological classification. Gender is not so easily defined. Their are different definitions for gender. I proffer to think of gender as the social aspect often associated with on of the sexes. It is important to note languages are fluid. The meaning of gender continues to evolve. Doctors and biologist may care manly about ones sex but gender is how one wishes to associate themselves with how society views the sexes. As long as society associate some things with one of the sexes their will be people who feel like they are being associated with the wrong group and feel the need to change their gender. 

Gender and sex have been interchangeable terms for all of human history, why are they suddenly disconnected? If a member of a certain gender wishes to act like the other sex, this does not change their gender. A man who acts like a woman is simply a feminine man, not a woman. Sex and gender are not disconnected, they are one and the same. If a man chooses to act in a feminine way, so be it? Why must he be addressed as a woman when he so clearly is not in his biological person?

Semantic argument based on a false premise. Languages evolves and changes, that's what it does, and gender itself only came to exist as the difference between male and female in the 15th century ad  https://www.etymonline.com/word/gender

Also we are not robots with electron microscopes for eyes. The prime determiner for whether we consider if someone is male or female is how they look, how they dress, etc. Have you ever, even once in your life, analysed someone's chromosomes before deciding on their gender? If not, why would you argue this is the criteria you go by?

As @Ampersand mentioned, language evolves and changes over time. The word gender is obviously one of the words that has evolved (as showed on the link provided by Ampersand). Nowadays gender has the following definition: "Gender (n): the condition of being male, female, or neuter. In a human context, the distinction between gender and SEX reflects the usage of these terms: Sex usually refers to the biological aspects of maleness or femaleness, whereas gender implies the psychological, behavioral, social, and cultural aspects of being male or female (i.e., masculinity or femininity.)"
 https://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/sexuality-definitions.pdf

MajoMILSdlGMGV

Ampersand said:

JuicyMelonTech said:

Nope said:

JuicyMelonTech
Sex is a biological classification. Gender is not so easily defined. Their are different definitions for gender. I proffer to think of gender as the social aspect often associated with on of the sexes. It is important to note languages are fluid. The meaning of gender continues to evolve. Doctors and biologist may care manly about ones sex but gender is how one wishes to associate themselves with how society views the sexes. As long as society associate some things with one of the sexes their will be people who feel like they are being associated with the wrong group and feel the need to change their gender. 

Gender and sex have been interchangeable terms for all of human history, why are they suddenly disconnected? If a member of a certain gender wishes to act like the other sex, this does not change their gender. A man who acts like a woman is simply a feminine man, not a woman. Sex and gender are not disconnected, they are one and the same. If a man chooses to act in a feminine way, so be it? Why must he be addressed as a woman when he so clearly is not in his biological person?

Semantic argument based on a false premise. Languages evolves and changes, that's what it does, and gender itself only came to exist as the difference between male and female in the 15th century ad  https://www.etymonline.com/word/gender

Also we are not robots with electron microscopes for eyes. The prime determiner for whether we consider if someone is male or female is how they look, how they dress, etc. Have you ever, even once in your life, analysed someone's chromosomes before deciding on their gender? If not, why would you argue this is the criteria you go by?

As @Ampersand mentioned, language evolves and changes over time. The word gender is obviously one of the words that has evolved (as showed on the link provided by Ampersand). Nowadays gender has the following definition: "Gender (n): the condition of being male, female, or neuter. In a human context, the distinction between gender and SEX reflects the usage of these terms: Sex usually refers to the biological aspects of maleness or femaleness, whereas gender implies the psychological, behavioral, social, and cultural aspects of being male or female (i.e., masculinity or femininity.)"
 https://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/sexuality-definitions.pdf

JuicyMelonTech

MajoMILSdlGMGV said:

Ampersand said:

JuicyMelonTech said:

Nope said:

JuicyMelonTech
Sex is a biological classification. Gender is not so easily defined. Their are different definitions for gender. I proffer to think of gender as the social aspect often associated with on of the sexes. It is important to note languages are fluid. The meaning of gender continues to evolve. Doctors and biologist may care manly about ones sex but gender is how one wishes to associate themselves with how society views the sexes. As long as society associate some things with one of the sexes their will be people who feel like they are being associated with the wrong group and feel the need to change their gender. 

Gender and sex have been interchangeable terms for all of human history, why are they suddenly disconnected? If a member of a certain gender wishes to act like the other sex, this does not change their gender. A man who acts like a woman is simply a feminine man, not a woman. Sex and gender are not disconnected, they are one and the same. If a man chooses to act in a feminine way, so be it? Why must he be addressed as a woman when he so clearly is not in his biological person?

Semantic argument based on a false premise. Languages evolves and changes, that's what it does, and gender itself only came to exist as the difference between male and female in the 15th century ad  https://www.etymonline.com/word/gender

Also we are not robots with electron microscopes for eyes. The prime determiner for whether we consider if someone is male or female is how they look, how they dress, etc. Have you ever, even once in your life, analysed someone's chromosomes before deciding on their gender? If not, why would you argue this is the criteria you go by?

As @Ampersand mentioned, language evolves and changes over time. The word gender is obviously one of the words that has evolved (as showed on the link provided by Ampersand). Nowadays gender has the following definition: "Gender (n): the condition of being male, female, or neuter. In a human context, the distinction between gender and SEX reflects the usage of these terms: Sex usually refers to the biological aspects of maleness or femaleness, whereas gender implies the psychological, behavioral, social, and cultural aspects of being male or female (i.e., masculinity or femininity.)"
 https://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/sexuality-definitions.pdf

Wait, just to clarify the debate going forward, you agree that biological sex cannot be changed, but believe that gender is an entirely different term that is disconnected from sex?

MajoMILSdlGMGV

No. I believe that biological sex cannot be changed but that gender is the psychological, behavioral, social and cultural aspects of being male or female (femininity or masculinity.)