Political Crossfire Forums

[John Galt]

Tracker wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: Tracker wrote: Well, in SkepticalMystics posts, s/he said that gender is a 'spectrum' where the 'center' is 'affeminate men' and 'butch women.' This is a stereotype, and the next paragraph disputes it.

There are people with no gender at all, nor the mechanisms to produce those hormones. This is usually the result of surgical butchery, but some occur AS IS, just the way they are.
This is because you have misunderstood what I have said, which was: "'Gender' on the other hand might be seen as more of a continuum. On one end of the spectrum you have hyper-masculine men. Toward the middle you would have rather masculine women and effeminate men, and on the other end, very hyper-feminine women."

I did NOT say these types were in the center. I said they were 'toward the middle', as opposed to being closer to the polar opposites. Certainly, there may be men or women who actually cross the center, to be mistaken for the opposite sex, and people in the actual center who cannot be distinguished as male or female.

I am not speaking about subjective cultural perceptions of what is masculine or feminine behavior, except to illustrate that they ARE subjective and not necessarily strictly male or female behaviors; that not all people experience being male or female in the same way, probably due to differences in biology among males or among females, such that some men wind up being perceived as effeminate or some women as 'butch' because their appearance/behavior is not typical of what we generally associate with being of a particular sex.

Quote: When gender is combined with psychology, behavior, then we see a 'spectrum.'
This is more or less what I was saying, except you're using the term 'gender' where I would say 'sex'; the spectrum is one of gender identity. And don't make the additional mistake of thinking that I mean 'sexuality' when I say 'sex'.

When I speak about 'sex' in this context, I generally mean having male or female sexual organs or one's 'genetic' sex (XX vs. XY chromosomes), recognizing full well that there are people who don't fit neatly into the male/female categories on a physical basis.

Quote: But that spectrum cannot be applied to sexuality, because people that are very comfortable AS IS, such as myself, may be 'too gay' for the 'straight crowd' and 'too straight' for the 'gay crowd.'
On the contrary, a spectrum does apply. You're talking not about the spectrum of sexuality that all people's sexual orientation falls along, but rather people's cultural misperceptions in ignorance of the spectrums. Most people still try to define others as strictly male/female, gay/bi/straight - ignoring the continuums of both gender identity and sexual orientation.

Yeah, that's why I put 'and the next paragraph disputes it' in there.

So, in your view, outside of the text-books, 'gender' is physical -- or psychological?

I say it's physical.

You are born a blank-slate. You learn to do whatever with whatever tools you have. Your environment trains you specific 'identities' -- 'cookie-cut' examples -- choose one, and there are many in the 'spectrum' you speak, and always many others to hate you for your choices, concocting problems for far too many, arguably ALL.

There is no "spectrum" of gender. There are two genders, which are, interestingly enough, the same as the two sexes: male and female. Now, some females theink they are male while some males think they are female, but no male thinks he's really a zongdilong, or any female thinks she's really a lubritris. Why? Because I just made those things up. They are not genders. There are two genders. This is demostratable. This is also simple biology. A tryst requiring three partners -- perhaps two contribiting genetic material to a third carrier organism -- does not happen aside from the wonders of science. Sexual reproduction requires two -- genetic material from one of each of the sexes. There is only two sexes. Two sexes = two genders.

[Enoch]

John Galt wrote: There is no "spectrum" of gender. There are two genders, which are, interestingly enough, the same as the two sexes: male and female. Now, some females theink they are male while some males think they are female, but no male thinks he's really a zongdilong, or any female thinks she's really a lubritris. Why? Because I just made those things up. They are not genders. There are two genders. This is demostratable. This is also simple biology. A tryst requiring three partners -- perhaps two contribiting genetic material to a third carrier organism -- does not happen aside from the wonders of science. Sexual reproduction requires two -- genetic material from one of each of the sexes. There is only two sexes. Two sexes = two genders.

There are two sexes: Male (m) and Female (f)
There are three genders: Masculine (M), Feminine (F) and Androgynous (A).
Therefore, sociologically and psychologically speaking, there are six gender identities Mm, Fm, Am, Mf, Ff, Af.

[John Galt]

UrielsFyre wrote: John Galt wrote: There is no "spectrum" of gender. There are two genders, which are, interestingly enough, the same as the two sexes: male and female. Now, some females theink they are male while some males think they are female, but no male thinks he's really a zongdilong, or any female thinks she's really a lubritris. Why? Because I just made those things up. They are not genders. There are two genders. This is demostratable. This is also simple biology. A tryst requiring three partners -- perhaps two contribiting genetic material to a third carrier organism -- does not happen aside from the wonders of science. Sexual reproduction requires two -- genetic material from one of each of the sexes. There is only two sexes. Two sexes = two genders.

There are two sexes: Male (m) and Female (m)
There are three genders: Masculine (M), Feminine (F) and Androgynous (A).
Therefore, sociologically and psychologically speaking, there are six gender identities Mm, Fm, Am, Mf, Ff, Af.

I'm sorry, but that is wrong. I have only seen males and females in my day, and that includes poor souls who think they are something they are not. If there is a mysterious third sex, I'd like to see it (I think I would anyway). Science would to. Amazing discovery: there are three sexes, one hjas been hidden in front of everyone for thousands of years! Crazy talk.

[Enoch]

John Galt wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: John Galt wrote: There is no "spectrum" of gender. There are two genders, which are, interestingly enough, the same as the two sexes: male and female. Now, some females theink they are male while some males think they are female, but no male thinks he's really a zongdilong, or any female thinks she's really a lubritris. Why? Because I just made those things up. They are not genders. There are two genders. This is demostratable. This is also simple biology. A tryst requiring three partners -- perhaps two contribiting genetic material to a third carrier organism -- does not happen aside from the wonders of science. Sexual reproduction requires two -- genetic material from one of each of the sexes. There is only two sexes. Two sexes = two genders.

There are two sexes: Male (m) and Female (m)
There are three genders: Masculine (M), Feminine (F) and Androgynous (A).
Therefore, sociologically and psychologically speaking, there are six gender identities Mm, Fm, Am, Mf, Ff, Af.

I'm sorry, but that is wrong. I have only seen males and females in my day, and that includes poor souls who think they are something they are not. If there is a mysterious third sex, I'd like to see it (I think I would anyway). Science would to. Amazing discovery: there are three sexes, one hjas been hidden in front of everyone for thousands of years! Crazy talk.

I'm sorry too. But, I am not wrong. You are confusing sex (biological) with gender (psychological and sociological). Yes, there are two sexes. There is no debate there. There are three genders, however. And the combination of the two creates six gender identities.

Sex is what you have between your legs. Gender is how you respond to psychological and sociological conditioning for the appropriate role of each sex. Gender identity is, then, the ways in which each sex can respond to gender expectations.

[John Galt]

UrielsFyre wrote: John Galt wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: John Galt wrote: There is no "spectrum" of gender. There are two genders, which are, interestingly enough, the same as the two sexes: male and female. Now, some females theink they are male while some males think they are female, but no male thinks he's really a zongdilong, or any female thinks she's really a lubritris. Why? Because I just made those things up. They are not genders. There are two genders. This is demostratable. This is also simple biology. A tryst requiring three partners -- perhaps two contribiting genetic material to a third carrier organism -- does not happen aside from the wonders of science. Sexual reproduction requires two -- genetic material from one of each of the sexes. There is only two sexes. Two sexes = two genders.

There are two sexes: Male (m) and Female (m)
There are three genders: Masculine (M), Feminine (F) and Androgynous (A).
Therefore, sociologically and psychologically speaking, there are six gender identities Mm, Fm, Am, Mf, Ff, Af.

I'm sorry, but that is wrong. I have only seen males and females in my day, and that includes poor souls who think they are something they are not. If there is a mysterious third sex, I'd like to see it (I think I would anyway). Science would to. Amazing discovery: there are three sexes, one hjas been hidden in front of everyone for thousands of years! Crazy talk.

I'm sorry too. But, I am not wrong. You are confusing sex (biological) with gender (psychological and sociological). Yes, there are two sexes. There is no debate there. There are three genders, however. And the combination of the two creates six gender identities.

Sex is what you have between your legs. Gender is how you respond to psychological and sociological conditioning for the appropriate role of each sex. Gender identity is, then, the ways in which each sex can respond to gender expectations.

We can't just make stuff up like that. There is no adrogynous gender. Sure, there are people that describe themselves as "asexual" and are not sexually attracted to anyone, but that doesn't mean they are their own "gender." Furthermore, just because someone dresses like a woman, it does not mean they are a woman. There are two genders and two sexes since they are the same thing. This idea that genders are somehow differnt than the sex is absolutely bunk. Sure, people might think they are a female when they are a male. I do not deny that they really think that. It doesn't mean they are not male.

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: There is no "spectrum" of gender. There are two genders, which are, interestingly enough, the same as the two sexes: male and female. Now, some females theink they are male while some males think they are female, but no male thinks he's really a zongdilong, or any female thinks she's really a lubritris. Why? Because I just made those things up. They are not genders. There are two genders. This is demostratable. This is also simple biology. A tryst requiring three partners -- perhaps two contribiting genetic material to a third carrier organism -- does not happen aside from the wonders of science. Sexual reproduction requires two -- genetic material from one of each of the sexes. There is only two sexes. Two sexes = two genders.
Trying to refute my arguments regarding the existance of a gender spectrum by concocting several fancy ways of saying "No, there isn't" doesn't cut it.

All it demonstrates is that the poster is locked into a narrow-minded approach to the subject - so much so that actually addressing my points is apparently beyond his ability.

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: We can't just make stuff up like that. There is no adrogynous gender. Sure, there are people that describe themselves as "asexual" and are not sexually attracted to anyone, but that doesn't mean they are their own "gender." Furthermore, just because someone dresses like a woman, it does not mean they are a woman. There are two genders and two sexes since they are the same thing. This idea that genders are somehow differnt than the sex is absolutely bunk. Sure, people might think they are a female when they are a male. I do not deny that they really think that. It doesn't mean they are not male.
Repetition of the prior argument, saying little more than "No, there isn't" yet again without any real attempt to refute anything except via outright denial.

To support your claim, you would have to assert that all males experience what it means to be male in exactly the same way. Do you, in fact, deny that people have differing experiences surrounding their gender and sexuality?

[John Galt]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: There is no "spectrum" of gender. There are two genders, which are, interestingly enough, the same as the two sexes: male and female. Now, some females theink they are male while some males think they are female, but no male thinks he's really a zongdilong, or any female thinks she's really a lubritris. Why? Because I just made those things up. They are not genders. There are two genders. This is demostratable. This is also simple biology. A tryst requiring three partners -- perhaps two contribiting genetic material to a third carrier organism -- does not happen aside from the wonders of science. Sexual reproduction requires two -- genetic material from one of each of the sexes. There is only two sexes. Two sexes = two genders.
Trying to refute my arguments regarding the existance of a gender spectrum by concocting several fancy ways of saying "No, there isn't" doesn't cut it.

All it demonstrates is that the poster is locked into a narrow-minded approach to the subject - so much so that actually addressing my points is apparently beyond his ability.

Your point was that there was a spectrum, but I think -- in fact I know as any biologist, let alone most if not all mentally challenged people -- could tell you what I just did. I wasn't aware I needed a sceintific study to prove truisms such as: there are two sexes.

[Enoch]

John Galt wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: John Galt wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: John Galt wrote: There is no "spectrum" of gender. There are two genders, which are, interestingly enough, the same as the two sexes: male and female. Now, some females theink they are male while some males think they are female, but no male thinks he's really a zongdilong, or any female thinks she's really a lubritris. Why? Because I just made those things up. They are not genders. There are two genders. This is demostratable. This is also simple biology. A tryst requiring three partners -- perhaps two contribiting genetic material to a third carrier organism -- does not happen aside from the wonders of science. Sexual reproduction requires two -- genetic material from one of each of the sexes. There is only two sexes. Two sexes = two genders.

There are two sexes: Male (m) and Female (m)
There are three genders: Masculine (M), Feminine (F) and Androgynous (A).
Therefore, sociologically and psychologically speaking, there are six gender identities Mm, Fm, Am, Mf, Ff, Af.

I'm sorry, but that is wrong. I have only seen males and females in my day, and that includes poor souls who think they are something they are not. If there is a mysterious third sex, I'd like to see it (I think I would anyway). Science would to. Amazing discovery: there are three sexes, one hjas been hidden in front of everyone for thousands of years! Crazy talk.

I'm sorry too. But, I am not wrong. You are confusing sex (biological) with gender (psychological and sociological). Yes, there are two sexes. There is no debate there. There are three genders, however. And the combination of the two creates six gender identities.

Sex is what you have between your legs. Gender is how you respond to psychological and sociological conditioning for the appropriate role of each sex. Gender identity is, then, the ways in which each sex can respond to gender expectations.

We can't just make stuff up like that. There is no adrogynous gender. Sure, there are people that describe themselves as "asexual" and are not sexually attracted to anyone, but that doesn't mean they are their own "gender." Furthermore, just because someone dresses like a woman, it does not mean they are a woman. There are two genders and two sexes since they are the same thing. This idea that genders are somehow differnt than the sex is absolutely bunk. Sure, people might think they are a female when they are a male. I do not deny that they really think that. It doesn't mean they are not male.

Once again you confuse gender and sex.

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: Your point was that there was a spectrum, but I think -- in fact I know as any biologist, let alone most if not all mentally challenged people -- could tell you what I just did.
I doubt that all biologists would agree with you. (Maybe you should ask Anne Fausto-Sterling)

Implying insult by asserting that I don't know what a mentally challenged person knows.......that's pretty low.

Quote: I wasn't aware I needed a sceintific study to prove truisms such as: there are two sexes.
Still confusing the concept of gender with sex.

Squawking repeatedly that there are only two sexes and therefore only two genders instead of actually attempting to refute our assertions with real arguments and logical reasoning isn't doing anything to improve your reputation as a debator. I suggest trying a different strategy.

[John Galt]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: Your point was that there was a spectrum, but I think -- in fact I know as any biologist, let alone most if not all mentally challenged people -- could tell you what I just did.
I doubt that all biologists would agree with you. (Maybe you should ask Anne Fausto-Sterling)

Implying insult by asserting that I don't know what a mentally challenged person knows.......that's pretty low.

It wasn't an insult towards you; I was just stating facts.

Quote: Quote: I wasn't aware I needed a sceintific study to prove truisms such as: there are two sexes.
Still confusing the concept of gender with sex.

Squawking repeatedly that there are only two sexes and therefore only two genders instead of actually attempting to refute our assertions with real arguments and logical reasoning isn't doing anything to improve your reputation as a debator. I suggest trying a different strategy.

I'm not "confusing" anything. I know what you are talking about. The "concept of gender" which is this made-up concept that is devoid of factual basis. I don't care that some poor souls are confused as to what they are; it does not mean that there is multiple genders. There are two.

[Enoch]

John Galt wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: Your point was that there was a spectrum, but I think -- in fact I know as any biologist, let alone most if not all mentally challenged people -- could tell you what I just did.
I doubt that all biologists would agree with you. (Maybe you should ask Anne Fausto-Sterling)

Implying insult by asserting that I don't know what a mentally challenged person knows.......that's pretty low.

It wasn't an insult towards you; I was just stating facts.

Quote: Quote: I wasn't aware I needed a sceintific study to prove truisms such as: there are two sexes.
Still confusing the concept of gender with sex.

Squawking repeatedly that there are only two sexes and therefore only two genders instead of actually attempting to refute our assertions with real arguments and logical reasoning isn't doing anything to improve your reputation as a debator. I suggest trying a different strategy.

I'm not "confusing" anything. I know what you are talking about. The "concept of gender" which is this made-up concept that is devoid of factual basis. I don't care that some poor souls are confused as to what they are; it does not mean that there is multiple genders. There are two.

Actually, you are confusing things. True, biologically there are two sexes. No one is denying this. And while some poeple may feel that they are not the sex they wish to be, that doesn't change that there are only two sexes.

Gender is psychological. It is how the social expectations of sex roles are conceived and played out. If all men were masculine, and thus exhibited purely masculine traits, we would not likely see men cry, care for children, take care of a home, or do anything else that is often thought to be a feminine quality. Likewise, if all women were feminine we would not see female athletes, construction workers, bodybuilders, hunters, or anything else that is often though to be a masculine quality.

The bottom line is this: Sex=biological. Gender=psychological.

[John Galt]

UrielsFyre wrote: John Galt wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: John Galt wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: John Galt wrote: There is no "spectrum" of gender. There are two genders, which are, interestingly enough, the same as the two sexes: male and female. Now, some females theink they are male while some males think they are female, but no male thinks he's really a zongdilong, or any female thinks she's really a lubritris. Why? Because I just made those things up. They are not genders. There are two genders. This is demostratable. This is also simple biology. A tryst requiring three partners -- perhaps two contribiting genetic material to a third carrier organism -- does not happen aside from the wonders of science. Sexual reproduction requires two -- genetic material from one of each of the sexes. There is only two sexes. Two sexes = two genders.

There are two sexes: Male (m) and Female (m)
There are three genders: Masculine (M), Feminine (F) and Androgynous (A).
Therefore, sociologically and psychologically speaking, there are six gender identities Mm, Fm, Am, Mf, Ff, Af.

I'm sorry, but that is wrong. I have only seen males and females in my day, and that includes poor souls who think they are something they are not. If there is a mysterious third sex, I'd like to see it (I think I would anyway). Science would to. Amazing discovery: there are three sexes, one hjas been hidden in front of everyone for thousands of years! Crazy talk.

I'm sorry too. But, I am not wrong. You are confusing sex (biological) with gender (psychological and sociological). Yes, there are two sexes. There is no debate there. There are three genders, however. And the combination of the two creates six gender identities.

Sex is what you have between your legs. Gender is how you respond to psychological and sociological conditioning for the appropriate role of each sex. Gender identity is, then, the ways in which each sex can respond to gender expectations.

We can't just make stuff up like that. There is no adrogynous gender. Sure, there are people that describe themselves as "asexual" and are not sexually attracted to anyone, but that doesn't mean they are their own "gender." Furthermore, just because someone dresses like a woman, it does not mean they are a woman. There are two genders and two sexes since they are the same thing. This idea that genders are somehow differnt than the sex is absolutely bunk. Sure, people might think they are a female when they are a male. I do not deny that they really think that. It doesn't mean they are not male.

Once again you confuse gender and sex.

I think you are confusing the concept of gender, which is made up, with facts. Prove me wrong. You can't.

I will submit that while I can prove Tracker's position and Skeptical Mystic's position wrong, I can not "prove" yours wrong other than I know it is wrong as biology tells me so, but you cannot "prove" my position wrong either. Your careful use of the words make me unable to prove you wrong (basically since you said "gender identities"). Skeptic and Tracker, though, are wrong. In any event, I am not confusing anything. I know what you are trying to say. I understand the "reasoning," if I can so liberally call it that, behind the "concept of gender." But I know it is wrong. You can say all you want that there is some psychological gender identity. But just because no one can prove for a fact that that is incorrect since it is impossible does not mean you are objectivley correct.

[Prole]

John Galt wrote:
I think you are confusing the concept of gender, which is made up, with facts. Prove me wrong. You can't.

I will submit that while I can prove Tracker's position and Skeptical Mystic's position wrong, I can not "prove" yours wrong other than I know it is wrong as biology tells me so, but you cannot "prove" my position wrong either. Your careful use of the words make me unable to prove you wrong (basically since you said "gender identities"). Skeptic and Tracker, though, are wrong. In any event, I am not confusing anything. I know what you are trying to say. I understand the "reasoning," if I can so liberally call it that, behind the "concept of gender." But I know it is wrong. You can say all you want that there is some psychological gender identity. But just because no one can prove for a fact that that is incorrect since it is impossible does not mean you are objectivley correct.
Sticking your head in the sand and dogmatically repeating your viewpoint with no evidence whatsoever proves nothing except for your own closed-mindedness.

Yes, biologists rightly assert that there are only two sexes. But biology alone does not address anything about human behavior or human thinking, which concerns gender. Sciences related to human behavior and thinking, including psychology, pschiatry, sociology, anthropology, and probably a few others I admit all confirm that gender exists on a spectrum, as well as showing that sex and gender do not always equate to one another.

Some experts go so far as to say that the only differences between genders is a result of human society and that sex does not innately have anything to do with our gender identity; this seems a bit extreme to me. Some experts say that gender roles are "natural" and innatre; again, this seems a bit extreme. Almost universally, however, all experts confirm that gender is hardly a definite thing (unlike sex), and that sex and gender do not always equate to one another.

You say that there can only be two genders because anything else is made up. Well guess what; genders are made up as well, and features which we arbitrarily assign characteristics to. Is cooking feminine, or masculine? What about teaching? What about seeking education in certain fields, such as medicine? These are all things which have at different societies in different points in history been associated with "masculine" or "feminine" and appropriately so, for each society. This is not meant to prove either society right or wrong, but rather to illustrate that while gender identity itself is a product of society, and while it is not "made up" in the sense that it does not exist, it certainly is (insofar as it pertains to human society, interaction and personality) a human creation.

[John Galt]

Prole wrote: John Galt wrote:
I think you are confusing the concept of gender, which is made up, with facts. Prove me wrong. You can't.

I will submit that while I can prove Tracker's position and Skeptical Mystic's position wrong, I can not "prove" yours wrong other than I know it is wrong as biology tells me so, but you cannot "prove" my position wrong either. Your careful use of the words make me unable to prove you wrong (basically since you said "gender identities"). Skeptic and Tracker, though, are wrong. In any event, I am not confusing anything. I know what you are trying to say. I understand the "reasoning," if I can so liberally call it that, behind the "concept of gender." But I know it is wrong. You can say all you want that there is some psychological gender identity. But just because no one can prove for a fact that that is incorrect since it is impossible does not mean you are objectivley correct.
Sticking your head in the sand and dogmatically repeating your viewpoint with no evidence whatsoever proves nothing except for your own closed-mindedness.

As opposed to what other people are doing here? I'm not sorry if I am going with what thousands of years of expreience and science has tought us rather than a few decades of some femisist propoganda.

Quote: Yes, biologists rightly assert that there are only two sexes. But biology alone does not address anything about human behavior or human thinking, which concerns gender. Sciences related to human behavior and thinking, including psychology, pschiatry, sociology, anthropology, and probably a few others I admit all confirm that gender exists on a spectrum, as well as showing that sex and gender do not always equate to one another.

Some experts go so far as to say that the only differences between genders is a result of human society and that sex does not innately have anything to do with our gender identity; this seems a bit extreme to me. Some experts say that gender roles are "natural" and innatre; again, this seems a bit extreme. Almost universally, however, all experts confirm that gender is hardly a definite thing (unlike sex), and that sex and gender do not always equate to one another.

You say that there can only be two genders because anything else is made up. Well guess what; genders are made up as well, and features which we arbitrarily assign characteristics to. Is cooking feminine, or masculine? What about teaching? What about seeking education in certain fields, such as medicine? These are all things which have at different societies in different points in history been associated with "masculine" or "feminine" and appropriately so, for each society. This is not meant to prove either society right or wrong, but rather to illustrate that while gender identity itself is a product of society, and while it is not "made up" in the sense that it does not exist, it certainly is (insofar as it pertains to human society, interaction and personality) a human creation.

OK, sure, society makes "roles" up, to an extent. I don't see why that matters. I am not feminine since I cook and clean and do the ironing, nor am I masculine because I kill and skin things and am the bread winner. I don't see why a person would be one or the other or why this crap matters. That is a bunch of nonsense, much like the idea of "gender" in the first place. There are males, and then there are females. I don't understand why it is so hard for some people to accept the fact that men and women are the only two sexes that exist.

IN ANY EVENT, Tracker orginally said that there was more than two genders. This is demonstratably false as, for the sake of argument pretending that this concept malarcky is correct, gender still relies on sex. Now it is saying that society makes them something they are not or whatever... doesn't matter. What matters is there is still only two genders. Now, Uries Fyre says that there is more than two gender identites -- of course that not what Tracker said. Skeptic may have thought he said that, but again, he did not. He was talking about a spectrum of gender, which again is demonstrably false. Now what isn't disprovable is Uries Fyre's assertion that there are multiple "gender identites" because I cannot fathoim how one could disprove it, unless you are to demonstrate all people who think they have a "gender identiy" are crazy... considering many people buy this stuff for reasons unknown to me it would be hard to do. BUT just because you can't disprove something, like oh I don't know, that God exists, doesn't mean that it is objectivly true.

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: I will submit that while I can prove Tracker's position and Skeptical Mystic's position wrong
Still waiting for you to actually make the effort. Perhaps you missed in my posts where I said that if you look up the word 'gender' in a dictionary, you'll find it used synonymously with 'sex'. Dictionaries don't create the definitions of words, however; they report on them. Those definitions change over time as usage changes and new concepts are adopted.

You're stuck on the old definition that equates gender with sex. Yet even our concept that sex is neatly divided into male/female is open to question. Normally, it is the case that people develop as verifiably male or female in both outward appearance and by way of examining their chromosome pairs for 'XX' or 'XY'. But there are cases where the 'genetic sex' doesn't match the physical appearance because of problems occuring during gestation, resulting in a child born intersexed.

If such things were more common, we'd likely view 'sex' as being on a spectrum as well. You're error is in assuming that our past concepts of things like sex and gender are etched in stone, given that science is constantly probing deeper into and re-evaluating those concepts to see if they hold true.

In the case of gender, we find that people have not only a biological sex but also a gender identity - a person’s internal self-awareness of being either male or female, masculine or feminine, or something in-between. That identity is certainly psychological in nature, though I think it is likely based at least in part on biology as a norm. But some people don't fit the statistical norms (such as in the case of an effeminate man or a masculine woman).

So we arrive at the question of whether the behaviors and roles we associate with one's sex are determined biologically, through socialization or by some combination. I say the issue is open to debate and have stated my position in that debate. You want us to believe there is no room for debate and that only your narrow-minded approach can be the correct one - but you fail to support your assertions. Moreover, your dismissive attitude on the subject indicates that you are either unable or unwilling to mentally process the ideas central to this concept. That does not equate to being a failure of the concept.

Quote: I understand the "reasoning," if I can so liberally call it that, behind the "concept of gender."
I'm not convinced that you do.

Quote: But I know it is wrong. You can say all you want that there is some psychological gender identity. But just because no one can prove for a fact that that is incorrect since it is impossible does not mean you are objectivley correct.
I don't accept that you know what you claim to know. You haven't found a way to adequately prove what you claim to know.

I would say that it is not impossible to prove that concept of gender identity to be wrong if it is indeed so easily known to be wrong as you'd like to claim. Yet you give us nothing except that same unsupported claim over and over.

If you really want us to dig up all the research going on in this area I suppose we could explore in that direction. But I get the impression you aren't really interested in an actual debate on the topic - only in blustering.

[Tracker]

Let's calm it down -- "de-fuss it" -- DEFUSSION -- my own weird word.

The problem in our communication here is using like-terms with multiple definitions. Firstly, our LAWS regard 'gender-discrimination' to mean what is PHYSICALLY your body. That means, whether or not your have a penis (gender type-A), a vagina (gender type-B), neither (gender-type-C), either (gender-type-D).

Those are the laws of our lands and all non-gender discrimination law is based on that.

SEX, on the other hand, is what you do with your physical gender. Sex is sex. Anybody can do it. It is an ACT ... not a physical-form.

SEXUAL-ORIENTATION is what types of sex-ACTS you engage your physical-gender WITH.

"Gender Identity" is the psychological study of sexual-orientation "the use of your physical-gender while engaging in sexual-acts and how that relates to your human-existence and interpersonal relationships."

These are also the definitions used by all religions. Therefore, LAW and IDEALOGY argree. The only one's whom do not, are a few posters here in this forum, quoting text-books written by those whom didn't consult with either LAW or IDEOLOGISTS before writing their reports.

SM >>> again, your posts are highly contradictory -- (the words, I don't know you as a person or whom you are -- just the words on the screen) -- and when pointing out these contradictions, you resort to accusations of 'personal attacks.' KNOCK IT OFF, and please be advised. So, again, just the wording. But many people understand my posts just fine -- so, it just depends on 'audience.' Do not take it personally -- we're talking about interpretation of WORDS ON THE SCREEN -- not making judgements of the people discussing topics.

When it comes to biology, terminology is contradictory to LAW and IDEOLOGY in SOME text-books, due to the reason stated above, and that causes confussion with 'audience.' Most educational institutions align terminology for this exact reason. Some align definitions of words contradictorily ON PURPOSE, to establish an 'select-group', and thereby the school-of-thought (ThoughtSchool) reflective of the CrossOfShame, where all whom do not goose-step in lock-step with their use of the SAME WORDS, are HATED, and ruthlessly hammered to their figurative CROSS, hatefully labeled as being 'stupid.' And that is HatefulReligiousSupremacy -- even when it is supposed to be science, or an interesting discussion. And that is how religion infects science.

UNIONS are infected in the same way.

So is LANGUAGE. And that is why misspellings, typos, strange-word-use, misinterpretations, etc., is used by so-called 'positive-people' to HATE those they label as being 'negative,' doing that hateful religious supremacist version of figurative carpentry, hatefully hammering 'negatives' ruthlessly to the merciless CrossOfShame in so-called 'goodness.' That says much more about the person doing it, than the one who used WORDS, misunderstood or misspelled.

Just because you think you know something, doesn't mean you are SUPERIOR to those whom do not, or possess more INTELLIGENCE, but belittling those for differences is hateful.

UNIONS are between PEOPLE, 'of the people and by the people.' Gender has nothing to do with it. 'Marriage' is a religious term used by religions, in order to be hatefully superior to those whom are not 'married' by religious standards.

That is why a UNION between two people can be very loving, but they do not engage in sex with each other AT ALL, and may engage in sex with others, but that has no bearing on their LOVE for each other. And everybody is taught to LIE about sex. And that is a National Security concern. And religion encourages it, and that is highly dangerous.

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: Skeptic may have thought he said that, but again, he did not. He was talking about a spectrum of gender, which again is demonstrably false.
1) Go back and re-read what I said at the outset about how I make use of the terms 'sex' vs. 'gender'.

2) You haven't demonstrated anything.

A person with normal reading comprehension who wasn't more interested in scoring debate points than in the truth ought to understand fairly easily that I'm talking about gender as a concept of identity, not as one's physical sex. You're being thoroughly unreasonable.

Edit: Part of the problem here is that you appear not to have started from my original post, but rather from Tracker's misstatement of something I said and my correction of it. That correction didn't encompass the entirety of what was conveyed in my original post.

[Tracker]

[quote="JohnGalt"Skeptic may have thought he said that, but again, he did not. He was talking about a spectrum of gender, which again is demonstrably false[/quote]

Skeptic mentioned 'spectrum' and I disputed it with the CLARIFICATION that Skeptic ALSO disputed it in the next paragraph of their first post in this thread.

You see, people, someone that is born without a penis or vagina cannot be labeled as either 'male' or 'female.' And someone born with both, cannot be labeled that way, either.
-- there are those whom are born with NONE.
-- there are those born with BOTH.
-- there are those born with ELSE.

==========================
clarified wording OnEdit. Also, I'd like to add that I grew up knowing someone that was hermaphroditic. What hateful religious supemacist LABELS of INTOLERANT terroristic 'morality' befall this person? I'll tell you EXACTLY: shame/blameTerrorism, nonstop, all day long, all their lives until they die, old, lonly and miserable so religion PROFITS, as usual, in their so-called 'goodness.'

[Tracker]

And that is exactly why Marriage Amendment proposals are UNCONSTITUTIONAL from the START, because they DENY RIGHTS to groups of people within the UNION.