What type of people allow a 5 year old to transition!?

Post Reply New Topic

If a five year old female wants to play with action figures, use he pronouns, wear masculine clothes, etc, let him. This is reversible if he decides he is a girl after all.

The dictionary is affirming what I said. That sex and gender have the same meaning. It also explains that later into the 20th century the meaning of the two words diverged. It fails though to explain how it diverged. The one to popularised the term gender as a cultural observation of sex was Simone de Beauvoir in the context of "feminist theory". And then it was used within the context of postmodernist discourse on the matter of differences between the female and male genders and later transgenderism and so on. Postmodernism is trash for the record. But in the humanities has gained track. It is within those circles that the word was used in a different context. The rest of the society is oblivious to that and use the word as It's actual meaning. In short, a crazy cult-like ideology gives a new meaning to a word, which postmodernism does a lot, and suddenly it's meaning changes in the vocabulary? I don't think so, neither does Merriam-webster who added an entire parenthesis to explain what is going on rather unsuccessfully. It also admits that the two words still hold the same meaning. It should only add that the meaning has changed in the minds of some people because of their quasi religious believes. Which is what I've said. Because some of you mentioned the different meaning of the two words as a matter of fact, and it's not.

I'm still wondering why people on this forum think they have a right to pass judgement on a family whom they have no business with.

Matthew7:3-5 NIV“
Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?

You know, rejecting the difference between "sex" and "gender" is a bit like insisting "force" and "power" are the same thing when talking to an engineer.
You can spend any amount of time and effort arguing - and it will change exactly nothing about how engines work.

Originally these words may have meant the same - but where need for more precise language emerged, their meaning diverged.

This is different now. Formerly you did not specify that the difference in the meaning of the two words is field specific. You are saying this now.

Yes it's similar to technical terms of a field. But you have to specify it when talking to people. For example, "in feminist theory, the term gender is used in the context...". Dont just drop the word and expect people to undertand it automaicaly. Because when someone says, "more power to you" they don't mean the power as a measure of physics. If someone is using the word power as a measure of physics it's better to specify in order to avoid confusion.

Also physics is a universally accepted field because it's universally practical. Postmodernist disciplines are trash. Nobody cares for them except for the people who fall victim to their mish mash of obscure thought process. Not only they are not science, they are anti-science. Big difference

In feminist theory, women are citizens who can vote and be elected And philosophy has been "trash" since at least Socrates, because it was just some obscure divagations of nerds of the past and most people were uninterested and unaffected by some freaks studying circles and triangles
And linguistics is trash because who cares for people who can't speak like me

When describing transgender issues, "sex" is the biological layer and "gender" is the cultural layer.
It is relevant to this topic, so let's stick to these definitions.

Happy now?

No, there are various approaches to gender dysphoria. One is from the medical field who's epistemological approach is empiricism or the scientific method. Another one is from a postmodernist point of view (woke). Postmodernist pseudo-disciplines do not have an exclusivity over the matter. So when we are talking about gender dysphoria you still have to specify that you are talking in terms according to this or that postmodernist approach. Also feminism itself can be approached differently, according to the epistemology used. Simone de Beauvoir's postmodernist approach does not hold exclusivity over feminism.
Not all philosophy is trash. You have the continental philosophy which is gibberish and which gave birth to marvels of thought like communism, fascism and postmodernism. And you have the analytic philosophy which uses formal logic, mathematics and the natural sciences.

The scientific method > philosophy

There, I saved 15 pages of wasted text

And if you want to test different approaches against each other, start with agreeing on some common language in which you describe these approaches. That's the "useful" part of philosophy, lol.

Are you somehow ideologically opponent to the concept that biology of reproduction is not exactly the same as cultural norms and expectations for men and women?

So, I give up. It’s pretty obvious every time you “answer” my questions I’m going to get an “if by whiskey” speech.

Also, you keep speaking for “everybody” and “nobody” and “(cisgender) men” as if not only are these unified absolutes but you have omniscient insight into their feelings and beliefs - despite actual concrete examples on this thread that there are people in these categories who disagree with you. Then you claim to be working from a scientific approach.

Science doesn’t ignore data that doesn’t fit the theory.

You seem to be using a “no true scottsman” approach on your data - “straight men won’t date trans women” therefor if a person dates a trans woman, he is not a straight man. Even if he claims he is.

And you say we need to find a science based way to help people with gender disphoria and that reassignment surgery is not the answer - fair, “the” answer is absolute, but that is not what you seem to mean, you seem to mean it is not “an” answer, despite years of longitudinal data showing it is in fact “the” answer for many people.

And you won’t define your terms of classification (what does “biological” sex mean- physiology or genetics? Can’t have both and only two genders.)

You say words can evolve and have new meanings, but only the meanings you want can be mainstream. Good luck with that.

There is no basis here for discussion, debate, or understanding - as you clearly have no wish to understand me and are unwilling or unable to help me understand you. (Unless what I am supposed to understand is that your position on this issue is religion - “I know the truth and will bend the world to fit it”, not science - “I want the truth and will bend my knowledge to fit the world, in which case - got it.)”

My physicist point of view:
Science is particularily interested in cases where data appears not to fit the theory because that's where new phenomena can be potentially discovered and/or our understanding of existing phenomena can be improved.

Science is all about inquiry….not being stuck in absolutes.

Without science, we would still believe Ptolemy. We wouldn’t have had a Copernicus.

I believe a combination of hard science and anecdote is ideal.

From the point of view of hard science, anectdotes prove nothing themselves but they can be worth thorough investigantion, potentially hinting directions to new discoveries.

I'm sorry, I don't understand.



We could discuss that in an objective empirical way. The postmodernist approach I believe it to be completely irrational and akin to a mischievous cult. It's dicieving as it tends to constantly shift the meaning of words rendering any meaningfull discourse useless, having thus a gass lighting effect to the unsuspecting person. It's hurtful to people and especially to those who believe in it's claims.

That's definitely what science is about. But in this case we are talking about postmodernism which is anti-science.

If you want to discuss how a theory A relates to the theory B, first define how terms describing theory A relate to terms describing theory B.

Definitely. You have biology and various aspects of it. You also have society and various aspects of it (actually, many various societes and even more if we include historical ones). These are objective, empirical facts.

Stating the difference between "sex" and "gender" is not shifting meanings of words to render discourse useless, it's exactly the opposite: providing definitions of terms we're using to make the discourse more precise.