Erik_Soong

Traitor.

You want me to put more thought into my vote than you did into your tournament? Pass.

Luna.

I saw that you are using scholarly sources to support your discussion with SC. Seeing that earned my respect and helped me recognize that I too may have helped precipitate this misunderstanding. Now that I know you are capable of higher reasoning, I will give you the benefit of the doubt in the future if there are disagreements or misunderstandings.

@azureus: Fair enough. A simple misunderstanding, which frankly is pretty common on these difficult topics. I apologize if I responded aggressively to perceived, yet unintentional or misdirected aggression.

Yeah they are and more importantly, the fact you're starting with this proves you know exactly what I was getting at. Seeing how you've raised this point and haven't even bothered to clarify your stance, what could you possibly be arguing against here then?

Related acknowledges that there is some kind of relationship. Linked suggests that they cannot be decoupled and that one follows the other. We know is not necessarily the case, such as when gender identity and sex are incongruent. Knowing what you are getting at does not mean that I agree with you. I can read a comment, process its meaning after consideration of the context in which it is used, then respond as I have done here. As for clarification, I had made an assumption based on the fact that you had entered this conversation by quoting me. Specifically, I assumed that you had been reading this thread where I have offered a much more expansive explanation of my position. Did I assume too much? Did you only read my last post and decide that you had enough of an understanding to engage me in debate? If so, this is a failing on your part.

??? You've listed several sex traits and claimed none of them have anything to do with gender. So unless both us are not on the same page, you have no room to be a Nazi about my loose use of terminology with a claim that careless.

I listed the myriad of ways that we identify sex, yes, then stated that they are not linked with gender identity, which is also true. They can be, but they are not necessarily. If yours is a semantical argument, then I would say that we are not on the same page. Yours is also an argument with a fair amount of hypocrisy, as your initial position was to call out perceived loose use of terminology. You set the stage, then call foul when your own posts are called out on those grounds? What?

Yeah not good enough. Usually when people are challenged to give sources, if its a publication, they reference a paper too.

Fair enough. How about now? Or here? Or here? Or here? Or here? The list goes on and on and on. This took minutes of searching, so I know you could have done this yourself and arrived at the same conclusion. There are several physical factors that play a part in determining sex. Gender is socially/culturally driven and therefore not intrinsically linked to sex. They interact and often overlap, but they are distinct and for good reason. This is called motivated reasoning; you are incentivized to deny that such articles exist and are prevalent, forcing me to supply evidence that is not necessary.

I don't ever recall making the claim that sex and gender are not distinct. I instead recall challenging you to show me any research that says sex and gender are not related in anyway. Where are you running with this?

Yes, we have already established that you misunderstood my argument and fashioned a strawman to better defeat it. I did not say that they are not in any way related. I described ways we identified sex and stated that these identifiers have nothing to do with gender identity; a person who is sex male can be gender female rather easily, with none of those male sex traits playing a role in that person's gender identity at all. On reflection, mine could be seen as a bit of a lazy statement and therefore imperfect, but it is generally fine. After all, I have been discussing gender with some rather uninspired posters and may have allowed my own standards to fall. Having a penis does not mean you identify as gender male. Few people know what chromosomes they actually have and simply assume based on secondary sex characteristics, their assigned sex, or social gender. Again, this is a pressure, a contributing factor, but they are not linked in the same way that there is genetic linkage, where a shift in one naturally causes a change in the other. Your current effort appears to be to deliberately misunderstand. Or perhaps it is an accidental misunderstanding? Given the way you present yourself, I highly doubt it. That is why you are attempting to put words in my mouth about sex and gender not having any kind of relationship, when that was not stated within the contextual framework of my previous argument. It seems clear to me that this is an argument in bad faith. If your argument is simply going to be about splitting hairs while refusing to hold yourself to the standards you hold others to, I can simply amend my argument as an accidental lapse in linguistics if you ultimately manage to corner me on it. Is this the victory you are looking for?

Clearly, we're not on the same page so perhaps I misunderstood something: Are you making the claim that sex and gender are not related in anyway?

No. Gender interacts with sex, but just because there is a relationship does not mean that gender is chained to sex.

Well as far as, me, bringing Ellen Page to this disussion is concern, I find it very practical to refer to Ellen Page base on her original gender identity.

• It will avoid unnecessary confusion, specially for people who are not aware of Ellen Page's current status.
• It will remain impartial and objective as both sides of the discussion can agree that we refer to "Ellen Page" originally as "Ellen Page", and that's fact nobody can refute. We have tons of documents and reference to point and support that claim.
• The discussion will remain consistent and understood even if Ellen Page decides one day to change her gender identity to whatever she wants (I don't need to go back to this post and edit each and everyone of them to conform the whatever new identity she can come up with).

Of course, some people, compelled by their emotions, will still complain about it, no matter how hard I try to explain the context behind it.

Again that's on them, not on me.

Your passive-aggressiveness tells me that I have wounded you. That, according to your logic, is on you. Referring to Elliot Page by his assigned gender is not referring to him by his original gender identity. This is a conflation and gross misunderstanding of identity. You are denying his identity because you cannot be bothered to extend basic human decency to another person and recognize their understood gender. Anyone who follows his career would be more confused by you referring to him by a discarded name and incorrect gender than if you use his current name and expressed gender. Your second point is nonsense. It is not objective as I have repeatedly outlined and which you have repeatedly proven incapable of addressing. Impartiality means just and fair. If you are referring to someone by their gender when it aligns with their sex, but refusing to do so when they are not aligned, you are not being fair. You are being selective and therefore falling short of impartiality and into implicit bias. This was the same argument put forth by people who tried to deny members of the LGBT from marrying someone of the same sex and it was as absurd, unfair, and ignorant then as it is now. As for consistent, your insistence to refuse to recognize their expressed gender does achieve this, but perhaps at the expense of their dignity.

I'm not here to appease people emotions, I am here to discuss. Hopefully as objective and impersonal as I possibly can.

You have failed to achieve this.

As I said this topic is controversial and very personal to some people.

This is true.

Rregardless of what we say, some people will find offense on anything that doesn't agree with their opinions, beliefs, and sensibilities.

This is not a point that supports your position. It is a thoughtless observation that does nothing but fill post space.

So what's the point of choosing to be "nice"? "Nice" to who?

LOL! When you were not treated nicely, your reaction was so strong, that you expressed pain and frustration in an entirely different discussion with a different person.

Nice to Ellen Page? Is she even here to care about my opinions?

You do not know. Even if he is not present, those in similar situations certainly are. Be cognizant of this before you post. If you want to be addressed with respect, extend it to others first.

You cannot satisfy everybody's feelings. And it is a futile effort to do so.

This is not about feelings and your failure to understand this is astounding. Doubly so when your own feelings have been hurt in this very thread and it has had a major impact on you personally that has extended days now.

What I choose to do instead is to be civilized in my discussion whenever I can, and be as objective and consistent in my statements and positions so people would not confuse it with something else.

You also refuse to update your priors when soundly beaten. Not very civilized.

I am in control of my emotions. This sounds more like projecting. I can see what you mean about disparaging remarks though. I find it interesting that this is off-putting for you after you mocked Elliot Page with the same level of disrespect. You can dish it out, but it seems you have no taste for it when it is directed at you.

Sigh.

You are spewing an endless stream of ignorance and you find me exhausting? LOL.

Sorry if you have to wait for 8 days for my "crappy" response. I guess you didn't realize that people have something else to do with their lives than to debate all day in CV,

You had eight days to prepare your response. It is not the delay that made the response utter crap, it is the content.

63+ genders already and still counting. It seems like people are arbitrarily assigning whatever "identities" they could imagine as "gender", if you ask me.

Fortunately, no one ever asked you. No one ever will either because no one cares about the layman's opinion.

Hell even psychologists couldn't agree how many actual genders we should have (NY only agreed to 31 "flavors", I guess even liberal society realize that there should be a limit to this nonsense.)

Yes, that is how science works. We have to tease out this information layer by layer over time. I am sorry you think that your impatience is justification to render the exercise invalid, but that is not how it works. Things do not cease to be simply because they are uncomfortable for you.

Lol, You think remembering all 63+ genders and ensuring you do not "misgendered" anyone of them is considered "practical"?

Yes, why would it not be? You have taken the time to remember the names of all your favorite hentai artists, why is this that much bigger of an ask when it applies to gender?

I doubt even the most briliant psychiatrist will clear such a test. Hell even LGBTs tend to confuse their own "gender identity" from time to time and flip-flop on a whim.

Yes, society (and by extension, social groups) does not have the same level of understanding as professionals who have made this research their career. As that information is disseminated among the public, there is going to be confusion, resistance, and, in your case, buffoonery and mockery of things one does not understand. It is nothing but childish fear.

I'm sorry to disagree with you, but per definition, social construct is an idea that needs to be accepted by society first.

You might be confused on what we agree or disagree on. I never claimed that a social construct does not need to be accepted by society. I am saying that moronic, bigoted individuals do not get to make the decision on what is accepted on a societal level and what is not. I disagreed with your claim that social constructs are random. See below:

"Wrong. Arbitrary means that it is random, or based on a whim. A social construct is something that we, as a society, have come to understand collectively and agree on through decades of discussion, study, and reason. You fail to understand gender or social constructs on a fundamental level."

That is my quote. See where I said that a social construct is something that we collectively agree on as a society? You do not even comprehend what you are reading.

And I highly doubt that people will readily adopt to the 63 (and counting) genders format in their daily lives.

Why not?

You can insist that you are right about it, but who cares?

People who want to be recognized as people and as their understood identity surely care. That is a non-zero number. People who have no skin in the game but who do not wish to see people invalidated probably care too. If we are counting, I would estimate that is more than the hateful intellectual children who would agree with you.

as far as other people are concern what they perceived is "right" is all that matters to them, and that's how social constructed ideas gained their actual relevancy, not because you insist you are "right".

What you are saying is actually the exact opposite of a social construct. Social constructs require a societal understanding and collective acceptance. Individuals rejecting this understanding and replacing it with their own, preferred understanding is the antithesis of a social construct.

Here is the thing, as long as you can guarantee, 100%, that people will not flip flop on their genders whenever they want, we can agree that misgendering people is a sour thing to do.

You do not get to make this decision. Finding one's self is difficult and it is made more difficult due to social pressures. Pressures that come in the form of people like you, who feel some compulsion to tell people who they are.

It is already reaching to require people to remember all that 63+ genders, and it would be just bs if people had to regulary need to keep up when and where an "Ellen" would switch to "Elliot" and vis versa.

Is 63 genders really that difficult for you? Is 63 really that large of a number? If so, your mind has an extremely limited carrying capacity, if I do say so myself.

Related and linked are NOT synonyms, especially not at the professional level. How about the Journal of Applied Psychology? Impact factor of 5.851. Not good enough? What about American Psychologist, impact factor 6.54? What about Cells, which has an impact factor of a whopping 38.64? As I said when I first entered this thread, I have been studying this field professionally and academically for 10 years. I am bringing supporting evidence from professionals.

What journals are you reading? Incel Magazine? Sex is a biological term, gender is not. That is the understanding that is gaining traction and growing acceptance in the scientific community. Conflation of the terms happens and will continue to happen for years in research simply because knowledge (and yes, acceptance) takes time to work its way to every corner of intellectual pursuits. Scientists have a very narrow field of view that extends very little beyond their chosen profession. I have been in this field for a decade now and have yet to find one physician, psychologist, biologist, or whatever else you can think of who firmly rejects this new understanding. As someone who works in healthcare, we take measures to recognize the distinction between sex and gender during patient assessments. It's already in widespread use, even if not everyone understands why yet. This is not that hard to conceptualize, if you are not being willfully ignorant.