Leaderboard

You literally quoted me saying genetically intersex individuals, then cited statistics pertaining to gender dysphoria in the same post.

As per my first post in the thread: 1) A significant proportion of humans are born either intersexed or phenotypically gender fluid. Gender dysphoria has physiological basis. Gender/sex is not binary - that's a biological reality. 2) You have no way to determine if an individual is "biologically capable of bearing children" based on physical appearance. 3) You're demanding everyone else conforms to your delusional misunderstanding of biology, even at the expense of real harm to others. I therefore have no sympathy for your, or Peterson's asinine position.

So after a hysterectomy or menopause that would be fine then?

I feel like I am debating with a child. If you don't want to take this seriously I have better things to do.

But then he specifically said he would respect the choice of the person to whom the pronoun would be applied. So again, what did he do that was hypocritical?

Be careful, your'e not using MigL's chosen pronouns (he/him), you might be facing legal consequences.

These are great points. A couple of things to add are that the bill amends three sections, the one that seems to spark most discussions is the amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act which basically just adds gender-diverse folks to protected groups, which already includes things like race, sex, religion and so on. It does not limit your ability to express yourself, unless it becomes harassment or is part of an act of discrimination (which again, needs to be evidenced by the accuser). The argument against in then really is that folks are against laws that restrict someone's ability to harass others. The big issue why there are protected groups to begin with is not because we wanted laws that force us to be nice, but rather because these groups were disporportionately targeted and have suffered real consequence beyond just being offended. The other areas apparently seem to be less controversial are additions to the criminal code, which basically makes it an offense to advocate genocide or public incitement of hatred and allows for classification of gender-based hate crimes. The reasoning for these additions are in part based of Arete's information on violence against the trans community. The interesting bit is that many provinces already have made amendments by including gender identity or expression into their books for years and this is basically just codifying it on the federal level. That basically shows to me that this is just seizing it to fuel an artificial outrage machine rather than true worries about the impact of the law. "They" as a third-person singular pronoun has been in use since the 14th century. To be fair, it has dropped somewhat in popularity around the 18th century but has seen increases over the years again. This only shows how malleable language really is. Funny bit is that even if language is malleable, it really only changes through broad use (after all, it is communication tool). While I know that there folks trying to redesigning the system, I really doubt that it will have any traction (and I wasn't really aware of any of them). It is a bit like Esperanto, which while in theory had benefits, practically di not really take off. So far I have not heard of anyone ever having made the request for their use. Moreover, if it causes so much pain, surprisingly non-binary folks still actually have names. Real overreach, if you want to call it, are rarely related to laws, most of them is just a group of folks within institutions, corporations and so on and try to brand themselves a certain way or want to make a mark and appear productive. At one point or another there will be a reality check and if it turns out to be nonsense, often it gets dropped. But I am sure that silly policies are not restricted to this topic alone (but generally causes less outrage. Why is that?).

Given transgender individuals are four times more likely to be the victims of violent crime and 2.4 times as likely to be the victims of property crimes than cisgender individuals, transgender youth have a suicide rate six times higher than average, and transgender and nonbinary youth who reported having pronouns respected by all of the people they lived with attempted suicide at half the rate of those who did not have their pronouns respected by anyone with whom they lived. I'd say the evidence of harm was pretty clear.

To me entanglement is a correlation between measurement outcomes, due to non-separability of the system. Note that non-separability does not equal non-locality. Also note that it is meaningless to talk of ‘correlation’ in a quantum system unless there’s an observer there who measures both parts, and compares results (remember counterfactual definiteness) - thus entanglement is a relationship between parts as much as a relationship of a system with its environment. Lastly, an entangled system seems to me a good example of where reductionism arguably becomes problematic, because knowledge of the system does not imply knowledge of the parts. You need to know the correlation plus at least one measurement outcome on one part.

And yet, there's a guy in my town who think he speaks for an invisible sky fairy and asks me to call him Father, even though he's not my dad, and his right to not be discriminated against for it has been law since 1791.

In my opinion, it would be an infringement of MY rights when someone dictated MY pronouns or identity based on their worldview and beliefs. They aren't being asked to accept my identity and worldview - simply to acknowledge my freedom to decide how I personally identify and convey myself to the world. Hence why I fundamentally disagree with Peterson's position. I mean I would find it ridiculous if someone asked me to address them as "space unicorn omega". But are MY rights being violated when I'm asked? Or is Space Unicorn Omega INow being oppressed when I refuse and enforce MY worldview on their identity? I would argue the latter (Sorry to drag you into this SUO INow). Really at the end of the day, what does it cost to acknowledge someone's personal identity, even if you think it's delusional?

If we go back to the topic of C-16, it seems to me - and correct me if I'm wrong, his objection is that by disallowing discrimination of people based on gender identity or expression, that would prevent him from refusing to use a person's preferred pronoun, thus limiting his free speech. 1) There is a non-trivial proportion of humans who are actually born biologically intersexed, or conditions such as androgen insensitivity that will cause an individual's genitals to change from female to male during puberty. Not to mention the significant body of research demonstrating the neurological basis of transsexuality. He is basically asking that his delusional denial of biological reality be protected, which to me, seems pretty fragile and snowflakey. 2) Based on 1), how would he know an individual's sex at birth, or current physiological state? If someone says they are he/her/they, how is he to know the phenotypic or neurological reality of that? Even if it changes mid semester? If you tell me you're a Christian, and I deliberately call you a Muslim and presume you follow the tenets of Islam - that would currently be discrimination and he doesn't seem to have a problem with that. It would appear that applying it to gender identity is cherry picking. 3) No one is forcing him to believe in gender dysphoria, or accept the biological fact that gender is not fixed at birth. They are compelling him not to discriminate against those who do. As such, his right to question the validity of gender fluidity remains protected. The only thing being taken away is his "right" to discriminate against specific individuals based on their identity. Which brings the argument down to "You are denying my "right" to treat people differently based on their gender identity" which, yes - is the intent of the law. Watch me play this tiny violin.

Yes.

Asking someone if they believe in God seems way more than a yes or no question. For example, if I had responded "pantheist" in a more serious vein, that would not exactly be a yes or a no, and take further clarification. I am, BTW, agnostic, due to what I see as uncertainty inherent in any metaphysical knowledge. Especially where a universal consciousness is concerned. Questioning the form of a question is fair play, IMO.

It’s literally the situation without immigration skewing the numbers. Immigration is a zero-sum game. You’re talking about the what happens after immigration. But you can’t claim country X is doing a great job because its population is going down, when all that’s happening is that people are leaving in droves. Those people will still impact the environment. It’s just happening somewhere else. My fellow Americans will be relieved to know they have no more of a climate change impact than anyone else in the world. We were being told different.

Sure, you can dodge all you want but it won't make all this any less ridiculous. Your stance should be the first example explaining what hypocrisy is in an encyclopedia.

I think we can all agree on that point. You are in over your head and should move on to some other endeavor.

Perhaps you are. Perhaps you aren’t. I have no idea, and I truly don’t care… but No. That is not what I’m saying. I’m saying psychological therapy is more likely to lead you to a better more sustainable outcome than this (frankly ludicrous and ignorant) idea of yours that you can change all your genes from XY to XX and start menstruating and have a baby. ‘It’s so ridiculous, in fact, that I consider you to be trolling and will feed you no longer.

My thoughts? The therapy you need is psychological, not genetic.

Listen to me you weakling! Crazy people innovate okay?! Don’t you dare call me a troll! This is considered Cyber Bullying! If you saw my About Me section, you will know me better! I want to empower myself! Got that?! You really hurt my feelings! To be honest I shouldn’t even be studying this field! I should’ve been born a girl and become a female athlete as well as a wonderful mother! Just like how I was originally meant to be so! YOU DONT KNOW GENDER DYSPHORIA! Look at this post i made yesterday and think twice before you come at me with this crap! 🖕 HAVE A LOUSY DAY!

I am excluding genetically intersexed humans, anyone who is infertile. There is nothing incovenenient for me in this, in fact I feel equal empathy for these people as I feel antipathy for those morons from the youtube video above. Good one zapatos. I wonder how long it would take me to chose the needed letters from your posts (which are there) to spell "I love being a biased d on internet forums"

No it would not, people who have various medical conditions have my full sympathy and empathy and can be sure they will never get hurt by me. As for menopause its really a low blow and it just shows that if you have to use these kinds of arguments, what youre trying to argue is ridiculous. The people from the below youtube clip can go f themselves btw. Sure and that is your right. You can join the above in the YT clip for the fight. The difference bewteen you and me is that I don't want to legislate my subjective views by law and you do.

It does not require us to ignore biological sciences, it requires us to obey biological sciences.