Today I identify as a trans aardvark called Samantha

[Phi for All]

10 hours ago, MigL said:

If I get to decide what ?

I've asked you this question in two different threads, and twice in this one, and you keep doing a marvelous job of sidestepping it, like you refuse to understand what I'm asking. So here it is again:

WHO GETS TO DECIDE WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A MAN FOR YOU? Is it you? Is it other men? Is it society in general? Or someone/thing else?

10 hours ago, MigL said:

Oh, and your line, which I quoted above, makes me sound like the 'fascist' INow accused me of being ( in jest, of course ), when all I'm asking for is clarification.

I can't help what you think "my line" makes you sound like. Prejudice isn't the sole province of fascists, but I think anyone who defines how others should behave runs the risk of pre-judging them.

And all I'm asking for is clarification. Who is the ultimate authority about how YOU define what being a man is for you?

[dimreepr]

12 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

WHO GETS TO DECIDE WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A MAN FOR YOU? Is it you? Is it other men? Is it society in general? Or someone/thing else?

I'm not defending Mig, but we all do...

Jokes are a way to codify meaning, and explian thing's that the less acidemically inclined fail to see; unfortunately, not everyone gets the joke...

[Phi for All]

47 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I'm not defending Mig, but we all do...

I can see you're not defending him. You're deciding how he should behave.

47 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Jokes are a way to codify meaning, and explian thing's that the less acidemically inclined fail to see; unfortunately, not everyone gets the joke...

So why do you reduce the conversations HERE, between the academically inclined, to nothing more than stand-up videos and obscure jokes and references?

And btw, jokes are NOT a way codify meaning. If anything, jokes can show us that conventions don't always hold up. And here, your joking is as useful as some of the popular science explanations we see. It does nothing to make anything clearer for anybody HERE, and obfuscates what the discussion is trying to develop into. Considering that the topic tries to make light of something more serious, your efforts seem very counterproductive.

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

I'm not defending Mig, but we all do...

Jokes are a way to codify meaning, and explian thing's that the less acidemically inclined fail to see; unfortunately, not everyone gets the joke...

If the joke doesn't 'work', clarify immediately. It's good manners. Jokes are often used to disguise a weakening argument.

Edited February 6 by StringJunky

[MigL]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

WHO GETS TO DECIDE WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A MAN FOR YOU? Is it you?

I'm not trying to decide anything for anyone, so I don't see where your question come from.( and syop yelling; loud does not win arguments or make right )

If you would take the time to read, instead of jumping in with your chip on your shoulder, you would note that all my posts have been about Joigus stating that XX and XY chromosones define male and female , and INow correcting him with the fact that there are various other chromosonal combinations possible, such as XXX, XXY, XYY, etc.
I then,always ready to stir the pot, asked why we try to cure/prevent genetic aberrations like dwarfism, giantism, autism, etc., but we don't try to cure/prevent the XX and XY chromosonal aberrations that INow mentioned to Joigus ?
And  an explanation that I'm still waiting for.
So what exactly, does your loud question have to do with the discussion so far ????

This is now the third time I've recounted the trajectory of this thread and re-explained my query.
I know you don't have reading comprehension issues, so I'm led to believe that you simply choose to ignore the points being made, and the questions asked, and simply default to your continuing agenda of trying to paint me as a fascist trying to decide for others what they should be.

[Phi for All]

4 hours ago, MigL said:

I'm not trying to decide anything for anyone, so I don't see where your question come from.( and syop yelling; loud does not win arguments or make right )

You haven't decided what being a man is for you? You're too smart not to see why I ask, so I think you're looking a few moves ahead, and have decided not to answer me yet again. I think you know that each of us ultimately defines what it is to be us. We can let society and the opinions of friends and family guide us, but then we must choose to let them decide for us, or to decide for ourselves what all the pieces are supposed to do.

IOW, I decide what it means to be a man when it comes to me, nobody else.

4 hours ago, MigL said:

If you would take the time to read, instead of jumping in with your chip on your shoulder, you would note that all my posts have been about Joigus stating that XX and XY chromosones define male and female , and INow correcting him with the fact that there are various other chromosonal combinations possible, such as XXX, XXY, XYY, etc.
I then,always ready to stir the pot, asked why we try to cure/prevent genetic aberrations like dwarfism, giantism, autism, etc., but we don't try to cure/prevent the XX and XY chromosonal aberrations that INow mentioned to Joigus ?
And  an explanation that I'm still waiting for.
So what exactly, does your loud question have to do with the discussion so far ????

This is now the third time I've recounted the trajectory of this thread and re-explained my query.
I know you don't have reading comprehension issues, so I'm led to believe that you simply choose to ignore the points being made, and the questions asked, and simply default to your continuing agenda of trying to paint me as a fascist trying to decide for others what they should be.

I don't know about any of this. I just asked a question about people's right to choose for themselves.

[StringJunky]

5 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

You haven't decided what being a man is for you? You're too smart not to see why I ask, so I think you're looking a few moves ahead, and have decided not to answer me yet again. I think you know that each of us ultimately defines what it is to be us. We can let society and the opinions of friends and family guide us, but then we must choose to let them decide for us, or to decide for ourselves what all the pieces are supposed to do.

IOW, I decide what it means to be a man when it comes to me, nobody else.

I don't know about any of this. I just asked a question about people's right to choose for themselves.

My ex-sister-in-law moaned  that her car wasn't working properly. I said "I know nothing about cars". She replied "I know, I need a man". For her, 'manliness' is function of what one can do. The insult aside, 'maleness' and its opposite are clearly social constructs. She's on her third marriage, so that tells one quite a bit. She's clearly too thick to realize what what she wants is not what she needs.  

[CharonY]

5 hours ago, MigL said:

I then,always ready to stir the pot, asked why we try to cure/prevent genetic aberrations like dwarfism, giantism, autism, etc., but we don't try to cure/prevent the XX and XY chromosonal aberrations that INow mentioned to Joigus ?

In this context I would like to add that aberrations is also a social construct. In nature, these variations simply exist and, if harmful generally do not spread. But based on what originally constituted life on Earth, everything but the simplest bacteria are aberrations. 

Whether we want to change certain conditions or not, does not make them normal or abnormal. For example, originally humans become lactose intolerant as they mature. Addressing this issue does not make it an aberration. But since the ample availability of dairy can make it problematic, it can be considered a syndrome to be treated or at least managed. 

[StringJunky]

These aberrations are necessary mechanisms for evolution to occur. We wouldn't be where we are today if these aberrations didn't occur. We are born from and exist in a kaleidoscope of change.

Edited February 6 by StringJunky

[CharonY]

14 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

These aberrations are necessary mechanisms for evolution to occur. We wouldn't be where we are today if these aberrations didn't occur. We are born from and exist in a kaleidoscope of change.

Exactly, we are all mutants. 

[Phi for All]

28 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

My ex-sister-in-law moaned  that her car wasn't working properly. I said "I know nothing about cars". She replied "I know, I need a man". For her, 'manliness' is function of what one can do. The insult aside, 'maleness' and its opposite are clearly social constructs. She's on her third marriage, so that tells one quite a bit. She's clearly too thick to realize what what she wants is not what she needs.  

I know a wizard diesel mechanic who would be just as insulted as you are. 

Some societal pressures are worthwhile, like obeying laws, but I think we're wising up to the fact that trying to tell anybody other than yourself how they should dress, or what pronouns they should be comfortable with, and yes, even which gender they should present, is a hypocritical stance right off the bat. If we don't want the judgement of every ex-sister-in-law with their own ideas of what and how we should be, then we should let everybody else decide for themselves as well.

[swansont]

6 hours ago, MigL said:

I then,always ready to stir the pot, asked why we try to cure/prevent genetic aberrations like dwarfism, giantism, autism, etc., but we don't try to cure/prevent the XX and XY chromosonal aberrations that INow mentioned to Joigus ?

You asserted this, but did not actually provide corroboration. Do we know that any of this is true?

[MigL]

The question you first asked, Phi, was here

On 2/2/2024 at 1:11 PM, Phi for All said:

So who defines what it means to be a man for you? Is it you, is it other men, or is it society in general? I think there's only one decent answer to that, only one that gives you the freedom and liberty to be who you think is best for you to be.

in response to what I posted here 

On 2/2/2024 at 11:06 AM, MigL said:

When it comes to the term 'woman', however, that term is still in general usage, and some people feel free to include themselves in the group denoted by that term.
And I can sort of understand that also.

Some feminists, however, and people like J K Rawling, are wondering why women don't deserve to 'own' their shared cultural experience as they have a much longer history of oppression all over the world.
And I can understand that too.

The above expresses my position on the matter, and you'll note it was posted before your question.

My position is that it is defined by the context, and gave examples of differing meanings to different people.
And I said I was fine with that.
People are free to choose the definition that suits their situation/context.

So maybe I was wrong; you might have a reading comprehension problem.
Should I write my next post to you in crayon ?

 

48 minutes ago, swansont said:

You asserted this, but did not actually provide corroboration. Do we know that any of this is true?

Thank you for at least taking time to actually read my posts.
Others don't seem so inclined.

As a matter of fact , no, we don't know whether this is true.
As I said, I was just stirring the pot a little, and wasn't going to pursue it much. Iassumed CharonY would come back with information about research as he always does, but did not expect everyone to ignore my point ( except you )

Here is a google search  for autism

research into genetic causes of autism - Google Scholar

while dwarfism and X Y chromosonal disorders relating to sex  don't turn up much, although more specific searches for Klinefelter Syndrome ( XX and XYY male ) and Turner Syndrome ( XXX and XY female ) might.
Notice that in Biology and medicine, the genetic 'mutations' ( as Charon Y terms them ) are still referred to as male and female.

Maybe someone should explain to Phi about context.

 

Edited February 6 by MigL

[Outrider]

Who cares? Not me. As has already been said this "issue" will go away with time as we all get used to a new reality. I used to be uncomfortable around homosexuals. But as I am around them more that did pass.

I am a widower (covid took Laura three years ago) and I do date and occasionally have sexual relations and I would be offended if the lady wasn't always a lady and did not tell me. I think when you are intimate with someone they deserve to know your history. Period. 

Also in youth sports (don't give a damn what the pros do) I would not like to see a young ladies one chance to be a hero for her small town taken away by someone who was born a biological male. 

Otherwise it's none of my business. 

I have only know two openly trans. Both born 100% female according to them. Lucinda asked that I call them a he. I asked would it be ok if I just called them Lucinda. They were fine with that.

Sally does not (according to them) know what Sally is but is ok with being referred to as Sally.

It's really not that hard 95% of the time.

 

To answer your question Phi. 95% of the time yes I get to identify as whatever I want to be. But in a very small number of cases where it is take away from a cis or a trans. I think society has the right to make a decision. It would be case by case and I personally would not want to be in the position of making that decision. I could if I had to.

 

[CharonY]

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

As a matter of fact , no, we don't know whether this is true.
As I said, I was just stirring the pot a little, and wasn't going to pursue it much. Iassumed CharonY would come back with information about research as he always does, but did not expect everyone to ignore my point ( except you )

 

I mostly did not know what the point of that argument was. It seemed to try to suggest that the ability (or inability) to address a condition would have some sort of inherent meaning. But obviously there are a lot of procedures developed that are done because folks are willing to pay for it (e.g. plastic surgery). 

I don't think anyone is looking for a cure in autism, despite in some cases the conditions can make life very difficult. Rather, folks want to understand the condition itself (as it is not very  well defined), potential causes and behavioral management options. There are some folks using animal models to look into molecular mechanisms of autism and some think that this could lead to a cure, but I think that is mostly sales (like having a cancer treatment every week). This research has also shifted the perception on autism, especially in what was previously considered "Asperger's syndrome" which is now more considered to be within a more normative range (if at the extremes) for example.  

If your question is whether there are genetics based treatment, AFAIK there is only few, in part also because many genetic challenges are not caused by a single locus. Besides certain uses in cancer I am only aware of a gene therapy to treat a retinal disease. Larger chromosomal changes are not feasible targets.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Here is a google search  for autism

research into genetic causes of autism - Google Scholar

while dwarfism and X Y chromosonal disorders relating to sex  don't turn up much, although more specific searches for Klinefelter Syndrome ( XX and XYY male ) and Turner Syndrome ( XXX and XY female ) might.
Notice that in Biology and medicine, the genetic 'mutations' ( as Charon Y terms them ) are still referred to as male and female.

Causes was not the research in question, though. It was cures.

[iNow]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

you might have a reading comprehension problem.
Should I write my next post to you in crayon ?

Back off, buddy. That’s my line! (and it’s Fat crayon) 🖍️ 

[MigL]

Damn those copyright laws ...

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I can see you're not defending him. You're deciding how he should behave.

So why do you reduce the conversations HERE, between the academically inclined, to nothing more than stand-up videos and obscure jokes and references?

And btw, jokes are NOT a way codify meaning. If anything, jokes can show us that conventions don't always hold up. And here, your joking is as useful as some of the popular science explanations we see. It does nothing to make anything clearer for anybody HERE, and obfuscates what the discussion is trying to develop into. Considering that the topic tries to make light of something more serious, your efforts seem very counterproductive.

We've discussed this topic many time's on this site and my position has always been strongly in favour of people being allowed to be who they think they are.

What I've learned from the many, many page's of conversation on this and related topics (sport et all) is that repeating the scientific evidence does very little to change the mind of someone who's main argument is the meme "the definition of an expert is, ex is someone who was and spurt is a drip under pressure."

The ethics of this discussion is clear for all, it's the politics that should be under scrutiny; my apologies for not being a better satirist.

I thought my quip about a craving for ants named steve, was really funny; be a shame if it got me cancelled.

[Phi for All]

32 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

We've discussed this topic many time's on this site and my position has always been strongly in favour of people being allowed to be who they think they are.

I thought so too, until you claimed that "we all do" when asked who decides what it is to be a man for MigL. So which is it? Do people get to be who they think they are, or are "we all" going to manipulate them?

[MigL]

Again you miss the finer points of context.

People decide who they are, or even who they think they are, or want to be.
But the definition of the word they may choose to describe themselves with, is chosen by society.
And different societies may have differing definitions at different places and different times. 
It's not rocket surgery   !

( I would have written this in crayon, but INow is threatening a copyright infringement lawsuit )

Edited February 7 by MigL

[TheVat]

Been meaning to ask: don't most people rely on both external social cues and internal feelings in forming a sense of identity?  Culture is often more under-the-radar than just outright telling us who to be.  We swim in it like a fish swims in water, unaware of most of it.  Getting more aware of it has been for me the path that's better lit.  And for most people I know.  

Sometimes the shoe offered happens to fit, as with men in my neck of the woods and handyman/automotive tasks.  Not always so good for girls who liked to work with their hands.  With my children the role reversal was instructive.  It was daughter who spent more time asking me how to fix things.  She turned out to be the one more inclined to repairs and getting the hands dirty.  And the cultural signals against that were much weaker for her generation.  

[iNow]

53 minutes ago, MigL said:

INow is threatening a copyright infringement lawsuit

quit being such a snowflake lol

54 minutes ago, MigL said:

the word they may choose to describe themselves with, is chosen by society.

What if society chooses to call them nigger or kike? Maybe retard or dego?

Surely "society" is often wrong and their choices must be minimized... Surely we all should strive to get better and pursue more inclusive paths, no?

[Phi for All]

38 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Been meaning to ask: don't most people rely on both external social cues and internal feelings in forming a sense of identity?

I think this is the whole point. You can "rely" on cues from society to show you what it considers normal or acceptable, but the decision to behave that way or not is completely up to the individual. It HAS to be, otherwise we're utterly dependent on the judgement of others. We have laws to keep folks away from some of the extremes, and mores to make things work better (like queuing up in lines), but some people have taken their judgement too far. They want to tell us what's acceptable for someone who looks like us to wear or eat or claim as an identity. 

I think there's a huge difference between keeping quiet while facing the front of the elevator, and accepting society's horrible attitude towards divergent personalities. And there's a LOT of evidence that clinging to somebody else's ideal of human behavior is harmful to the rest of us. Especially when those ideals are weaponized by ultra-conservatives with their various agendas. 

And none of this is new. The Jim Crow era taught us how to stigmatize black people with various stereotypes, and that model also works well with transgendered humans. Paint them all as confused or perverted or immoral and you let the whole society know that these less-than-people aren't to be tolerated.

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

Been meaning to ask: don't most people rely on both external social cues and internal feelings in forming a sense of identity?

In part, certainly. But especially when it comes to sexuality and associated identity, things are bit more different than other identity traits. Both appear to be formed early on and generally do not change through life, in contrast to other forms of identity. What might change is how you express a given identity (e.g. what society considers to be masculine or feminine at any given point). And you might be correct that folks have become less prescriptive (or at least specific) in that regard. But on the other hand things have been changing forever, (e.g. whether heels are for men or women switched entirely more than once).