LGBT & woke as "religion"

Debate Room
101

Straw man fallacy, and I assumed nothing, science has evidenced that some people’s psychological gender identity differs from their biological one, it’s called gender dysphoria, and we seem now to be going around in circles. Please don’t just repeat claims and arguments, because you didn’t get the answer you wanted.

If you want to deny a scientific fact, supported by objective scientific evidence, and reflected by a broad consensus among scientists, then just say that, and then we’re done, as there is little left to discuss.

I already asked you why this particular scientific fact sticks in your craw, will I be getting an answer?

Do you accept that gender dysphoria is supported by sufficient scientific evidence, and a broad consensus in science?

Let’s start there…

102

You’re questioning it so it’s clearly able to be questioned, and correct me if I’m wrong, your basic “ask” is “make it make sense to me”. But I don’t think we can help you because you are stumbling over a lot of false analogies. To wit:

Except that it’s a bad analogy because a car isn’t sentient and doesn’t identify as anything. Living beings, though, DO have self-perceptions. And we know from their testimony that those self-perceptions about gender can be out of sync with their birth gender. Quite painfully so.

So what do you want to / wish you could classify gender dysphoria as? A hallucination / delusion of some kind? A mental illness to be treated and corrected? If so, what would success look like? From the handful of trans people I’ve spoken to, the whole impetus for them identifying contrary to their birth gender is acute discomfort with same, the feeling of utter wrongness. So what success would look like to a trans person is that this feeling would just go away. But I suspect what it would look like to you is that the person would just admit they’re wrong and live what they experience as a lie. You would want to affirm their birth / biological gender as a prison to them, regardless of the psychological and emotional cost thereof. That does not seem compassionate or respectful AT ALL.

You clearly are arguing that biology is destiny. But to me that is like arguing that since biologically I’m a biped and an omnivore, I can’t claim to be crippled or, say, repulsed by meat or to prefer to be vegan.

If it helps you to think of it like that, it’s better than denying the reality of other’s lived experience and telling them how they’re supposed to feel or be.

But I don’t think it’s quite that casual, it is something more than a personal preference. I’m sure if you could interview a hundred trans persons, a healthy percentage of them would prefer not to have to “go against the grain” as it were. Like I’ve said, there’s acute and severe psychological and emotional pain involved. It is akin to a gay woman denying that she’s attracted to other women and pretending she’s attracted to men when in fact she is repulsed by the idea of sexual intimacy with a man (and yes, some gay people do find the very idea of sex with the opposite gender repulsive).

Would you tell a gay woman, that as a man, you know your wife enjoys sex with you, therefore, their idea that sex with a man is repulsive “has no grounding in reality”? Part of reality is a person’s perceptions, lived experiences, and preferences. It may be outside your experience or hard for you to get your brain around, but that is quite irrelevant to the question of whether the trans experience is “real”.

1 Like
103

There is no objective test or imaging technique to determine a person’s gender identity.

The concept of gender identity is subjective and personal, making it difficult to find objective evidence to define it.

  • Objective Evidence:

There isn’t a universally agreed-upon objective measure for gender identity, as it’s a subjective experience.

While some research explores the potential link between brain structure, hormones, and gender identity, the evidence is not conclusive and remains controversial.

In summary, while biological sex provides an objective basis, gender identity is a subjective and personal experience that can vary widely from assigned sex at birth.

These are the initial google search results on the objective scientific basis behind gender.

104

Straw man fallacy. You get one more and then I am cutting you loose.

Bullshit, I am going to have to accept the conclusions of science on this, not some Billy-no-name in a chatroom. However you are free contact the The American Psychiatric Association, and ask them to remove DSM-5 from their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.

Then you’re simply Googling for answers that reinforce your prejudices, again it is defined in the DSM, is that an accident?

Straw man fallacy, you’re done.

105

My opinions have nothing to do with the best way to treat people. The best treatment might genuinely be to go along with it and say they are what they identify as.

106

Do you accept that gender dysphoria is supported by sufficient scientific evidence, and a broad consensus in science?

I am done responding until you answer that.

107

No because all my results on scientific proof of gender identity shows a lack of scientific proof or concrete research.

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) doesn’t offer a specific “scientific proof of gender.” Instead, the APA recognizes that gender is a complex and multifaceted concept, encompassing both biological sex and gender identity. While biological sex is determined at conception and is generally considered binary, gender identity is a person’s internal sense of being a man, woman, or a non-binary gender, and is distinct from biological sex.

All of my results come back saying gender is an internal subjective experience, no specific scientific proof given, contraversial results, over and over.

If even gender identity isnt even based in scientific proof i cannot believe that gender dysphoria is.

108

Another straw man, but there seems little point in continuing if you’re denying a fact, and every time it is pointed out you go to straw men.

Have a nice evening.

109

There is no radiologic procedure that will show a sad clown lodged in your cerebellum if you’re chronically depressed, either. Trans identity is no different to diagnose than any other mental or emotional state. One observes / listens to the person’s experience and classifies it accordingly.

Do you have a problem with classifying people as depressed, anxious, angry, or addicted? Would I have to produce a test result proving that I am interested in computer programming, in order to “ground it in reality”? Or might you be persuaded by the fact I’ve earned a good living at software development for 42 years and counting now?

If my trans granddaughter told you it was transformative for her to admit her gender identity to herself and to her family, that she is happier this way, would you demand someone x-ray or ultrasound her head to “prove” it, or would you simply accept that this is her experience? Or would you approve of the government forcing her to use her deadname and birth gender on all documents, and get no gender affirming care?

1 Like
110

Surely if gender is an internal feeling, subjective, and every source youve told me to go to says there no scientific proof of it, besides neurological scans which according to the results are contraversial, this affects the scientific validity of gender dysphoria.

If gender is based on subjective feelings how is that seperate from gender dysphoria.

Gender is related to but distinctly different from sex; it is rooted in culture, not biology. The APA (2012) defines gender as “the attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with a person’s biological sex” (p. 11). Gender conformity occurs when people abide by culturally-derived gender roles (APA, 2012).

This is from 2012 but was the first artical recomended by ai. Theres also no updated artical i can find.
Gender is by every explanation here not scientific, cultural, based on feelings, attitudes and so on.

111

We’re done, I am not answering the same straw man questions over and over, while you deny an objective fact.

There is a broad consensus among science that gender dysphoria exists.

112

Yeah and he has to keep flogging the topic when it’s just a garden-variety live-and-let-live, empathy based response to just let trans people be trans people. It reminds me of JK Rowling choosing that same weird hill to die on. At least she’s got the balls to claim, however wrongly, that she thinks it’s harmful to society. But neither @Paulington nor Rowling have the same response to any number of other human experiences, like depression, or anxiety, or, say, a fascination with stamp collecting.

Also this is like arguing theism with a believer, it is just repeated talking points thinking they’re compelling when they’re anything but … and never engaging with actual counterpoints in any substantive way.

113

I think youre confusing my questions with being against trans people.

Defining a woman based on someone saying they are a woman is circular reasoning, it relies on the concept of a woman to define itself.

There is no scientific method to prove circular reasoning, its just circular reasoning.

The only thing similar to this is cultural things, i dont understand the argument against this, i was asked to go to google and the apa to define gender and both say gender is cultural and behavioural, subjective and internal.

In relation to peoples feelings on being a man im interested in that because i personally have no internal sense of being a man, beyond reacting to how im treated as a man and how i am a man biologically.

Id like to know how other people feel, if i personally woke up as a woman tomorrow i wouldnt try and alter myself physically, i would just deal with the biological and social reality of being a woman.

114

The same straw man fallacy, and repeating the same fallacious lie, without addressing objections, is starting to look like trolling now.

Another straw man fallacy, since no one claimed there was, this is just a mendacious subjective straw man that you alone have claimed, again it has all the hallmarks of trolling.

No you weren’t, you were denying the consensus on and evidence for gender dysphoria, and how it is defined, and are asking people here for the scientific evidence, and were told to go research it yourself, as you’re the one denying it.

You came back with a string of straw man rebuttals.

So what? Crwsting a generlisation from one personal example is fallacious.

So what?

I don’t believe you, again you seem to be trolling, i should tread carefully if I were you.

115

The objection was that circular logic is only circular logic with an absense of scientific proof.

Im addressing this objection, my claim is that its unscientific fundementally, science cant prove circular reasoning and definitions.

Relying on the concept of a woman to define itself.

You keep saying theres proof of gender dysphoria, im questioning the actual existence of gender identity and what it is.

The science behind the research of gender is mostly based on self reporting and surveys as to how people report to be feeling and thinking about their identity.

So in relation to this obviously i would find this questionable if i personally feel my male identity is driven by my actual physical reality, and i dont know how someone could possibly feel male or female without some comparable frame of reference.

This is just as scientific as any other study done on gender since its all based on reporting how you feel and think about your identity.

116

Was it fuck, neither the word proof nor science was mentioned by me. If you’re going to invoke logic or logical fallacies I suggest you learn more about them. I invite anyone to read my objection, and if I’ve defined a circular reasoning fallacy in error, then please do let me know.

That aside, the claim you labelled circular, was a straw man, since no one but you has used it.

Fuck me, still a straw man fallacy then, as not one person but you, has claimed otherwise.

Sigh, another fucking straw man. Im done explaining why.

Nope, again I did not, nor would I, use the word proof in a scientific context. Proofs are for mathematics and logic. Please use the quote function, as it is beyond tedious to keep correcting your straw men.

I dont fucking care, since a) it is a word we use as a descriptor, it’s in any fucking dictionary, and b) you have claimed you’re a man, if that’s not assigning yourself a gender identity wtf is it?

Bullshit, you keep repeating this lie, despite it being demonstrated repeatedly that there is a consensus among scientists that gendor dysphoria is real. Take it up with science.

The same argument from personal incredulity fallacy you keep using, and I, and others have pointed out. Repetition won’t make the argument any less irrational.

Oh do fuck off, making bare assertions that are both irrational, and at odds with the consensus in science, in an internet forum, is not a scientific study, you clown.

117

This is you replying to my comment that it is circular reasoning to rely on the concept of what a woman is to define itself.

118

The scientific studies youre citing are all based on personal internal subjective feelings, my statement is just as rational as any source youve cited.

119

The apa defines a woman as someone who identifies as a woman, this is the claim im objecting to as being unscientific on the basis of circular reasoning.

120

Yes, and I did use the words science or proof, to define a circular reasoning fallacy.

I never used the word proof, as you implied, and the word science is nothing to do with the definition I offered to correct your misrepresentation of a circular argument, based i might add on a straw man claim you produced.