CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
It's Okay To Refer To a Transgender By Their Correct Sex... Right?
For example, if a guy changes himself into an Amanda, I will refer to himas 'Amanda' but will say: "Yes, Amanda, hedid tell me that" or, "Haha, Amanda, you are one crazy guy."
I'm respecting him rightfully by referring to him by his legal name. However, I will not negate biology just to satisfy his dysfunctional illusion/mind-state.
Do you go along with schizophrenic individuals having a hallucination episode?
To be quite honest, I don't care what they call themselves, if they want to be known as a HE/SHE differently to the HE/SHE they were at birth, I'll happily go along with it for them.
However, does slapping a dress on and calling yourself Suzy make you a female after being born with a penis and a Y Chromosome?
To answer that question I will ask another, does putting a saddle on my back and eating grass all day make me a horse?
No, it makes me....eccentric at the least, utterly mad at the worst.
I have sympathy for individuals who truly feel that they are in the wrong body, this is a problem for neuro-science to eventually figure out a non surgical solution. Unfortunately, they have not accomplished this goal yet and too many people are eager to encourage a surgical option.
As a result, over 40% of trans people who go for surgery eventually choose suicide as a solution to what ails their fundamental and never-ending crisis of identity.
It's 40% attempted not 40% actual. However I was unable to come up with the study/ data on that particular figure so I will retract the claim.
Also, it can be argued that one of the prime catalysts is discrimination. I would find this to be unlikely but it would be interesting to see what studies have been done.
I did find this study, which among other things, leads to a conclusion of a disproportionate suicide rate.
Of course you call them by their correct sex (the one they changed to). It is definitely a sign of disrespect to call someone a he when they say they are a she.
If someone goes through the closest possible thing (sex change operation) it should be considered close enough.
So it's logical to refer to someone who sex is male as he- so says the English language.
It is also logical to call someone what they want to be called, not what you want to call them. Think about how it makes more sense to call someone what they want to be called and not something you think fits better.
Can you name any time someone called someone else something they wanted to be called and it was disrespectful? Every form of disrespect seems to involve calling someone something they don't want to be called.
If someone goes through the closest possible thing (sex change operation) it should be considered close enough.
No, that's not how biology works. Just because I grow hair all over my body and get plastic surgery to look like an orangutan does not, therefore, make me an orangutan.
It is also logical to call someone what they want to be called, not what you want to call them.
No, that's not how logic works, are you seriously that uneducated? You cannot manipulate grammatical logic to fit someones dysfunction (refer to aforementioned ape example). You should refer to someone using a name by which they wish to be called, legally speaking, since a name is changeable.
Can you name any time someone called someone else something they wanted to be called and it was disrespectful?
Uh, no. And I'm not suggesting that it is disrespectful to call someone by what they wished to be called. Frankly that would be a stupid suggestion, one of which that is irrelative to my post...
No, that's not how logic works, are you seriously that uneducated? You cannot manipulate grammatical logic to fit someones dysfunction (refer to aforementioned ape example). You should refer to someone using a name by which they wish to be called, legally speaking.
Complete and utter nonsense. "Logic" does not appeal to either you, or Cartman, as this is entirely subjective preference. To someone who views it as polite to refer to them as they identify themselves, it is "logical" to appeal to one's sense of respect. To someone who views it their obligation to be an obscure form of grammar police, it is "logical" to call them otherwise.
Uh, no. And I'm not suggesting that it is disrespectful to call someone by what they wished to be called. Frankly that would be a stupid suggestion, one of which that is irrelative to my post...
Actually it isn't, at all. He is pointing out that it is not disrespectful to refer to them as they wish to be referred to, while on the other hand it often is disrespectful to refer to them in a way they do not wish to be referred to. That goes back to what he was referring to when he was saying it is "logical" (within his personal set of beliefs) to call someone what they want to be called.
Edit: Oh, and how is Nature doing? I noticed you brought them back after 108 days to up vote yourself yesterday and down vote some people today. Cute stuff :P
"Logic" does not appeal to either you, or Cartman, as this is entirely subjective preference. To someone who views it as polite to refer to them as they identify themselves, it is "logical" to appeal to one's sense of respect.
Your 'sex' is not a subjective preference... Your name, yes. Your gender, yes. I may view it to be polite to refer to me as skinny, but if my weight has passed the threshold of 'morbid obesity', then it would just be illogical.
Actually it isn't, at all. He is pointing out that it is not disrespectful to refer to them as they wish to be referred to, while on the other hand it often is disrespectful to refer to them in a way they do not wish to be referred to.
He point out something that is quite obvious so as to be posed as a question renders it stupid (or at best rhetorical).
I have stated previously that if a guy wishes to be called 'Amanda' after he becomes a transgender then sure, I will call him Amanda (I emphasize the him as you cannot change sexes).
The fact that you keep presupposing that they actually changed their sexes so it would be disrespectful to call them their sex shows you either: (a) have no idea what sex is, or (b) you are negating logic just to satisfy someone's dysfunctional agenda.
Wonderful, a statement entirely irrelevant from what I was referring to. What you believe is the correct means of determining what you should refer to someone as is subjective preference.
I may view it to be polite to refer to me as skinny, but if my weight has passed the threshold of 'morbid obesity', then it would just be illogical.
A somewhat decent example. If you viewed yourself as skinny, it would indeed be rude for people to call you fat, even if they believed that was true. It would also be entirely unnecessary. Regardless, for someone to refer to you by your weight would, itself, be strange.
He point out something that is quite obvious so as to be posed as a question renders it stupid (or at best rhetorical).
It was quite clearly rhetorical.
I have stated previously that if a guy wishes to be called 'Amanda' after he becomes a transgender then sure, I will call him Amanda (I emphasize the him as you cannot change sexes).
If you were around said person, and you were conversing with a third individual but wanted to refer to "Amanda", would you still say "him", and if so, can you see how that would be disrespectful?
The fact that you keep presupposing that they actually changed their sexes
Interesting, can you quote me claiming that?
so it would be disrespectful to call them their sex
I said it would be disrespectful to call them based on their genetically determined sex because it is unnecessarily going against their chosen identity.
shows you either: (a) have no idea what sex is
Let's have some fun: Merriam Webster - either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures.
Interestingly enough, if one undergoes hormone therapy early enough, and gets a sex change operation, they will in fact have the reproductive organs involved and the bodily structure of their gender identity.
Now I'm not saying that is the definition of sex I go by, but pretending that you are standing on some completely solid ground linguistically speaking is a little disingenuous.
or (b) you are negating logic just to satisfy someone's dysfunctional agenda.
Saying I am negating logic because of a claim that I have not in fact made seems a little dysfunctional to me :P
Most of your responses were not very argumentative, but I will say that I love your equivocation with the term sex.
Sex- the state of being male or female.
How can you objectively distinguish the two? - DNA
So as for your, "[...] if one undergoes hormone therapy early enough, and gets a sex change [...]" I am truly sorry to say that there is no operation that can re-sequence your DNA so as to literally change your sex.
Saying I am negating logic because of a claim that I have not in fact made seems a little dysfunctional to me.
It has been implicit within your claims. You seem to think that referring to someone by what they, by definition, are not seems to be perfectly logical (by this I mean the the terms 'he/she'. I concede that a name by which someone wishes to be called is their choice, legally).
I said it would be disrespectful to call them based on their genetically determined sex because it is unnecessarily going against their chosen identity.
It's not unnecessary if one loves to follow the rules of logic and grammar.
If a child wishes their name to be written in lowercase, would you advise a child on a grammar test to
to write their name in lowercase? Of course not they will fail. But why? Why are we not respecting their wishes? Because their wishes are irrelevant to the rules of grammatical logic.
If you were around said person, and you were conversing with a third individual but wanted to refer to "Amanda", would you still say "him", and if so, can you see how that would be disrespectful?
It would be logical. And on a grammar test I would get a 100% score.
A somewhat decent example.
It was a perfect analogy, as you have yet to render it a disanalogy. The subtext of you response was, "I cannot see how this would be practical soo..."
Here's another one: The NCAA president who viewed herself as being black. I'm sure you hated everyone who condemned her for seeing herself as a black woman as they were not respecting her wishes.
How can you objectively distinguish the two? - DNA
That is one way. Mind you it is the way that I would employ as well, but it is hardly the only way, as the definition of the word demonstrates.
So as for your, "[...] if one undergoes hormone therapy early enough, and gets a sex change [...]" I am truly sorry to say that there is no operation that can re-sequence your DNA so as to literally change your sex.
That state of mine was clearly in relation to a definition that I had cited for you, which was meant to demonstrate why others might do what we have been discussing.
It has been implicit within your claims.
It has most certainly been not. As a matter of fact, I, to an extent, agree with you. I use the term "Sex" the way you do, I simply disagree with you in your belief that biological sex (particularly the genetic component) is the only reason to refer to someone as he or she.
You seem to think that referring to someone by what they, by definition, are not seems to be perfectly logical
They, by definition, are male in terms of gender if they identify with it in the way we are referring. Again, you are making the mistake in believing the sex is the only reason to refer to someone who is transgender by the terms he or she.
It's not unnecessary if one loves to follow the rules of logic and grammar.
No, it still is very unnecessary. One can love to follow the rules of "logic" (nonsense) and grammar whilst realizing it is unnecessary and self centered to impose such an obvious discomfort onto the person in question.
If a child wishes their name to be written in lowercase, would you advise a child on a grammar test to
Your comparisons are nonsense. We are talking about grown adults with full knowledge of their identity and affiliations, not children who are unaware of linguistic norms.
But why? Why are we not respecting their wishes? Because their wishes are irrelevant to the rules of grammatical logic.
Again, this issue is not inherently linguistic, as sex is not the only means of determining the validity of the terms in question.
It would be logical. And on a grammar test I would get a 100% score.
You really need to stop throwing that word around, because it is completely nonsense. You would find it logical because it falls in line with you personal beliefs, I would find it illogical because it goes against my personal beliefs. Touting grammar over and over is just making you look like an ass, no offense (I don't think you will take any). One can hold their own beliefs regarding grammar whilst recognizing that both sex AND gender identity exist.
Here's another one: The NCAA president who viewed herself as being black. I'm sure you hated everyone who condemned her for seeing herself as a black woman as they were not respecting her wishes.
You certainty is laughable. Race is most certainly a genetic thing, as is sex. But, AGAIN, sex is not the only characteristic at play, and therefore not the only reason to refer to them as the terms in question.
Let try my best to set this straight since you keep using terms like belief an neglecting that the term logic is relative the situation.
Determining one's sex objectively:
DNA is the only way to objectively distinguish between male and female.
If you don't believe that, you are simply wrong, and uneducated (or unintelligent if you are educated about the subject (genetics) and you can't use your reasoning abilities too well).
If there ever was a time that scientists argued over an organisms sex, it would be objectively settled by looking at their DNA.
Please please pleaaase, I strongly impel you to tell me how else a scientist would distinguish between sex if an individual's body was ripped to shreds, or was in a position that deemed them visibly indescribable, that would not involve looking at their DNA.
---
As per my reiteration of the term logic:
Introduction to Logic [Part One]. Let's do some logical deduction!
If P then Q;
P;
therefore Q.
Rather simple (at least I hope it wasn't too complicated for you, but do let me know and I will do my best to reconstruct the example).
Let's replace the letters (P and Q) with sentences!
If (P) you have a X & Y chromosome, then (Q) you are a man;
(P) A male transgender has a Y chromosome;
therefore, (Q) he is a man.
(NOTE: this is disregarding hermaphrodites)
---
Introduction to Logic [Part Two] Grammatical usage of pronouns.
In grammar a pronoun is a word that can function by itself as a noun phrase and that refers either to the participants in the discourse (e.g., I, you ) or to someone or something mentioned elsewhere in the discourse (e.g., she, it, this ).
Let's try out the word "he". But first, let us define 'he':
He: used to refer to a man, boy, or male animal previously mentioned or easily identified.
So if we want to use the word "he" we would logically have to be referring to an individual who is male.
So let's say you are born with an X & Y chromosome, you are a male.
So let's say we have a person named "Cindy". And Cindy has both (and only) an X & Y chromosome. Cindy, necessarily, would be a man. So when referring to Cindy, we would refer to that person as "he" (remember the definition).
---
Introduction to Logic [Part Three]
If Cindy has an X&Y;chromosome, Cindy is a man;
Cindy has an X&Y;chromosome;
therefore, Cindy is a man;
if Cindy is a man, the pronoun used to describe Cindy is he,
Cindy is a man;
therefore the pronoun used to describe Cindy is 'he'.
---
I sincerely hope that helped you get an understanding of some logic and grammar.
DNA is the only way to objectively distinguish between male and female.
Yawn. Subjective does not mean false. Language is merely a group of labels. If they have male genitalia, think like a man, look like a man, and live their lives like a man then the label that bests suits them is male.
Funny you are 'yawning' but interested enough to respond to a comment not even posed to you.
Subjective does not mean false.
I never said that it meant false. I said that DNA is the only way to objectively determine sex. To say 'subjective' would imply that its up to the individual to say what their sex is thereby rendering the subject of genetics irrelevant and unnecessary, and DNA code fallible.
Language is merely a group of labels
That (language) is used to describe things logically thus having grammatical rules that are specific and interconnected with logic.
'He' is meant to describe males. Male is used to describe an individual/organism with an X and Y chromosome. So if one has an X & Y chromosome then the proper--by proper I mean grammatically and logically--way to address them would be "he, him, or his".
If they have male genitalia, think like a man, look like a man, and live their lives like a man then the label that bests suits them is male.
That may be what's conventionally considered to be 'nice'. But as a lover of science and logic I must be correct in my addressing persons by what they are instead of what they wish to be. If one wished to be referred to as neither he or she, what would you pose that they be referred to as? It?
You can choose to define sex as you like. I choose to define it based on the number of factors I have listed. You choose to define it based on something that one can only appreciate with a microscope.
No you cannot define sex as you like. You can be another gender, arguably, if you wish (so it seams) but you cannot be another sex.
My definition looks at the objectivity and foundation of sex. Objectivity takes precedence over subjectivity when it comes to science-which 'sex' being apart of genetics, is a scientific term.
I believe you should create another debate and change the title from sex to gender. I chose the title purposely so as to stick to scientific and logical discourse. You may want the debate title to say gender, but that is what is says, it says sex. Sorry.
'He' refers to a male; male refers to sex; my argument is flawless, and beautiful :-*
male - of or denoting the sex that produces small, typically motile gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring.
"Let try my best to set this straight since you keep using terms like belief an neglecting that the term logic is relative the situation.
Determining one's sex objectively:
DNA is the only way to objectively distinguish between male and female.
If you don't believe that, you are simply wrong, and uneducated (or unintelligent if you are educated about the subject (genetics) and you can't use your reasoning abilities too well).
If there ever was a time that scientists argued over an organisms sex, it would be objectively settled by looking at their DNA.
Please please pleaaase, I strongly impel you to tell me how else a scientist would distinguish between sex if an individual's body was ripped to shreds, or was in a position that deemed them visibly indescribable, that would not involve looking at their DNA."
You'll notice that your debate, the one we are posting one, was regarding whether or not it was okay to refer to someone as something. It was not on how one particular group, the scientific community, determines how to use certain words. You are laughably changing the topic of the debate, then following it up with complete utter arrogance.
Next time, create the debate topic you actually want to debate, instead of changing the topic half way through the conversation.
Haha, this is is exactly the response I was looking for. You have no valid counterargument. You know perfectly well everything we have just argued is in line with the debate topic. There was dispute on whether it is logically right to call someone who is transgender their true sex. I proved it was. You? Not so much...
You also know that debates are not always so simple. For example if you are a dualist, you believe the mind and body are separate. If i disagree because I am a physicalist, I will most likely start referencing neurology, psychology, etc. The subject itself is philosophical, but to debate properly you must use interdisciplinary references. This topic involved logic, grammar, and genetics- as was expressed in the description.
You know what the description is meant for, but you invoke improper use of the title as your last resort so as to hopefully not-lose.
My exhaustive response (Intro to Logic) illustrated my position concisely.You've just tacitly conceded that my position is unassailable, and I commend you for your tacit honesty.
----------------------
I think I'm done with the dispute as i have proven why point stands, however I would love this question to be answered:
"Please please pleaaase, I strongly impel you to tell me how else a scientist would distinguish between sex if an individual's body was ripped to shreds, or was in a position that deemed them visibly indescribable, that would not involve looking at their DNA."
Haha, this is is exactly the response I was looking for. You have no valid counterargument.
Since seem incapable of paying attention, that is because I agree with you on sex being objective.
You know perfectly well everything we have just argued is in line with the debate topic.
Do I need to post the quote of the debate topic to prove to you that nowhere in it did you ask whether biological sex is the only way of determining whether or not to call someone a he or she?
There was dispute on whether it is logically right to call someone who is transgender their true sex. I proved it was. You? Not so much...
You are utterly incapable of actually reading what I have said, that is the only way your comments make sense. I have agreed that one's biological sense can be a logical means of determining whether or not to call someone a he or she if that is the criteria you are using. Other people believe you should do it based off of gender, which you have called "illogical" without providing any argument as to why.
This topic involved logic, grammar, and genetics- as was expressed in the description.
One part of the debate involved those, but you pretended that was the entire thing and refused to accept the idea that people can approach the issue from a different angle.
You know what the description is meant for, but you invoke improper use of the title as your last resort so as to hopefully not-lose.
I know what you said in the debate title, and I know you are infamous on here for changing the parameters of an argument part of the way through. Additionally, how could I win or lose when, as I have said, I agree with you. My god, why has this been so difficult for you?
My exhaustive response (Intro to Logic) illustrated my position concisely.You've just tacitly conceded that my position is unassailable, and I commend you for your tacit honesty.
I "conceded" that I share the same opinion (How inflated is your ego?), and pointed out that it does nothing to counter the other position that I have mentioned to you (approaching the issue from gender instead of sex).
"Please please pleaaase, I strongly impel you to tell me how else a scientist would distinguish between sex if an individual's body was ripped to shreds, or was in a position that deemed them visibly indescribable, that would not involve looking at their DNA."
They wouldn't. And yet, oddly enough, that is not the topic of the debate. If you wanted to make a debate on how one particular community determines how to refer to someone, I would have agreed with you whole heartedly. I already agree with you to a very real extent (Again, I really don't know why you are having such difficulty understanding that). But for non-scientists (again, the debate topic never specified the scientific community), many people use the terms he and she based on gender, not sex, and you have not provided any argument as to why that is wrong, only why that is subjective, which is not inherently wrong.
Now maybe you will be able to take time off from stroking your own ego to actually read the entire post and understand the part where I agree about the only objective way of determining sex, and find a way to counter the point I have been making ad nauseum.
Essentially you keep invoking gender reference when using the pronouns he and she.
You want a sufficient reason as to why this is wrong?
He - a male; a man.
Male - of or denoting the sex (not gender) that produces small, typically motile gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring.
So you are entirely wrong with your assertion that male is a gender reference as the definition clearly says otherwise.
In get it, you really, really want to invoke gender so your argument can hold but no. I chose my words wisely and so far, most of the naysayer's position tries to lead into a 'gender' direction so as to say, "HA. i gotcha, one CAN change their GENDER you idiot!" but, again, I chose the word sex intentionally.
Now you are saying that he/she is a reference to gender which, by definition, it is referencing sex.
You keep saying we agree but we obviously don't. You believe (albeit falsely) that it is grammatically, and logically right to refer to someone who is male, who believes that they are female, as she- this is not logical nor is it grammatically correct, it is just nice. You believe he/she is a gender matter, when it is reducible to sex (i.e. he means male and
male means sex, you cannot change your sex therefore you should be referred to as your sex).
This was my counter entirely.
I encourage you to go back to my Introduction to logic and Grammar 1 course and look at my deductive arguments. I provided a logically sound argument as to why it is wrong to refer to a transgender as something none other than their sex. I'm afraid it is you not reading my posts. I've stated several times that he/she is reducible to sex, logically, not gender as you keep incessantly suggesting.
No, that's not how biology works. Just because I grow hair all over my body and get plastic surgery to look like an orangutan does not, therefore, make me an orangutan.
If you lose your arm do you still have 2 arms?
I like how you skipped over the part of my argument that showed you were being disrespectful.
I like how you skipped over the part of my argument that showed you were being disrespectful.
It's not wrong to not want to be illogical just to be respectful. DNA says he's male (an objective unbiased analysis), his subjective and fallacious mind says that he wants to be female... I think I will have to stick with logic and refer to him by what the term "him" semantically implies.
If someone views themselves as being 'god' thus wishes to be treated as 'god' are we supposed to respect their wishes? To do otherwise would be disrespecting them right?
A weak analogy is claiming that growing out your hair is equivalent to changing your species. Physically altering your sexual organs to match a new sex is similar to losing your arm.
It's not wrong to not want to be illogical just to be respectful.
Ok, but this is an admission that you are being disrespectful which you claimed you weren't being before.
DNA says he's male (an objective unbiased analysis), his subjective and fallacious mind says that he wants to be female... I think I will have to stick with logic and refer to him by what the term "him" semantically implies.
You can not also claim to be respectful though.
If someone views themselves as being 'god' thus wishes to be treated as 'god' are we supposed to respect their wishes?
If they physically alter themselves to become God, yes. Since that is impossible, no.
To do otherwise would be disrespecting them right?
Yes, not respecting someones wishes is disrespecting them.
Physically altering your sexual organs to match a new sex is similar to losing your arm.
Haha! This honestly made tears come out of my eyes.
A weak analogy is claiming that growing out your hair is equivalent to changing your species.
My analogy referred to the idea that someone viewing themselves as being something else, moreover physically altering themselves to look like that something else, does not sufficiently warrant them as being said something else. That was extremely simple. But this, "Physically altering your sexual organs to match a new sex is similar to losing your arm." for several reasons is...
You can not also claim to be respectful though.
That would be his problem if he views grammar and logic as being disrespectful.
If they physically alter themselves to become God, yes. Since that is impossible, no.3
Uh ohh. Here's where you messed up. Now you are asserting that transgender individuals aren't who they claim to be unless they physically alter themselves? (Don't mind the question mark as it was not a question, that is indeed what you are saying since that would logically follow from your [god] response.)
Yes, not respecting someones wishes is disrespecting them.
How many examples do I need to use to show you that this statement is patently false?
Haha! This honestly made tears come out of my eyes.
I didn't realize the truth made you cry.
My analogy referred to the idea that someone viewing themselves as being something else, moreover physically altering themselves to look like that something else, does not sufficiently warrant them as being said something else.
Yes, but your analogy does not fit with sex change operations. A sex change operation is physically changing the thing used to determine your sex. Without any other changes you don't look like the new sex. There are of course transgendered people who don't get sex changes, and I wouldn't hold that against you.
That was extremely simple.
And a false analogy because that isn't what a sex change accomplishes.
for several reasons is...
A person goes through their whole life with 2 arms. They get one chopped off and they should be characterized by their new physical self instead of what they used to be.
That would be his problem if he views grammar and logic as being disrespectful.
You said it was disrespectful.
Now you are asserting that transgender individuals aren't who they claim to be unless they physically alter themselves? (Don't mind the question mark as it was not a question, that is indeed what you are saying since that would logically follow from your [god] response.)
I don't think that a transgender person can really claim they are actually a man until they physically turn into a man, sure. Until then, they would be a man in a woman's body.
How many examples do I need to use to show you that this statement is patently false?
You already admitted it was true. You could explain in what way not respecting them is a sign of respect.
I will concede that if the person makes no effort to appear to be the new sex, it is not up to you to call them by a term that doesn't make sense. I don't think this is perfectly black and white, FYI.
A sex change operation is physically changing the thing used to determine your sex.
This is the same mistake that you keep making.
DNA is what is used to determine your sex. Are you suggesting that they are getting their DNA restructured?
And a false analogy because that isn't what a sex change accomplishes.
You are not intelligent enough to understand my point. Do you even know what an analogy is? In nowise was my analogy supposed to accomplish sex change. It's a situational comparison.
Your sex is determined by your DNA. Your genitals do not define your sex, your chromosomes do. So getting you genitals chopped off does not change your objective sexual identity.
My analogy was precisely the same:
The species you belong to is determined by your Gnome. My physical appearance does not define my Gnome. So altering my physical appearance does not restructure my Gnome.
A perfect analogy. You arm one however... Lmaooo
You said it was disrespectful.
Huh?
I don't think that a transgender person can really claim they are actually a man until they physically turn into a man, sure. Until then, they would be a man in a woman's body.
A transgender will always be a man in a woman's body and vice versa. This is because sex is determined by your DNA- in particular, your chromosomes.
However, you claiming that individuals that still have their genitals are not transgender would be disrespectful to almost 60% of transgenders- which is what i though you disliked? I will also note that getting your genitals removed will make you a transsexual. People with their genitals that identify themselves as the opposite gender are still considered transgenders. How dare you tell them they aren't a woman just because they have balls.
Lol and you're advocating respectfulness for transgenders while concurrently disrespecting them is just a slight bit hypocritical, Cartman.
You could explain in what way not respecting them is a sign of respect.
If one thought it to be disrespectful to not think of them as a celebrity, and they are indeed not a celebrity, would it truly be disrespectful to not think of them as celebrity given that it's hard to think of someone that they distinctly are not?
DNA is what is used to determine your sex. Are you suggesting that they are getting their DNA restructured?
You have checked the DNA of how many people before determining the pronoun you use for them. What do you think a sex change operation should be called since it is illogical?
You are not intelligent enough to understand my point. Do you even know what an analogy is? In nowise was my analogy supposed to accomplish sex change. It's a situational comparison.
Mine was a label comparison.
Your sex is determined by your DNA. Your genitals do not define your sex, your chromosomes do. So getting you genitals chopped off does not change your objective sexual identity.
I have never used DNA to determine if someone was male or female. The definition of sex involves sexual organs.
The species you belong to is determined by your Gnome. My physical appearance does not define my Gnome. So altering my physical appearance does not restructure my Gnome.
You didn't get an operation called a species change though. You even label those people as transsexuals .
Huh?
My reaction too.
I will also note that getting your genitals removed will make you a transsexual.
And now we have entered a weird territory.
you claiming that individuals that still have their genitals are not transgender would be disrespectful to almost 60% of transgenders- which is what i though you disliked?
I decided to only fault you for the 40%. Aren't I generous?
Lol and you're advocating respectfulness for transgenders while concurrently disrespecting them is just a slight bit hypocritical, Cartman.
I personally am not going to check genitals. If they change their appearance I won't question them. So, it would be less than 60% at least. If the don't try to look like the sex they feel like I see no problem disrespecting them. They are disrespecting themselves.
If one thought it to be disrespectful to not think of them as a celebrity, and they are indeed not a celebrity, would it truly be disrespectful to not think of them as celebrity given that it's hard to think of someone that they distinctly are not?
None of your responses were adequate, or even a proper response.
I will say this is the most ridiculous response amongst the other (they were all ridiculous but this is the worst):
I personally am not going to check genitals. If they change their appearance I won't question them. So, it would be less than 60% at least. If the don't try to look like the sex they feel like I see no problem disrespecting them. They are disrespecting themselves.
This had nothing to do with my point about you calling transgenders non-transgenders simply because they have their genitals. And it made no sense??
If the don't try to look like the sex they feel like I see no problem disrespecting them. They are disrespecting themselves.
One can be named Brittney, have a wig and stuffed bra, but have their genitals, and you will still consider them a non-transgender. That is disrespectful.
You made a self-defeating argument and you are now trying to find an egress. Ah uh, sorry.
Getting a little angry because you are getting demolished?
You: I don't think that a transgender person can really claim they are actually a man until they physically turn into a man, sure.
You: I never said anything like this you stupid fuck. What are you even talking about? We are discussing whether to call her a he or a she.
You saying that a male transgender cannot consider themselves the opposite gender if they don't have their genitalia removed is tantamount to saying that aren't transgenders. Lol I am surprised you cannot see this? Well... not too surprised.
You know you are wrong, but you just will not admit it. Anyway, I will abstain from debating with you any further.
Harvard seems to have forgotten what the topic of the conversation was, and has decided that we are all really talking about the definition and parameters of sex, as opposed to the stated topic. How silly of us, eh?
When it comes to reference, you must note the metrics of how to refer to someone.
To say debates don't consist of definitions and interdisciplinary discussion is absurd at least and dishonest at best.
Why is it that most people will devolve in to deep discussion and it is not until they start losing that they say "well this isn't even what were talking about." Right, why are we talking about sex and references when the debate title and description involves, and literally states, sex and references? How silly of me.
Here's why it is appropriate to discuss DNA and grammar:
Sex - involves DNA, which is apart of genetics.
Grammar - involves pronouns. Pronouns can be a means for how you describe someone you are referring to (do I say he, or she?).
How do we know when to say he or she? By determining what their sex is.
Well, Harvard, how do we do that? Well, by looking at their DNA.
When we see their DNA consists of an X and Y chromosome, we conclude that they are indeed a male.
Once we conclude that they are male, we intertwine logic and grammar and conclude that when referencing that male we use the pronouns he, him, or his.
So, is it okay to refer to a transgender by their correct sex?
Logically/scientifically/grammatically, yes.
This is all on topic. It is you and the others getting off topic making it a moral issue. I did not say is it respectful. However, you in particular tried to go into semantics by suggestion he/she involves gender when, by definition, they involve sex. You can disagree with Webster all you wish but that just makes you a shoddy debater with a lousy intellect.
Seems your argument boils down to this: It is okay to adhere to biological fact in social settings when referencing transgender individuals because facts are what they are.
Seems everyone else's argument boils down to this: It is not okay, in social settings, to refer to a transgender individuals original sex because it is offensive/disrespectful.
So which is more important and why? Social inclusiveness or adherence to biological facts? What makes tactless honesty socially wrong? What makes accepting psychological/identity issues wrong?
You are on entirely different platforms. I'm not sure there is any common ground to find between these two positions.
EDIT:
PS. The picture in the topic is just an ugly woman, not a transgender woman.
Seems everyone else's argument boils down to this: It is not okay, in social setings, to refer to a transgender individuals original sex because it is offensive/disrespectful.
Now you too? You are making the same mistake as everyone else by implying that sex can change ("original sex"- this implies that they become a new sex- which is what I keep saying is false, and it is scientifically false).
So which is more important and why? Social inclusiveness or adherence to biological facts? What makes tactless honesty socially wrong? What makes accepting psychological/identity issues wrong?
You know what can happens when people stick to false social conventions just because it fallaciously pleases a group of people (e.g. The roman Catholic Church. So many scientist were afraid to speak about remarkable discoveries simply because the findings indicated aberrant knowledge). If we have scientific facts that are empirically obvious the best thing to do is to accept said facts. Plus it helps to not going around speaking simplistic grammar (usage of pronouns) incorrectly.
You are on entirely different platforms. I'm not sure there is any common ground to find between these two positions.
One platform renders logic, grammar and science meaningless by suggesting that it is okay to be entirely false if it pleases individuals.
The other advocates proper grammar/logic usage and suggests that you stick to scientific facts regardless of if is displeasing.
Would you tell your child that death isn't real just because it will please him? Do you want your child to be grammatically literate? I think he would be confused by you telling him, "Referring to a male as she is grammatically correct." Must you have no shame seeing his essay scores below his true potential because his is erring in his pronoun usage by referring to a woman as 'he'?
PS. The picture in the topic is just an ugly woman, not a transgender woman.
Yea Google images kept producing transgenders that didn't look transgendered at all. This was the closest image that I found that resembled a transgender.
As for the rest, your position reasonable as far as I'm concerned. Adherence to reality is commendable. But are you also against the use of placebos? When a patient wants anything, a doc may give a placebo and the patient actually feels better. Is this similarly wrong?
Placebos are entirely different- so no, I have no problems with that method of treatment.
Moreover, a placebo wouldn't work in this case as the true problem lies within their internal conflict with respect to reality- they will always know their true sex but pretend as if it is not true. In order for you comparison to accurate there would have to be a method that permanently deludes their understanding of reality (i.e. that there is no such thing as chromosomes, DNA, sexual organs, etc.).
I will say your suggestion is almost equivalent to the sex operation. Inasmuch as their sexual genitalia is invisible--amalgamated with their maquillage veiling, feminine accessories, etc.--that will act as an unsatisfactory sub-counterpart of a placebo.
i go by what the person presents to me... if they SHOW ME their genitalia and then say they are clearly something they are not, then it becomes a little more complicated.
.
but otherwise, how would you know one way or the other?
Social conventions do not always coincide with biological parameters. In fact, most of the times, they are arbitrarily dictated by the society itself. Whether or not following social convention is "okay" is another matter.
Someone's sex is something that is predetermined and unchangeable. And when we refer to people as he/she, we are referring to their sexual makeup, it follows that referring to a female transgender as 'he' would be the logically correct thing to do.
And when we refer to people as he/she, we are referring to their sexual makeup, it follows that referring to a female transgender as 'he' would be the logically correct thing to do.
That is very presumptuous, and a little strange. If someone gets a sex change operation, than their "sexual makeup" (their sex organs) have indeed been changed, and therefore you should be referring to them post-operation.
Additionally, while you may refer to someone as he/she based off of their sex organs, there are in fact many people who refer to someone as he/she based on their gender identity.
That is very presumptuous, and a little strange. If someone gets a sex change operation, than their "sexual makeup" (their sex organs) have indeed been changed, and therefore you should be referring to them post-operation.
They cannot get their DNA replaced, can they? That is what, objectively, clarifies someones sex. You can put every opposite-sex organ in someones body but if they are dug up thousands of years later and scientists looked at their DNA they would be classified as their biological sex.
Additionally, while you may refer to someone as he/she based off of their sex organs, there are in fact many people who refer to someone as he/she based on their gender identity.
There are in fact many people who believe the earth is 6,000 years old, and so on and so forth. But that only makes them wrong. Am I supposed to be polite and speak with a creationist in a way that satisfies their belief in a 6,000 year old earth? No, I will refer to the earth as being 4.3 billion years old.
Sex - the sum of the structural, functional, and behavioral characteristics of organisms that are involved in reproduction marked by the union of gametes and that distinguish males and females.
The determination of sex - DNA.
If one's DNA says that they are male, I will refer to him as he; but if his documents say his name is Brittney, or he wishes to be called Brittney, I will refer to him as Brittney.
There are in fact many people who believe the earth is 6,000 years old, and so on and so forth. But that only makes them wrong. Am I supposed to be polite and speak with a creationist in a way that satisfies their belief in a 6,000 year old earth? No, I will refer to the earth as being 4.3 billion years old.
Except this isn't a "right" or "wrong" situation, this is people using their own beliefs and opinions to determine how they wish to refer to other people. The age of the Earth, on the other hand, "is" an objective issue.
If one's DNA says that they are male, I will refer to him as he; but if his documents say his name is Brittney, or he wishes to be called Brittney, I will refer to him as Brittney.
Since you adamant on injecting your personal opinions into how you refer to someone's gender and sexual identity, what do you refer to hermaphrodites as?
A hermaphrodite has a biological abnormality. A transgender person has a psychological abnormality. A biological dysfunction doesn't make a psychological dysfunction better.
If a person has Body integrity identity disorder, we expect they should seek help before lobbing off some bits. Society does what it can to keep a person with this disorder from amputating a limb, even though people with this disorder are usually happy after they remove said limb. I'm not sure why this wouldn't apply to sex organs as well as legs. It would be an awful thing for a person with sexual identity disorder, after being encouraged to by supporters, to realize post-op that they really are their original gender.
EDIT: As for what to call them, for the sake politeness I would refer to them as they appear if they are present.
I was honestly not using the hermaphrodite as a deflection, I was bringing it up only because I was legitimately interested in what his opinion on that matter was.
Other than that, I completely agree with everything you have said.
Except this isn't a "right" or "wrong" situation, this is people using their own beliefs and opinions to determine how they wish to refer to other people.
Exactly and if you believe that a transgender changes sex and thus incorrectly refer to them as the opposite sex you are wrong.
The age of the Earth, on the other hand, "is" an objective issue.
Your sex/DNA 'is' also an objective issue; grammar 'is' also an objective issue; logic 'is' also an objective issue- again this is why I suggest you are presupposing that one can change ones sex.
Since you adamant on injecting your personal opinions into how you refer to someone's gender and sexual identity [...]
It's not a personal opinion- logic is objective (in the fundamental sense), DNA is objective, Grammar has objective rules; therefore, if a person has a Y chromosome, and I am referring to that person, the correct pronouns (due to grammatical laws) to use when referring to said person are "he, him, or his."
Please explain to me how his DNA is my personal opinion?
[...] what do you refer to hermaphrodites as?
This was an interesting question. I would, in that case, refer to them as they see themselves simply because logically and genetically they are both sexes, and there are no pronouns that have been invented to refer to someone in that situation (aside for the urban invention "he-she"- which I wouldn't use because some view that as being derogatory).
But let's suppose a pronoun to refer to both sexes is invented, I would use that pronoun regardless of if they view themselves as being a male or female.
Exactly and if you believe that a transgender changes sex and thus incorrectly refer to them as the opposite sex you are wrong.
I have already explain to you my position on this, and that right there is not it. So why bother stating that again?
Your sex/DNA 'is' also an objective issue;
Yes, but as I have already stated to you plenty of times, that is not the only means of determining whether or not to refer to someone as a "he" or "she", and therefore touting grammar all the time is pointless.
logic 'is' also an objective issue- again this is why I suggest you are presupposing that one can change ones sex.
That simply means you haven't bothered to read what I have actually said to you, as I have already stated that I don't believe one can change their biological sex and I have already stated that I believe that one's genetic make up determines their biological sex.
It's not a personal opinion- logic is objective
Not necessarily, though that is an entirely different issue. The personal opinion is you claiming that one's genetic make up is the only means of determining whether they are male or female, which is subjective, personal opinion.
Please explain to me how his DNA is my personal opinion?
Please read everything I say to you so I don't need to keep repeating myself.
male or female, which is subjective, personal opinion.
Being male or female is not a matter of personal opinion. Oddly, you keep admitting that one's sex is determined by their DNA but then say that their sex is subjective?
The only way this holds is if DNA is subjective. Is it?
So instead of quoting the ENTIRE sentence, you dishonestly take out part of a sentence.
"The personal opinion is you claiming that one's genetic make up is the only means of determining whether they are male or female, which is subjective, personal opinion."
I said that the subjective part is claiming that one's genetic make up is the only way yo determine whether or not they are male or female.
Are you incapable of paying attention, or are you incapable of being honest? I see no other possibility from this post of yours.
Everything you are saying about biology and grammar is factually correct, but because of the nature of sexual identity crises it is detrimental to a transgender person to refer to them by their correct sex. They have higher than average suicide rates and calling attention to their predicament by acknowledging their correct sex rather than their perceived sex increases the likelihood of suicide and decreases the odds of psychological treatment. Therefore, it is not okay to refer to a transgender by there correct sex.
Imagine if we could empirically disprove God but doing so would cause an innumerable amount of suicides given the knowledge of inevitable death. I would advocate a system that tries to console people while falsifying information.
Let me ask you this: Suppose a mothers child missing. You find that child's body burning to ashes in a fire on a shore during low tide. Since it will burn to ashes and float away in the river, you are the only one who will ever know that he child is indeed dead. You overhear the mother suggesting she will kill herself if she finds out that her child is dead. Do you (a) let continuing living thinking her child may be alive and remain distressed? Or (b) tell her that her child is dead and risk having her kill herself?
Also I will also not that people with gender dysphoria often times inexorably suffer all their lives even if the are believed to be the opposite sex simply because they will always know that they truly are not who they are thought of to be.
Which brings me to another interesting questing: would you advocate that people with this dysfunction be taught that genetically speaking they can change their sex and be a true woman/man?
Doing so would probably lower suicide the rates significantly. One problem would be when they learn anatomy (e.g., uterus, the dimensions of the vagina, etc.). I suppose you could, again, lie and tell them that they can have everything that a girl has when they get their procedure done, but obviously if they tried to have a baby it wouldn't work.
I argue that the suicide rates will stay the same given that no matter what you do they will still have internal conflict with the understanding that they will never be what they truly think they should be.
---
Overall, I am the wrong person to pose this argument to given that I advocate suicide. I don't believe holding individuals hostage to subject them to torture of what, in their view, is life. Committing suicide is not a bad thing. When they commit suicide, all their worries and problems disappear. Life is over. Furthermore lowering any groups' suicide rate would be an unwholesome act to nature given that human overpopulation is what is rendering the global biosphere and ecosystem endangered. But anyway....
You can cannot, by definition, change sexes. And to refrain from looking illogical in non-scholarly one should use their native language as is logical. Do you call a dog a wolf?
FYI. It looks more like he's trying to fix a problem by ridding people of delusions. Its already a problem when you allow misconceptions to thrive, because it ensues more faulty reasoning throuought the many illogical minds in this world. All pest may not be eradicated, but the problem can at least be controlled.
But this isn't a misconception. He is asserting as if it were objective fact that one should only use the terms "he" and "she" based on one's biological sex, as opposed to one's gender or sexual identity.
My question was why he believes that is an issue, and why he seems to be taking it somewhat personally.
If they want to be considered a woman, it does not effect anyone's lives but theirs, so to go out of your way to refer to them in such a way that simply serves to satisfy yourself seems ridiculous.
Yes, because forgetting the way one worded a message has to be a lie. I, clearly mistakenly, used that as a figure of speech because I am one of the oh-so-insufferable individuals who has a default setting of being polite. Therefore, to me, the behavior you are referring to would be going "out of my way".
Most people are constantly aware of the people around them and would probably feel very uncomfortable is Bob the construction worker became Sally the construction worker. People just have some sort of tendency to "care" about the people around them. I'm not sure care is the word I'm looking for.
If they want to be considered a woman, it does not effect anyone's lives but theirs
Lot's of things affect people lives. I personally don't know Caitlyn/Bruce Jenner, but after the whole debacle I can say it has definitely had an impact on me in some way. I feel as if this is the same for anyone who one day finds out that Bob is actually Sally now.
But what "actual" impact does it have on one's life, other than the sudden awareness that someone around them has changed? What negative impact could it have to refer to them how they wanted to be referred to?
But what "actual" impact does it have on one's life, other than the sudden awareness that someone around them has changed?
That is a sudden impact. It can give people certain thoughts. Make people feel uncomfortable. Anger people. Bring sympathy from people. People may ask questions. People may also want the same thing. People will be affected differently so I can't speak for everybody.
What negative impact could it have to refer to them how they wanted to be referred to?
As I have said, I cannot speak for everybody. You could already see that with Caitlyn/Bruce Jenner some were outraged and some were proud. Some probably grew to hate these "types" of people. Again, I can't speak for everybody so someone who actually hates transgenders may have a different say.
I suppose I just don't understand why some people take stuff like that personally (i.e. being "proud" or "outraged").
It seems to me that the choices one makes in how they consider themselves really are their business, and unless they are actively trying to influence other people's lives, I see no reason for someone else to make it about themselves.
I see what you are saying and I agree with it. The choices they make are their own business. I understand your position and hopefully you understand mine. Although I didn't really give a proper stance.
What are your thoughts on a transgender person having a relationship with a person who is unaware of any operation? Does a partner have a right to know?
In situations where clarification of the transgender situation is relevant, such as in a relationship, you believe it is wrong for a person to not be upfront about their identity. In situations that are not so interpersonal, such as daily interaction, you believe it is wrong for others to be upfront about that persons identity. Is this correct?
Somewhat. When you are interacting with an individual, I believe you should refer to them how they wish to be referred to, within "reason" (for lack of a better word). But if one is getting into a romantic relationship, many more factors come into play and privacy starts going out the window in a very real way. For better or for worse, many people would not want to date someone who was transgendered, even post-op, and therefore if that fact was concealed and then later revealed, it could very likely ruin the relationship. It seems to me like a dishonest move to conceal something like that intentionally, knowing how people often react.
You are nasty if you refer to a trans person as their original sex because it is obvious that they are not comfortable with that sex and not how they see themselves. It will seem like you are baiting them to argue back and being deliberately provocative.
You are nasty if you refer to a trans person as their original sex because it is obvious that they are not comfortable with that sex and not how they see themselves.
What about it makes it nasty? If they feel uncomfortable why is that our problem?
I do not think Transgenderism involves schizophrenic individuals having a hallucination episode. I was educated to what if feels like to walk in the shoes of someone who is trapped in the body of a sex who he or she was not meant to be when I saw the movie, "Boys Don't Cry." A person has the right to declare what sex he or she wants to be.
The most logical choice is to refer to someone with the pronouns that they prefer. Where is the logic in choosing to refer to them as something that they don't identify as- you would only cause them discomfort and therefore you yourself are more likely to feel uncomfortable around them.
I guess one has to ask, "why do I chose to refer to this person as something other than what they want to be referred as?" And then ask yourself if that reason is more important than the other person's feelings.
I, myself, prefer to be called, "Lord and master." Anything else is just plain mean.
No , i don't believe in changing your God given sex, but if you choose to do so, you are doing that to become the opposite sex and should be treated like that.
This debate should also include something about the nature of biological gender. There are several mutations/disorders that require a person's gender to be classified by outward appearance rather than sexual chromosomes.
Furthermore, the classification of mutation and disorder in this sense is also arbitrary simply because there is no objective standard other than fertility.
