The debate "Bruce Jenner is a man" was started by
July 16, 2015, 9:24 pm.
72 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 33 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
sabrina posted 2 arguments, HowdyDoody03 posted 2 arguments, TruthSeekerCivilSpeaker posted 2 arguments, thelogos posted 12 arguments, sloanstar1000 posted 3 arguments to the agreers part.
KatieTalksBack posted 1 argument, Sosocratese posted 8 arguments, PsychDave posted 3 arguments, historybuff posted 2 arguments, Heartless_uh posted 1 argument, I_Voyager posted 10 arguments, thelogos posted 3 arguments, ari_pooya posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
sabrina, cmullins, gerami, toughgamerjerry, HowdyDoody03, MEATMISSILE01, Turtle, Rhiannon09, sarah, Sarashouwne, Bodaciouslady16, Midnight1, gouthamabi, thelogos, Adavion, true_debate_life, illuminata, ferida1237, Bxat9, nonliberalllama, AstroSpace, The_lamp, mikeyjagar, theQueenofdebate, dixie18, invincible_01, Musstta, Your_dad and 44 visitors agree.
KatieTalksBack, Sosocratese, PsychDave, historybuff, Heartless_uh, denno27, TruthSeekerCivilSpeaker, rickrollross, ScreamingEagle, shinywhale, skyfrancois_97, mikec, I_Voyager, Thaboykiller, sloanstar1000, omfgcandy, thisrisingtide, Skeetc15, ari_pooya, BryanTheLion and 13 visitors disagree.
his name is now kaiytlin (forgot how its spelled). if the name alone doesnt give you enough of a clue....oh boy I feel for u. im sure she would be prefered go be called a "she" and it would be stupid to say otherwise. have you not seen her body and face? its no longer manly hon. its far from manly.
What I mean by sound mind is a mind that is free to understand the consequences of its actions, it's able to soundly judge those consequences, and is able to act rationally knowing those factors.
The mind and society are separate. I don't think one is necessarily depended on the other. You could make the argument that a collection of minds is a society, but that's about as interconnected as they are.
What I mean by conforms to norms of that society is that the mind is able to perform the gender roles of a society. So a male who believes themselves to be female then is so by virtue of assuming the gender role of female. Meaning he acts and presents himself not as male, but as female.
I don't know what you're asking with that last question... If you're asking what constitutes harm in this scenario, I would say that allowing someone to undergo gender reassignment surgery if they are not of sound enough mind to make that decision would be harmful. If you are asking if I believe there is harm to society by allowing gender identification to be different than what we are assigned at birth, I would say no. I don't see how it harms anyone to call a female born a male she. Do you see any harm in it?
I should add I've known enough people to have had similar experiences throughout my childhood to validate empirically what studies independently verify. When a 40 year old seduces a 14 year old, it's an act of coercion. The 40 year old has a wealth of experience and patience the 14 year old cannot. The experiences create at the best, irrational perspectives about life and romance which can lead to severely depressed states. The worst it can lead to are manic depressions with cuttings and attempted suicides and severe drug and alcohol abuse.
Sex with children has lifelong consequences for the child. If you drug a woman and have "safe and gentle" sex with her, it is still rape. Removing violence does not change the nature of the act.
I am not missing that you are comparing both the physical changes and the psychological effects associated, but you still do not seem to grasp that as long as you use strawman arguments equating gender reassignment with statutory rape, your arguments can be, and will be, dismissed.
And like I said before I don't want to get dragged into a debate about moral philosophy if we're accepting a general perspective that "doing X to body can be bad", which is the context of our conversation.
"It could be argued one could just barely make it today without legs thanks to wheel chairs. But there would be circumstances where it's just impractical and unreasonable - a death sentence, or something similar. We could justify then our criticism of the psychological state with running contrary against any justifiable morality. And I realize that opens us up to a debate about moral philosophy, but I hope we can assume here that there is an objective material morality if we accept the first claim that it's better to accept reality than to accept an experience."
You call safe and gentle sex with children a severity. Why is that?
And I see what you are saying in the other part. So then my question to you is how do you personally differentiate between what would be a good solution and a bag solution?
Very specifically, you said "Is it [surgery] a good solution? No. Is it a good solution to let a person who is physiologically attracted to children sexual have safe and gentle sex with children? no."
Which responded directly to my saying :
"But it might be the case that exhaustive and abusive measures are necessary to "fix" the psychological problem [if surgery isn't pursued]. And it may be the case it works poorly. And what does it achieve? A change in internal perspective? What does that matter? Gender A and Gender B have no qualities like "legs" upon which the balance of life rests. But if the surgery swiftly resolves the complex psychological problem, isn't it the good solution then?"
What you said was that this thing is not a good solution, because something else which respects the fact of the cognitive motivation would not be a good thing. But the reason why the second thing wouldn't be a good thing is exclusively because of the severity of it. Since no argument has yet been made that actually shows this surgery to be consequently bad - apparently it just breaks some metaphysically unsupported rule one should trust the body because it changes less - you are certainly, on top of the other fallacies, using this tactic as a strawman to misrepresent the original claim!
You then say "I am not comparing the conclusions as much as I am comparing the originated thought that drove the actions."
So are you saying that there are no good solutions? To claim one is a good solution is faulty because oto claim the other is a good solution is faulty. This is circular reasoning and is equally applicable to both perspectives. I can just as easily say "Of course, surgery to change sexual gender in the case of a psychological conflict is a good solution. After all, isn't eating a healthy salad a good solution to the psychological conflict of hunger?" And then I can justify it by saying "I'm not saying the necessity gender reassignment equates to the necessity of eating, I'm not comparing the conclusions they reach - because eating is necessary to stay alive and the other is just a psychological phenomenon - I'm just comparing the logic used to justify them!"
Following the context and the flow of the conversation you fail to realize that I not only was comparing physical changes that are permanent to one's body but the physiological reason + the permanent change of their body. People who choose to get tattoos and who who choose to get piercings rarely do it because they feel as if they don't they are missing a complete part of them and they cannot live on without as compared to with people who have taken away their limbs because of the strange discomfort it gave them.
I understand the difference in the situations and bringing them up they are not ment to be mirrored or even blurred images of each other. The conversation is going deeper then a situation but the mental state upon which drives a person to do one thing and to do another which has a lot to do with the situation of course but the focus is not the situation but how the situation came to be which has originated from the mental state. I am not comparing the conclusions as much as I am comparing the originated thought that drove the actions.
The difference in severity forces differences in the logic applied. By using your style of comparison, people modify their bodies all of the time and no very few people find it unacceptable. Getting ones ears pierced or getting a tattoo is a permanent change, much like a gender reassignment surgery.
I am aware that different criteria are used to assess these different situations, but by continuing to maintain that the logic applied to one situation must be valid for another with superficial similarities you demonstrate that you seem to miss that subtlety, which is why people keep pointing that out.
1. If you are unable to differentiate between the two different discussions that I am pointing out that you are bringing up then you need to read the past conversations that were just given and look up the definitions upon what you are speaking of. If the debate is on what I am willing to call Jenner then I am willing to call him a man and not a woman. Debate is over. But outside of what I am willing because what I am willing does no good to speak the truth of the situation then I have to bring in arguments up for the reason why it is independently what it is wether I am willing or not. Please read this carefully this time.
Also I have addressed it in my previous arguments when I bridged the gap of the brain (which would be where gender identification is founded in this sense) and the physical genitalia. People are treating them as two different materials but to the materialist mental and the physical are both material making it both physical and upon which you now have to decide which one dictates the other.
The brain may identify itself as a woman but the genitalia says that it is male and to which they are both physical so who is correct. The body in the womb has decided to be one gender physically and had constructed the body to be built in a way a male should be and produces hormones and chemicals thoughts upon which it would be based and originated from the chromosones in the beginning telling it it is such.
One believes they should separate the two but science has said otherwise.
2. You can't debate this issue with logic, science and facts?
Would you say that is a logical cobclusion?
3. In the discussion we are discussing about two people with physiological desires that want to satisfy those physiological desires with solutions that are not true to reality. So yes the logic can still follow even if the scenario is not the same.
1. you actually just said the debate isn't about whether or not people are willing to call Bruce Jenner a woman, but the debate is whether Bruce should be called a man or a woman. I mean wth? that's the SAME debate, whether or not she should be called a woman or a man is dependent on who is willing to.
also you're not referring to the debate in this discussion, because you can't even bother to address the difference between gender identity and genitalia, as per the discussion I was trying to have.
2. you can't debate this issue with logic, evidence and facts because, its not a scientific issue, it's a moral/philosophical issue. NO ONE here is debating whether or not Bruce has a penis, its a debate on whether we should respect the wishes of someone who is born male, to be called female.
3. " I wasn't equating it to such things, I was just applying the same logic"
Well why the hell would you apply the same logic to two completely separate scenarios when its completely unnecessary? Someone who wants to remove limbs from their body isn't the same as someone wanting to be called a different name, so no one should apply similar logic to it, you're the only one doing that.
I am not comparing the severity of the situation but the logic compare to each.
Is it the same circumstantial? No. But I am looking at the logic behind it.
For those who cut themselves though yes it may harm them but one could it mildly to one's self and not very frequent and still maintain to be safe and physiologically satisfied but I'm sure you would not agree with that either. Let us lot let the satisfaction of the brain destroy the reality of the physical that was already determined weeks into the womb. Whom shall we trust, the ever changing physiological aspects of the brain or the DNA and genes upon which already determined was the physical aspect of the brain and body ought to be.
1. "that's what the debate is, not whether he or she has a penis, but whether or not you're willing to refer to him/her as a him or a her." Was said by you. If the debate was on exactly what you just stated it is about then it wouldn't a very long debate if one at all. For just by looking at who agreed and who disagreed we can see who is willing and who is unwilling to call him a him or a her. So that is clearly not the debate, but the debate is whether he should be referred to as male or female or man or woman. I am referring to the debate in this discussion and not the media and social debate out there generally.
2. Then I advise you not to take this debate in this discussion as very important for I am not against calling him a woman because of any insecurities that I have but for facts, evidence and logic.
As to you referencing to my comment I must say that I am not stating they are equal in situation and circumstance but if you would have read the conversation properly then you would have realized that I was not equating it to such things but simply applying the same logic to it. Not the severity of the situation but the logic upon which was being brought in the conversation to defend the act of transgenderism.
I certainly don't agree with people shattering their legs off with liquid nitrogen. But I hope you got my point with that. Which was certainly not to avail cutting arms off.
Your latter statement's are just a faulty comparison fallacy incorporating an appeal to emotion and it verifies nothing. It isn't good to let a person who is physiologically attracted to children sex with one because it harms the child severely and is dependent wholly on coercion, the manipulation of ignorance, or violence. Nor is it good to let a natural disaster kill you when it is happening if you can protect yourself. You confront dangers. Your comparison fallacy states the danger of child sex is the same as the danger of me changing my body... Deliberately picking such an offensive crime to compare it to is also appealing to emotions regarding such thing.
1. the fact that the topic is called "is Bruce Jenner a man" actually doesn't imply that the question is a fact or opinion, case in point, ask Bruce Jenner whether she calls herself a man. All you've done is prove my point that people don't understand the difference between social identity and biological physiology.
The question that could not be open to interpretation would be: "does Bruce Jenner own a penis". If the person who started the thread would have wanted to bypass these stupid semantics, he should have asked it differently, but obviously the question is biased.
2. Fine it's important, only because I think people who won't call Bruce Jenner a woman because of some personal disdain for it have their own insecurities. Obviously I meant it doesn't matter to me, nor should it matter to anyone else.
and to the comment below this one, all you did was equate the acceptance of transgender identity to enabling self harm, self mutilation, and pedophilia. which is just as dumb as the argument equating homosexuality to pedophilia. Try to stay on topic.
I do not support people cutting their limbs off and I do not think people should. I would hope you would agree that would be a mental disorder that should not be supported. Some people have the want to cut their skin with razors in order satisfy themselves but in reality it is harmful. Which I hope you agree that should not be supported.
Under going surgery to fix a physiological problem should be the last on the list and not supported or condoned. Is it a good solution? No. Is it a good solution to let a person who is physiologically attracted to children sexual have safe and gentle sex with children? no.
That makes a lot of sense to me, but I think we can examine this better with a fitting mirror that definitely fulfills your conditions but which doesn't fulfill the condition of the sex change. I don't recall the name of the disorder, but there is one in which you feel very uncomfortable having certain limbs and you feel impelled to remove them. This might be legs, or an arm. And I've heard of cases where the person does remove the limb (and lives happier for it).
This definitely fulfills the conditions of being an impulse of the mind which defies reality. You have legs; you have legs for a reason. You (mostly) need legs to get by.
It could be argued one could just barely make it today without legs thanks to wheel chairs. But there would be circumstances where it's just impractical and unreasonable - a death sentence, or something similar. We could justify then our criticism of the psychological state with running contrary against any justifiable morality. And I realize that opens us up to a debate about moral philosophy, but I hope we can assume here that there is an objective material morality if we accept the first claim that it's better to accept reality than to accept an experience.
It could be argued that in the case of the sex-change operation, it might be more appealing to reality to retain your old genitals. But it might be the case that exhaustive and abusive measures are necessary to "fix" the psychological problem. And it may be the case it works poorly. And what does it achieve? A change in internal perspective? What does that matter? Gender A and Gender B have no qualities like "legs" upon which the balance of life rests. But if the surgery swiftly resolves the complex psychological problem, isn't it the good solution then?
1. The beginning statement is "Bruce Jenner is a man" which grammatically tell us that this is a fact independent of opinion of what one wants to call Mr. Jenner. So the debate is not about what we want to call him but rather is the statement true or false independent of our opinon.
2. And if it doesn't matter then you agreeing with Bruce being a woman is no greater and no less than me saying that He is still a man. Because according to you it does not matter. So in reality you giving a defense of some kind is really pointless since it does not matter.
People don't understand the difference between gender and gender identity.
the penis classifies him as a male biologically.
His preference to be referred to as a woman is his choice, you can either respect that or not.
that's what the debate is, not whether he or she has a penis, but whether or not you're willing to refer to him/her as a him or a her.
I'm happy to call Jenner a her because it DOESN'T MATTER.
To your question:
1. By sound mind what do you mean exactly?
2. To your statement, "is cohesive in its role within society", do you believe that the mind creates the society or that the society creates the mind?
3. "Conforms to the norms of said identity". So would you say it was not always okay to be transgender? Because only till recently (very recently) was it accepted into out society, so would you say before that the transgender thought and mind should have been suppressed since it was not part of the norms of said identity?
4. For what do you base that it is okay as long as you do not hurt others?
You're right, he may still be a good psychologist. However, it is very valid to call into question his intellectual honesty on transgender studies when the research doesn't support his view. Even the study which quoted a 80% spontaneous recovery rate doesn't actually dismiss the validity of gender reassignment surgery as a form of treatment. What it really speaks to is gender reassignment surgery in adolescents. It is the fact that he assigns a conclusion to the study which the study doesn't actually support that brings into question his intellectual honesty as a whole though.
He's also ignoring all the other studies which do support gender reassignment surgery for adults.
To your question.
The first part (mind dictating identity)
This one you won't like the answer to since it'll be really broad, but the best parameters I could come up with are: an identity designed by the mind is valid so long as it came from a sound mind, is cohesive in its role within society, conforms to the norms of said identity, and poses no harm to the agent, their immediate family, or society as a whole.
The suppressed portion would be if any of those other terms above are violated.
You say he came to the intuition with intentions if ending sex change surgeries and it is clear he made up his mind before the studies were released. But even so I do not think his intellectual honesty should be discredited. He didn't become a great psychiatrist after he entered the job but was one pervious to that, so maybe has done personal studies and eventually has come to back it up with more studies.
I do agree that they do get more persecution then others.
A question to you, how far should the mind dictate the reality of one's self? and when should a thought of who one is be suppressed by society or others in general?
I agree with a lot of what you said, but I feel as most of what you stated is not the same logic as which I was putting forth.
The brain tells you you are hungry because you have not eaten in a while and your body requires nutrients.
The brain tells one something hurts when one gets stabbed in shoulder because the knife is harming your body and you need that arm and there is actually something hurting you.
The brain tells you you need to pee because there is actually urine in your bladder.
The theme of all these illustrations is that they are all true to reality and is not determined by the brain but by what is real.
Now the difference comes in when the brain says to a male that they should be a female when they are clearly a male is against reality.
Their chromosomes shows male, their genitalia shows male, their structure says male, their genes say male and so on and so forth.
People will try to bring up that at young ages children can realize (or become) transgender minded which means they think they should be the opposite sex.
The problem with this is that their sex was decided way before they came to such a thought, it started very early in the womb of a mother upon which the chromosomes state what sex the human is going to be.
let's talk about Dr. McHugh
He was quoted in an article in American Scholar (“Psychiatric Misadventures”, Autumn 1992, as reprinted on the website of Lock Haven University) that he came to that institution with the intention of ending sex-change surgeries. It is clear that he had made up his mind on the subject well before any of the studies you mentioned were released. This begs the question of his intellectual honesty on the subject since his biased is clear.
Next let's move on to the suicide study.
The numbers you (and he) are referencing come from the 2011 Karolinska Institute study. This study however, is widely criticized for numerous mistakes in the control sampling. The sex-reassigned persons were compared to a control group of individuals who had no history of gender variation. Historically, the study group faces far greater discrimination, experiences far more violence against them, tend to be underemployed and underinsured, are far more likely to encounter negative prejudice when attempting to establish a meaningful and lasting personal relationship, and are often ostracized by their own families and support structures like the church. Therefore, it is no surprise that their outcomes will not compare favorably with a control group that generally does not face that same onslaught of obstacles.
The Vanderbilt study:
This study doesn't help further your argument very much, although it does weaken mine somewhat. The problem with this study is that it simply means that children ought to be ineligible for gender reassignment surgery since the condition may be indeed be a product of an immature brain. However, it doesn't address the causes of this "recovery", nor does it cover the 25% of patients who don't see symptom improvements
A few other things that are ignored:
Brain studies which indicate a correlation between transsexual brains and the normative brain of their target gender.
Boston University Medical Center. "Transgender: Evidence on the biological nature of gender identity." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 13 February 2015
The role of hormone production/hormone replacement that influences gender dysphoria
Boston University Medical Center. "Hormone therapy in transgender adults safe, study shows." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 24 February 2015. .
----this study shows biological factors, not mental.
Biological factors in the role of gender
I can accept that error in my understanding.
By that logic I should trust the majority of the universe in not being alive because more of that matter isn't alive, and the only difference between it and I is the living momentum I have which it doesn't have. I mean, the sun burns on for billions of years with naught much more than hydrogen. But then that would be irrational since I can only conclude rationality by using a self-informing process via sensory systems. And so to trust the matter I must be in a state of intelligence, which is to invalidate the precept that the universe is trustworthy. If it's good I've come to the conclusion then some conclusions are worth coming to and therefore a mechanism which can form conclusions can be good. I ought to dismiss the rest of reality and be cognitive while I can!
Specifically with regards to the body, it's not very complex. It doesn't make determinations. It sends sensory signals, that's all. It screws up a lot, and many parts of it require cognition to fix. And the mind seems to result in all the important stuff, like determining what to eat, how to use the lungs, and what feeling feels like. And if the brain is determining things like "Be aroused by the same sex, and be repulsed by the opposite sex" and mechanically the body responds to that arousal or lack of... Isn't the brain being the more reasonable thing?
The tendency is that all matter aren't formed equally... Specific states of mater relate better or worse, and informing systems seem to work excellently. And they seem to just get better and better.
I do not take it harshly, that is what debating is for, to talk through things with evidence and reason with having to shoot guns at each other.
I will not address all you have said at one time.
I am sure you have heard of Johns Hopkins Hospital before. Dr. Paul R. McHugh the former psychiatrist-in-chief for John Hopkins Hospital actually disagrees with you.
Dr. McHugh states that transgenderism is a mental disorder that merits treatment. He also notes studies from Vanderbilt University and London's Portman Clinic for children who had expressed transgenderism feelings but over time 70%-80% spontaneously lost those feelings. He also states how suicide rate among transgendered people who had reassigment surgery is 20x higher than those that are non transgender.
With such facts pilling up against transgenderism scientifically and physiologically Johns Hopkins Hospital has ceased completely doing gender reassigments.
I apologize if I'm about to be a bit harsh on your arguments, but I have to point out the logical errors.
1. Argument of generalization
-you are claiming that all mentally grounded characteristics are the same. You claim this when you compare Gender Dysphoria (the medical term for gender dissociation/transgender) to things like happiness/sadness etc... This is obviously false. Gender identity is much better established and much more consistent than this. As a matter of fact, the medical journals suggest that gender identity is FIXED in some cases as early as 3 years old. That may be a bit young as a general consensus, however, seeing that most medical journals state that gender identity is FIXED prepubescence. The way you can easily test this claim is by seeing if you could identify as female (not just call yourself a female, but truly believe you are female) on whim.
2. Argument from assertion
-you are claiming that Bruce Jenner became a female slowly. You have no way to prove this claim. She may have identified as a female since the age of 3 and simply not been open about it. So this is a terrible argument since you can't produce any support for it shy of an interview.
3. Argument from assertion 2
-claiming that there are "many organizations have helped many people change their wants to be the opposite gender and they have been very successful in doing so" is another really bad argument. This would be great if it were true. However, I can say with great certainty that there are no reputably journals that have documented this. I have not been able to find any study on any of the scholarly databases that I know about which have documented such a "cure". Please provide the names of the organizations which claim to have such cures, or better yet, post a link to the scholarly articles which back your claim. Otherwise, this is another baseless assertion. If this assertion is able to be dismissed based on lack of evidence, it will actually hurt your argument since it proves that the mind is actually more constant in gender identity than the physical
4. Argument from false analogy
@I_Voyager has already pointed this out so I won't go over it again. I would just like to add that any argument that rests on this false analogy is therefore also void.
...you've made arguments mostly based on logical errors
.....you have failed to address the separation of gender and sex
I am not dividing mind and matter, I am actually doing the opposite.
I am saying one who is materialist has to see that it is matter and matter NOT mind and matter. So my argument is that if it is matter and matter one should side with the matter that is more reliable and unchanging.
Of course, the human being is as unpredictable as you'd expect him to be. The great size of the brain as I mention is buffet by the fact that it IS like shifting sand. Constantly neurons are firing off new synaptic wires in its network, or pruning old unused connections. All this is in response to experience; every new experience causes a change in the brain, something is added. Practicing a skill causes networks to re-enforce with more and more synaptic wires Besides this neurons die and are born. At different ages, genes switch on and off. People act as if that is happening... When they develop skill they learn it over time by repetition. Changes tend to build up over time, and then culminate during certain life experiences. Certain ages are very often correlated with specific changes in emotion and perspective. Children have similar experiences and natures to their parents, modified by their life experiences and that small ever-present chance of mutation.
The problem here is preclusion that a mechanical mind would be as simple to predict as a mentos in a coke can. No, I get that's an analogy, but I do understand you're dividing mind from matter.
Just to explain the matter... There are fifty billion little computers, each connected to eachother by as many as ten-thousand wires per computer, using well over 200 different chemical compounds in many combinations to transmit information from one place to another. Those fifty billion computers form millions of columns, and those columns culminate in dozens of specialized regions each with it's own way of interpreting what a given set of chemical compounds mean. Though we understand this in a mechanistic way, looking into a brain and figuring out what the computational language means at any given time is about, well, as difficult as one would expect it to be if thoughts were mechanical, given the size of the computer.
Unless we could flood a brain with analytical nanobots which could relate a real-time simulation of every brain-cell, save that process as a computer program, and then analyze the program, we won't understand the mind. And that's IF it is mechanical.
The thing is... We're only a couple decades away from doing that with ease.
You have also answered the first question unknowingly.
Bruce Jenner didn't gradually become a female but had to have surgery completed to do so. But the mind being unsure and unstable at many times and unpredictable he gradually started to feel as if he should be a woman or female.
Now to a materialist the mind the body are or should be the same because they are both material things.
Now to base off what one should be off the lesser stable footing in this case the mind (which is material) over the body (which is material) is absurd. That is constructing a building on shifting sand.
Also many organizations have helped many people change their wants to be the opposite gender and they have been very successful in doing so.
How do we know that the mind is less consistent than the physical?
I see you misunderstand when I say mind. I am not talking about the mind and its atoms but the thoughts which flow through it. If the physical science of the world was like the average human mind then we wouldn't be able to conduct experiments. For a simple illustration it is like when one adds mentos into a diet coke before the carbon dioxide escapes. We know that it will erupt because the chemicals in the mentos and diet coke react together to cause such a thing to happen.
But in the mind in which I was referring to such as emotions of the sort and what one thinks. If the mentos and diet coke worked in that same way then we wouldn't know if it would erupt or not because it may not feel like it today, or maybe it just changed what it wants to do. The difference in what I was placing the importance on is that our minds change into different states on the call of when want it to many times. Mentos never felt unsure about if it wants to conduct the following chemical reaction when it hits the diet coke it just does. But a human's mind unlike regular chemical reactions have uncertainty.
you failed to account for the separation of sex and gender. Sex is the biological description of male vs female genitalia. Gender on the other hand is what a person identifies as. It relates to the gender role the person would like to assume.
The gender identification is the critical aspect here. It tells us what the individual would like to be identified as and what he/she sees their role in society to be. Sex is simply a biological description, however, it fails to account for gender roles; the way we interact with society and how it interacts with us. This is where gender is crucial in defining our place in the world.
Sex is now changeable at will. This would seem to weaken or discredit your argument about it being the more constant variable. The psychological identification of gender is not a malleable construct. The research shows that gender identification is permanent and therapies to change gender identities to match sexual genders are mostly unsuccessful. This means that gender is more strongly associated with identity and should thus be given priority.
So, if we look at gender, then we must refer to Caitlyn Jenner as she. That is what she identifies as, that is the gender role she would like to play in society, that is how she will interact with the world, and that is largely how the world will interact with her.
The fact that she spent the majority of her time being identified as a male is also irrelevant. This is largely because gender identity is dictated by expression. If one doesn't expressly identify themselves as one gender or the other, then of course sex will be used to assign a gender identity. This is understandable since dissociation between sex and gender is relatively rare and not the societal norm. Once the person expresses their gender identity however, it is that identity that becomes the prevalent way he/she interacts and thus defines their gender role. It is at that moment that we must identify them as that gender since it accurately describes their status in society.
There's certainly a difference between augmenting your identity and changing your identity. Though they both have roots in not liking the standard self. I think the line is that vain augmentation is found in discomfort with the self while a gender change is falling in line with the experience of self-identity. These perspectives do have common roots. The latter is just more fundamentally rooted in the sense of self than the other, where-as the other seems to be purely an emotional vanity and maybe better resolved some other way. Maybe.
Why do we know the mind is more unsure and less consistent then the physical? There have been incredible advances in neuroscience these past decades. We can capture perceived images directly from the brain. We can transmit impulses for actions from one brain to another such that one person can control another person's body. We can network brains together such that they enhance the intelligence of each participant in the network. Though we don't understand the algorithm of thought strongly, more than ever before are we finding we have control over the brain on a mechanical level. And that control is dramatically rising every day. The brain seems to govern perception, emotion, action, goal-setting, self-identity and more. And when it is damaged very little remains, indeed as much as nothing of the person remains when the brain is sufficiently damaged.
Do you feel secure in justifying the spirit's place in the mind on the precipice of advancing neurosciences? As I feel quite secure on the other side. Science tends to chase the demons and spirits with its illuminating method from the dark places of ignorance.
Many of the arguments to support such an event such as the supposed gender change of Bruce Jenner is building up to arguments which are all based on the physical aspect and the emotional aspect. Many people will defend the change in ways that he had this one body part and doesn't have this one but now lacks that one body part and obtains this one. While the other side is more focused on that he believes he is a woman and that he was supposed to be one physically because mentally this person believes he was ment to be a woman. And then you have the person who combines both.
The problem with the first is that if the physical is what defines the person to be a certain gender then one must admit for most of that one person's life (in this topic Bruce Jenner) that person is a male.
The second notion which deals with thought and emotion runs into the problem that one who thinks they should be the opposite gender will say they are mentally one gender and physically the other, but the majority of people who support such things are materialists which means that their outside physically is one gender but since thought is physical then that means they are physically the other gender. But we know the mind is more unsure and less consistent then the physical so the physical should be the determining factor and not the mental.
For those who add both into the mix get both problems with twice the frustration.
"fake" argument cont.
Since the two circumstances have opposite ontological factors. Thus they are inherently bad analogies.
To further this, I will demonstrate that Caitlyn Jenner is not being inauthentic when changing her sex to match her gender.
Hermaphrodites often undergo surgery to remove that part of their sex which the parents feel like they aren't. This can sometimes lead to a huge conflict later in life of they begin to gender identify as the opposite sex. If this individual undergoes gender reassignment they are really just fixing what was a gender identifying mistake the parents made. You couldn't call it inauthentic to undergo this kind of surgery.
Caitlyn Jenner is exactly the same except that she wasn't robbed of her sexual identity at birth by her parents, she was simply never given the sexual identity which which she ascribes to. So she's still authentic to her gender identify by conforming her sexual identify to it.
A few things.
First, let's address the God argument.
This is perhaps the worst argument to use for a number of reasons. Least of which is that it doesn't make for a good debate. Furthermore it's a poor argument in general since it relies on assertion rather than evidence. Your argument rests on the assertion that God exists, that your version of God is correct, that society should accept your version of God, that your God describes gender as you do, and that societal norms should be dictated by your version of God. So instead of arguing all those points I'm gonna sat we simply dismiss the whole God aspect since it's too subjective of a an argument to hold any value.
On to the genetic argument.
I think here we can make a distinction between sex and gender. Gender is that which you identify with. Gender is seen by most anthropologists as a sliding scale with most people leaning to one side or the other, but few being on the extreme side. When you think about it in that sense, it's easy to see how someone would identify as female if they posses gender qualities that are largely feminine and thus would be placed further towards that gender on the scale.
The surgical procedures are thus physical identifiers of that gender identify. She now possesses a gender identify of female and a sex of female. Reducing sex to chromosomal identifiers is a troubling because it doesn't account for the range of even biology, much less psychology.
The "fake" argument
I don't know whether or not this is a non sequitur or not, but I'll explore the argument a little. The only way I can see this as being a legit argument is if you are trying to say that the augmentation being fake makes her gender identity inauthentic, I'll address it in this spirit. Please let me know if I've misrepresented your point.
First, the same distinction between gender and sex must be made as above. I believe it's self evident that this argument only addresses sex not gender. Gender identify isn't rooted in the physical thus it is independent of this argument. So at the very least we can say Caitlyn Jenner has a gender identify of female.
Now let's talk sex. Your argument rests on a comparison of women's dress to gender reassignment surgery. I would say that this is an argument of false analogy. The reason being that women relying on clothing for their identity is distinctly different from a female gender identifying male wanting to match physically. The two are opposite...
It doesn't make sense to me how people can campaign to young girls that identity is not rooted in physical appearance yet are now taking a 180 saying because Bruce Jenner has changed his appearance, he has changed his identity. it's wrong to support the statement that he is a women for the core reason that identity does not come from appearance.
women are criticized for being fake when they wear too much makeup, stuff their bras to make their boobs look bigger, wear fake eyelashes, etc. and the list goes on. generally people consider that inauthentic. however, when Bruce jenner changes his name, gets surgery to reduce his cheek bones to look more 'feminine,' get breast implants, penis reduction / removal, and basically every physical alteration possible to his body possible, people are now looking at him and calling that authentic.
That is true. If we are talking culturely then it is possible that he is now a women. Because when you talk culturely it brings in society's views psychological veiws and cultural views. In those ways Bruce Jenner could be classified as a women. But if we are talking male and female scientifically and in a logical veiw point then he is still a male.
should we discuss the difference between the meaning on being a "man" and being a
male? male is the human born with the x and y chromosome and normaly has male genitals. man even though it is used as a synonym of male, it carries a lot of cultural value. the argument that someone can be a male but not a man is totally possible.
If we get down to a genetic level he was born with a Y and a X chromosome which he still has. That is the distinction between a man and a women at the genetic level. So no matter if he had other body parts put on him of the opposite sex and even if he himself thinks he is a women on a cellular basis he is a man.
There are people who are born transgender. it's not something that is completely unnatural. Yes this was an artificial transformation but it happened none the less. Just saying it used to be this way so I'm going to pretend it's still that way isn't an argument.
A baby growing up and a catapillar turning into a butterfly is just how nature works. But a man who takes parts of his body off and slaps on others is not.
That's like saying a baby is born a baby so it can't be an adult. Or a caterpillar is born a caterpillar so it can't be a butterfly. I'm honestly not sure what to think of transgender issues but that isn't a defense of your opinion and this is a debating app.
He was born physically a man, so I'll see him as a man. Simple as that.
Do you have arguments to support your claim?
Bruce Jenner WAS a man....
Caitlyn Jenner is no longer Bruce Jenner, she is now a woman and people should accept and respect that.