Quote (TransTankie @ Aug 7 2019 08:56am)

Well I mean you could call me a tugboat if I have the attributes you define as being those of a tugboat. However I'm not sure how useful that classification would be unless you got the rest of society to agree that a tugboat is defined by those attributes thus changing the English speaking world's definition of the word 'tugboat'. It's possible but would ultimately be a pointless exercise.

When we say a thing is a social construct it doesn't mean it's not 'real'. It means that we classify things by groups of attributes and that those classifications are made due to their utility - their ability to communicate concepts through words which we associate with those categories. In pointing this out what we are saying is that if we are to classify a thing we should do so in the way that has the most utility. I.e. When asked 'what are the attributes of the male sex' we need to be able to give a definition that all males fall into. As this is impossible for the human species given the current colloqial definitions of single attributes such as chromosomes, external genitalia or such we must then recognise that sex is a bimodal scale and that, in general, what we classify as 'male' tends to have certain primary and secondary characteristics but not all males do all the time. We also have to decide what characteristics we will define as being 'primary and secondary sexual characteristics'. So the current colloquial definition of 'male' should make way for more useful definitions. Definitions which can effectively communicate what the essential attributes are of a 'male'. In science this has already been done. I'm just proposing that society catch up.

Quote (thesnipa @ 7 Aug 2019 15:25)

is there controversy on what qualifies as a tugboat?

Quote (TransTankie @ Aug 7 2019 09:45am)

I'm not a boat expert. I couldn't say.

Quote (thesnipa @ 7 Aug 2019 15:50)

i was being sarcastic, there isn't any controversy on what a tugboat is. even if someone tugged another boat with their boat no one would call it a tugboat.

i think, to get back on topic, trans men and women should just be fine with the label "trans ____" or "m2f/f2m". i thought that was the direction we were headed when Cis started to gain traction, but i see a lot of trans anger around being labelled anything but the pure version of the sex they're transitioning to. which to me presents a bit of irony, as trans people dont get support from "cis" people and those people refuse to self identify as cis. both sides are trying to apply their preferred labels in the situation. compromise could improve the situation. cis people can refuse to use the word cis but not be offended by it. trans people can call themselves w/e they want but also no get offended by "trans female" or other similar terms when used to describe them.

Quote (TransTankie @ Aug 7 2019 10:02am)

Trans people are fine with the trans/cis distinction. Idk where you're getting this all from. Most cis people aren't offended by the word 'cis' either... usually only anti-trans people take issue.
This also isn't about trans people (although they can be included in it). I was simply responding to a question of why sex is a social construct.

Quote (thesnipa @ 7 Aug 2019 16:06)

the objection to trans-cis labels exists in the fringes for sure, but the fringes have a way of driving dialogue these days.

i find the conversation of whether sex is or isnt a social construct stupid. some aspects of what we think of as masculine and feminine are a product of culture, some are exacerbated by culture, and some are a product of biology. this false binary leads to discussions where one side says male musculature is a social product and biology is a lie, and the other says women cant be in the army or beat men at any sport. the amount of time wasted on that simplistic question rather than discussing the plethora of individual characteristics of people seems like a missed opportunity. also the lack of solutions to correcting the problem in a pragmatic and realistic way seems to render the conversation a bit moot.

Quote (TransTankie @ Aug 7 2019 10:33am)

I mean once again this seems to be a view of the conversation through the lense of dumbass anti-SJWs and TERFs who haven't actually engaged with the conversation at all.
Nobody says 'biology is a lie'. Anti-trans people only accuse trans people of saying that.

Quote (bogie160 @ Aug 7 2019 08:36am)

The fact that these cases are filed and pursued is itself enough. In the OP, businesses without the means to afford sufficient legal representation are specifically targeted for harassment, and yield to extortion rather than face bankruptcy.

In the case of the Christian baker, the commission's decision, even when overturned, was enough to cost him 40% of his business.