Use My Timetravelling Pronouns, Bigot - Topic

Member

Posts: 64,763

Joined: Oct 25 2006

Gold: 0.00

Oct 30 2019 09:52am

Quote (duffman316 @ Oct 30 2019 06:00am)

The reason to sort sexes the way we do is that it works aint it. If you plot it on a graph the weirdos are statistical anomalies like ambidextrous people.

The question is "works for what". Every categorization system "works" for something

Thor123422

Member

Posts: 64,763

Joined: Oct 25 2006

Gold: 0.00

#142

Oct 30 2019 09:55am

Quote (ReturnFormer @ Oct 30 2019 08:47am)

yes, i know that other periodic tables have been proposed, but they were rejected not because they werent popular, but because they didnt make sense once you got beyond a certain point. they worked for the few elements that they knew of when they were proposed, but as new ones were discovered, the tables made less and less sense as they didnt follow the inherent natural order of the elements. the current one does. such as noble gasses being grouped together, etc. its not just a random order that makes it easier and more convenient to remember - alphabetical would be better for that - its a system that follows the natural order of physical properties of the elements. other systems are not a mess because we're not familiar with them, theyre a mess because similar elements dont end up grouped together in a way that follows their natural order. so yes, saying that this system isnt a mess but any other would be directly contradicts there being no natural order.

Theres multiple "natural orders" to follow, and which one we pick depends on what we value. There is no "natural order" to protons until we make a theory based on them. The current periodic table fails in a lot of ways, such as not predicting radioactivity decay, but succeeds in many ways, such as predicting certain chemical reactions. So why dont we order it based on decay? Because we value the other things more, theres nothing wrong with ordering it based on any other trend, it just deoends on what you want to use it for.

Similarly, we could make a set of genders based on skull size, and it would be "based on biology", but we dont value skull size so we don't do that

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Oct 30 2019 10:04am

bogie160

Member

Posts: 34,649

Joined: Jul 2 2007

Gold: 273.37

#143

Oct 30 2019 10:09am

Quote (Thor123422 @ Oct 29 2019 11:48pm)

Way to totally miss the point dude.

The fact that fictional characters dont have genitals and are still considered to have sexes proves genitals arent what we use to make pronoun assignments.

We infer sex from a number of different factors, it's thankfully unnecessary to draw Winnie the Pooh a dick to know he's male.

Thor123422

Member

Posts: 64,763

Joined: Oct 25 2006

Gold: 0.00

#144

Oct 30 2019 10:10am

Quote (bogie160 @ Oct 30 2019 11:09am)

We infer sex from a number of different factors, it's thankfully unnecessary to draw Winnie the Pooh a dick to know he's male.

Yes, we make assignments based on a number of secondary characteristics and have done so since clothing became a thing

bogie160

Member

Posts: 34,649

Joined: Jul 2 2007

Gold: 273.37

#145

Oct 30 2019 10:30am

Quote (Thor123422 @ Oct 30 2019 12:10pm)

Yes, we make assignments based on a number of secondary characteristics and have done so since clothing became a thing

Your argument, though, is facetious.

We categorize men and women into genders based on secondary sex characteristics because humans are a sexually dimorphic species.

Thor123422

Member

Posts: 64,763

Joined: Oct 25 2006

Gold: 0.00

#146

Oct 30 2019 10:38am

Quote (bogie160 @ Oct 30 2019 11:30am)

Your argument, though, is facetious.

We categorize men and women into genders based on secondary sex characteristics because humans are a sexually dimorphic species.

That's how it started, but it hasn't been that way since the invention of clothing. It's been well over 1000 years since pronoun assignments have been based on genitals.

You wouldn't give anybody in this picture a "she/her" pronoun when refering to them, yet not one of them has a penis.

krackprophet

Member

Posts: 2,660

Joined: Mar 28 2010

Gold: 0.00

#147

Oct 30 2019 11:18am

Quote (Thor123422 @ Oct 30 2019 11:38am)

They also all modified their bodies to appeared like they were born with one.

thesnipa

Member

Posts: 93,001

Joined: Dec 31 2007

Gold: 2,299.94

#148

Oct 30 2019 11:43am

This entire thread could be summed up as:

"in general this is how it is and was" vs. "obscure anecdotal evidence is still evidence"

Thor123422

Member

Posts: 64,763

Joined: Oct 25 2006

Gold: 0.00

#149

Oct 30 2019 11:47am

Quote (thesnipa @ Oct 30 2019 12:43pm)

This entire thread could be summed up as:

"in general this is how it is and was" vs. "obscure anecdotal evidence is still evidence"

I haven't given a single piece of anecdotal evidence in this thread. I'm not relying on personal experience, I'm giving specific examples that don't depend on my own experience.

thesnipa

Member

Posts: 93,001

Joined: Dec 31 2007

Gold: 2,299.94

#150

Oct 30 2019 11:52am

Quote (Thor123422 @ Oct 30 2019 12:47pm)

I haven't given a single piece of anecdotal evidence in this thread. I'm not relying on personal experience, I'm giving specific examples that don't depend on my own experience.

you are correct, YOUR references weren't anecdotal, they're just obscure.

i was talking about humans and you brought up Winnie, Bogie is talking about people and you bring in surgically altered people, etc.

the topic can be more accurately broke down thusly:

for thousands of years "he" and "she" had a near 100% overlap with the corresponding genitalia for human beings, accounting only for the disfigured. in the past 10 years that's changed. it is a change, it wasn't like that from the invention of gendered pronouns until recently.

this shouldn't be controversial, and yet it seems to be. Why? because Trans advocates have failed (understandably) to get traction on convincing people to change willingly, and instead choose to gaslight people into thinking this isn't a change at all and it's just them being bigoted.

aka modern political discourse, 1. fail to convince others, 2. change facts or history to try and be more persuasive, fail, 3. shame others, fail.

both sides do it.

Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List