lol I kept seeing people quote this, thought it was just make-believe BS.

Well if sex is a social construct than so is any species you identify as. Therefore I can call you a tugboat and you have to accept it, because fuck reality and stuff.

Semantics, once negative rights are obtained, positive rights follow.

"I have a right to be free from harassment!" is a good thing, but unfortunately followed quickly by "I have a right to harass others!".

In the case of the ongoing lawsuit of the Christian bakery, it's obvious harassment. E.g. Asking for them to make obscene cakes of dongs in order to restart a lawsuit.

Ok. Gateway arguments involving weed are dumb.

You're taking actions of a few in a country of hundreds of millions as evidence of a larger trend. If thats the bar you can "prove" anything

I'm unfortunately not familiar with Foucault so i can't comment in that part. I have a strong medical bias so it explains my practical approach, it's what dictates what goes and what doesn't. I try to be pro trans, but in medicine we tend discriminate, make distinctions and act conservatively no matter how liberal we as individuals are. The concept of biological sex is evident in the risk for coronary artery disease. There is a significant difference between the groups "biological male" and "biological female". There are real implications to this. We just try to follow the best available medical knowledge and acknowledge that it may or may not be in line with common opinions.

The whole trans discussion is just one example of a controversial topic where subjective experiences interfere with attempts to practice medicine as objectively as possibke.



This is not the way you should argue about it.

Sex is a social construct indeed, but it happens to be a useful one in certain contexts. Much like math and logic are social constructs with wide ranges of application. We just need to be considerate and appreciate what certain groups say when they state that they feel undermined and not just go "lol i wanna be an attack helicopter fuck you". It's just common decency at the very least.



Here we got a perfect attack helicopter example...
Get good and stop making strawmen

This post was edited by Neptunus on Aug 7 2019 07:17am

These isolated cases are deciding what's legal or not for the rest of us.

Today I feel like a man, maybe tomorrow I'll be a woman. I think for friday I want to be an elephant.

Recognize me as an elephant on Friday or you are all racist sexist child raping bigots.

Oh and I shouldn't have to work and I want to get paid $100k a year.

Then cite the specific legal decisions that came from them as evidence instead of the fact that something was filed.

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.

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.

This post was edited by TransTankie on Aug 7 2019 07:58am

Decadence like this is why the Roman Empire fell