There Are Only 2 Genders | Change My Mind - Louder With Crowder - General

[QUOTE=nerdster409;52950535]The reason I ask is because I do not understand gender fluidity. I don't understand how someone can feel neither like a male nor a female. I try to understand but it just leaves me with more unanswered questions. Despite this I do [B]not[/B] believe they are mentally unstable, nor do I treat them any differently than I would treat anybody else.[/QUOTE] I think there's a difference between not understanding it yet trying to accept it, and not understanding it and treating them against their wishes. It's ok to make mistakes or not get it, but the important part boils down to respect for the individual.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52950533]California has it for people working in elderly care homes, but I think that only extends to transgender people using he/she.[/QUOTE] Does this piece of legislation force people to use specific pronouns or does it just restrict them from intentionally using pronouns that the target of their speech does not identify with? That's a very important distinction. For example: I cannot call a transgender person he if they identify as she, but I do not have to call them she.

[QUOTE=cbb;52950543]Does this piece of legislation force people to use specific pronouns or does it just restrict them from intentionally using pronouns that the target of their speech does not identify with? That's a very important distinction. For example: I cannot call a transgender person he if they identify as she, but I do not have to call them she.[/QUOTE] Not entirely sure if neutral pronouns are accepted (they.) But I'm going to guess it's likely, pronouns are not even the main point of the law, which is largely to due with discrimination and abuse. E.g. Elderly homes refusing care. One big issue with a lot of these laws is it can be hard to research them because the internet is full of so much bullshit regarding them.

[QUOTE=nerdster409;52950535]The reason I ask is because I do not understand gender fluidity. I don't understand how someone can feel neither like a male nor a female. I try to understand but it just leaves me with more unanswered questions. Despite this I do [B]not[/B] believe they are mentally unstable, nor do I treat them any differently than I would treat anybody else.[/QUOTE] You've got to be extra specific with these kinds of discussions because the vocabulary is very limited specifically because these are ideas that we're just now beginning to understand. When Steven Crowder says he believes there are only two genders, what he's implying is that transgender people have a mental disease that is causing them to identify as transgender despite the majority of the medical and psychological community disagreeing with him. This absolutely makes him a bigot. When you say that you don't understand gender fluidity, you're in a totally different camp then Crowder and I wouldn't call you a bigot just because you're ignorant on the subject. The ideas are 'new', there shouldn't be an expectation for you to immediately understand everything about them.

[QUOTE=cbb;52950543]Does this piece of legislation force people to use specific pronouns or does it just restrict them from intentionally using pronouns that the target of their speech does not identify with? That's a very important distinction. For example: I cannot call a transgender person he if they identify as she, but I do not have to call them she.[/QUOTE] Yah, it punishes them for intentional. Though I don't think the government should be able to fine you and compel you to use speech. I don't mind a person losing their job for being disrespectful since a company could deem that as a private issue for their clients, but fining them through legislation is an infringement on their freedom of speech.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;52950369]Just because a website has the words "medical" and "dictionary" in its URL does not mean it is a legitimate source of information on the lexicology of medical terms.[/QUOTE] has citations, it's not just one definition. [QUOTE=thelurker1234;52950370]did you actually just type "gender definition" into google and combed through the results until one satisfied you[/QUOTE] no, just the first one with medical definition. [QUOTE=Funion;52950376]Not sure why i bother replying but here you go [url]https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/gender[/url][/QUOTE] I'm not a doctor, but I can refer to a community of people who are looked up to. And when looking at another dictionary, it indeed has sex within the definition. [url]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender[/url] [quote]Definition of gender 1 a : a subclass within a grammatical class (such as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (such as shape, social rank, manner of existence, or sex) and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical forms b : membership of a word or a grammatical form in such a subclass c : an inflectional form (see inflection 3a) showing membership in such a subclass 2 a : sex the feminine gender [i]b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex[/i][/quote] [QUOTE=Lambeth;52950380]Cool I'm glad your source agrees with me.[/QUOTE] source of sources that have been cited. Are you glad, or just sarcastic? Because when you say, "fucking sex and gender", are you swearing or associating the genitalia used in sexual intercourse? [QUOTE=thelurker1234;52950385] His source basically gives multiple definitions from various medical sources. Some of which are incompatible with each-other. [/quote] yep, but sex and gender are there within the definition. I think I'm correct after looking up "based". [QUOTE=thelurker1234;52950385] If you actually read papers you'll notice that when it comes to terms like this they'll quite often take time to specify how they're using ambiguous language for clarity purposes. And even if you try to just have gender and sex be fully interchangeable and refer to classifications based on reproductive function, that doesn't actually achieve the purposes of scientifically discrediting trans/NB people. Because all it is a word, but what "gender is not sex" people are trying to do is use it to explain a psychological and sociological phenomenon of behavior. That phenomenon doesn't go away just because lexical gaps exist.[/QUOTE] One, would be great to show an example, I believe you, but would appreciate it and possible other people who are curious. Two, wasn't at all discrediting trans people or non binary, just giving a contradictory statement that was backed by various sources in one field. Three, way better reply then other people did and I appreciated it, wouldn't have been able to see your statement if not for my slow typing (due to gloves and double checking what I and other's said). The huge problem with this topic is the emotional connection which can easily agitate trumping calm collective thought, differences in words used which time is not taken to be in the same page, and not citing sources to prove one's point rather using appeal to emotions or slander. (theluker1234 saying something more away from the latter) It's like people are both reading too much into something and not enough at the same time. On the matter of chowder himself, I think chowder is a bit disingenuous even if he doesn't think he would rather soapbox conversations best not having a pedestal.

[QUOTE=nerdster409;52950535]The reason I ask is because I do not understand gender fluidity. I don't understand how someone can feel neither like a male nor a female. I try to understand but it just leaves me with more unanswered questions. Despite this I do [B]not[/B] believe they are mentally unstable, nor do I treat them any differently than I would treat anybody else.[/QUOTE] Simply put, "male" and "female" in the context of gender are merely a set of mostly arbitrary behaviors and practices. They often serve cultural and societal functions, but in a culture where individuality is heavily valued, like the USA, and where prior gender roles are no longer central to societal function like they might have been in farming communities hundreds of years ago, binary gender is just an arbitrary vestige of a prior time, no more or less valid than any other gender structure. And of course other cultures have wildly different gender structures, such as other cultures which feature a third gender.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52950554]Yah, it punishes them for intentional. Though I don't think the government should be able to fine you and compel you to use speech. I don't mind a person losing their job for being disrespectful since a company could deem that as a private issue for their clients, but fining them legislation is an infringement on their freedom of speech.[/QUOTE] Unfortunately, Canada doesn't have freedom of speech.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52950554]Yah, it punishes them for intentional. Though I don't think the government should be able to fine you and compel you to use speech. I don't mind a person losing their job for being disrespectful since a company could deem that as a private issue for their clients, but fining them legislation is an infringement on their freedom of speech.[/QUOTE] Free speech purism is a fine position to hold ideologically, but pragmatically there are certain groups of people that need to be protected by law from discrimination so that they don't become disadvantaged or worse.

[QUOTE=cbb;52950568]Free speech purism is a fine position to hold ideologically, but pragmatically there are certain groups of people that need to be protected by law from discrimination so that they don't become disadvantaged or worse.[/QUOTE] I disagree, especially because I think Freedom of Speech is exactly how these groups were able to get into a position of society to be able to voice their concerns without legal retribution. To limit someone's freedom of speech (bar shouting fire in a theater/incitement to violence) because you feel someone has to be protected is sacrificing a key principle that lets our society be able to exchange ideas in a free manner and expose terrible ideas. Not to mention there is a certain bigotry of low expectations to suggest certain groups of people will need protection from speech.

[QUOTE=cbb;52950568]Certain groups of people need to be protected from discrimination so that they don't become disadvantaged[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Tudd;52950579]I disagree[/QUOTE] This is the only reason why Tudd isn't banned yet and he still disagrees with it.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52950579]I disagree, especially because I think Freedom of Speech is exactly how these groups were able to get into a position of society to be able to voice their concerns without legal retribution. To limit someone's freedom of speech (bar shouting fire in a theater/incitement to violence) because you feel someone has to be protected is sacrificing a key principle that lets our society be able to exchange ideas in a free manner and expose terrible ideas.[/QUOTE] This is essentially a strawman. None of the legislation you cited limits free speech across the board. You're also implying that all free speech is equivalent and should be protected despite thinking that you shouldn't be able to incite violence with your speech. You're not even consistent, you're just heavily opinionated and biased. Edit: I misread your post. Disregard that last sentence. It was my mistake. You are consistent. Edit #2: I take that back I did read your post correctly. [quote]Not to mention there is a certain bigotry of low expectations to suggest certain groups of people will need protection from speech. [/quote] Historically certain groups of people have needed protection from speech so I'm not sure why you're claiming that I have bigoted expectations.

[QUOTE=cbb;52950582]This is essentially a strawman. None of the legislation you cited limits free speech across the board. You're also implying that all free speech is equivalent and should be protected despite thinking that you shouldn't be able to incite violence with your speech. You're not even consistent, you're just heavily opinionated and biased.[/QUOTE] Not sure which part you are claiming is a strawman considering I'm mostly talking on principles. If it was the cases I presented they would infact limit my speech and compel me to speak in a manner that I might disagree with using punitive fines if I break them.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52950585]Not sure which part you are claiming is a strawman considering I'm mostly talking on principles. If it was the cases I presented they would infact limit my speech and compel me to speak in a manner that I might disagree with using punitive fines if break them.[/QUOTE] Why should you be legally restricted from inciting violence but not from using discriminatory speech in certain settings? No one is compelling you to speak. They are compelling you not to speak. There is a world of difference and the fact that you're framing it that way leads me to believe that you're acting dishonestly.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52950585]If it was the cases I presented they would infact limit my speech and compel me to speak in a manner that I might disagree with using punitive fines if I break them.[/QUOTE] Okay, here's a shocker. Someone can't bully you into speaking in a manner that you might disagree with. That's not how the law works. All it does is prevent you from being a dick to people. Should poking people with a stick be illegal or are those pesky laws limiting your freedom?

[QUOTE=cbb;52950582] Historically certain groups of people have needed protection from speech so I'm not sure why you're claiming that I have bigoted expectations.[/QUOTE] I am actually not aware of previous legislation in America that specifically targeted certain groups for protection against the first admendment. I know plenty of other countries that do such a thing, but I think in principle they are wrong and largely don't eliminate cases/the issue they set out to stop. You can't kill and idea; and restricting speech actually has a tendency for groups to push back in the long term in unexpected ways when we look at history.

[QUOTE=Ithon;52950560]has citations, it's not just one definition. no, just the first one with medical definition. I'm not a doctor, but I can refer to a community of people who are looked up to. And when looking at another dictionary, it indeed has sex within the definition. [URL]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender[/URL][/QUOTE]You said gender is based on sex, referring to anatomical sex I assume. And even "gender is a social construct" people don't tend to deny the influence of sex in gender. That doesn't make them indistinct. [quote]source of sources that have been cited. Are you glad, or just sarcastic? Because when you say, "fucking sex and gender", are you swearing or associating the genitalia used in sexual intercourse? yep, but sex and gender are there within the definition. I think I'm correct after looking up "based".[/quote] What? Vaguely appealing to expert opinion is pretty bad when you give contradicting accounts of expert opinion. [quote]One, would be great to show an example, I believe you, but would appreciate it and possible other people who are curious. Two, wasn't at all discrediting trans people or non binary, just giving a contradictory statement that was backed by various sources in one field. Three, way better reply then other people did and I appreciated it, wouldn't have been able to see your statement if not for my slow typing (due to gloves and double checking what I and other's said).[/quote]What's the purpose of the contradictory statement if not to discredit something? If someone says the earth is flat and you give him a source saying it's round, you did it to discredit his idea. Cite which part, exactly by the way? That researchers often define things before they head into their studies? [URL]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4807860/[/URL] here's one i got just from typing in gender identity into ncbi. In the background section they give a basic tl;dr. If it's on gender identity, the DSM-V straight up talks about it and there's plenty of papers talking about non-binary [URL="https://www.academia.edu/1468940/Exploring_gender_identity_and_community_among_three_groups_of_transgender_individuals_in_the_United_States_MTFs_FTMs_and_Genderqueers"]people[/URL] if that's what you're interested in. That one is pretty interesting too, non-binary identities seem most common amongst people born female. [quote] The huge problem with this topic is the emotional connection which can easily agitate trumping calm collective thought, differences in words used which time is not taken to be in the same page, and not citing sources to prove one's point rather using appeal to emotions or slander. (theluker1234 saying something more away from the latter)[/quote] A lot of people get pretty frustrated, some with good reasons. Society actually cares quite a bit about these things so it directly impacts trans/NB people quite a lot. [editline]6th December 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Tudd;52950595]I am actually not aware of previous legislation in America that specifically targeted certain groups for protection against the first admendment. I know plenty of other countries that do such a thing, but I think in principle they are wrong and largely don't eliminate cases/the issue they set out to stop. You can't kill and idea; and restricting speech actually has a tendency for groups to push back in the long term in unexpected ways when we look at history.[/QUOTE] Call an employee a "nigger" several times and see what happens. A lot of sexual harassment is just speech too. First amendment!

[QUOTE=cbb;52950589]Why should you be legally restricted from inciting violence but not from using discriminatory speech in certain settings? No one is compelling you to speak. They are compelling you not to speak. There is a world of difference and the fact that you're framing it that way leads me to believe that you're acting dishonestly.[/QUOTE] Actually from what I can gather from this post, you just fundamentally don't believe in freedom of speech like I do. There is nothing disingenuous going on here actually. I do have to say tho; if you can't figure out why inciting violence through speech is a line crossed, but discriminatory speech is okay, we will just have a fundamental problem of talking through each other. I can tell you it is as simple as hateful ideas and racials slurs are not going to kill you, but calls to action can lead others to physically harm you. Also it doesn't matter if I am compelled to say something or compelled to not say it. That is infringing on the principle of freedom of speech. If I can't say something without a punishment, it is still infringing on my ability to vocalize ideas. Also using private company examples isn't relevant at all to what I am getting at for people using those. We're talking about the government enacting laws over this, not what a private company can do to you. Trust me, that private company can totally fire you for all I care. Getting a government fine is what I and many other Americans have an issue with.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52950579]I disagree, especially because I think Freedom of Speech is exactly how these groups were able to get into a position of society to be able to voice their concerns without legal retribution. To limit someone's freedom of speech (bar shouting fire in a theater/incitement to violence) because you feel someone has to be protected is sacrificing a key principle that lets our society be able to exchange ideas in a free manner and expose terrible ideas. Not to mention there is a certain bigotry of low expectations to suggest certain groups of people will need protection from speech.[/QUOTE] America is pretty unique in it's free speech. All (citation needed but confirmed for mine) the other first world countries don't have an official, but instead an implied freedom of speech. You don't however have the right to start spouting hate speech, that isn't a freedom. And yet somehow, the free exchange of ideas isn't halted, nor is the exposing of terrible ideas. We can actively expose bigots and their terrible ideas! It's funny that you're against that, hey?

[QUOTE=Rusty100;52950610]America is pretty unique in it's free speech. All (citation needed but confirmed for mine) the other first world countries don't have an official, but instead an implied freedom of speech. You don't however have the right to start spouting hate speech, that isn't a freedom. And yet somehow, the free exchange of ideas isn't halted! Bigots just get shut up. It's funny that you're against that, hey?[/QUOTE] Not even in the way tudd is framing it. You can say some pretty heinous stuff in public, on social media that you can't get away with in other countries. But in the workplace you still can't do shit like this: [URL]http://gawker.com/5818932/american-apparel-hit-with-343k-judgment-in-racial-slur-case[/URL] edit: that was a poor source I just realized, but here's another giving a legal citation. [url]https://www.laborandemploymentlawcounsel.com/2017/09/words-matter-the-third-circuit-clarifies-that-a-single-racial-slur-in-the-workplace-may-be-enough-to-state-a-hostile-work-environment-claim/[/url]

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52950612]Not even in the way tudd is framing it. You can say some pretty heinous stuff in public, on social media that you can't get away with in other countries. But in the workplace you still can't do shit like this: [URL]http://gawker.com/5818932/american-apparel-hit-with-343k-judgment-in-racial-slur-case[/URL][/QUOTE] Here's a tip for Tudd and others: if it's not okay to say in the workplace, it almost definitely isn't okay outside of it. But ya just gotta have that freedom! I love being allowed to say fucked shit and spread bad ideas!

[QUOTE=Rusty100;52950610]America is pretty unique in it's free speech. All (citation needed but confirmed for mine) the other first world countries don't have an official, but instead an implied freedom of speech. You don't however have the right to start spouting hate speech, that isn't a freedom. And yet somehow, the free exchange of ideas isn't halted! Bigots just get shut up. It's funny that you're against that, hey?[/QUOTE] I actually I think our system is better in principle and I am much happier living under it since it grants the most amount of freedom for others and I. Also those countries still have problems with bigots, and actually seem to talk about the rise of them a lot, so I guess it doesn't really work when you really think about it.

I've said this once and I will say it again: bigoted people should NOT be allowed to have a platform. They're only entitled to their own private beliefs. [editline]6th December 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Tudd;52950620]I actually I think our system is better in principle [/QUOTE] of course you do dude. do you really think "every country has some racists" is a good argument to allow free racist speech?

[QUOTE=Tudd;52950595]I am actually not aware of previous legislation in America that specifically targeted certain groups for protection against the first admendment.[/QUOTE] The New York Bill that you cited added gender identity to the many protected classes we have in the United States. That is to say, it protects non-cis people from discrimination the same way we protect every racial group (and other groups) from discrimination. So how can your freedom of speech be suddenly restricted if no prior legislation existed that granted every other group in the United States these protections? We can argue semantics if you'd like but you're the one arguing that your speech is being limited. [quote]You can't kill and idea; and restricting speech actually has a tendency for groups to push back in the long term in unexpected ways when we look at history.[/QUOTE] Can you give an example of this happening? [QUOTE=Tudd;52950605]Actually from what I can gather from this post, you just fundamentally don't believe in freedom of speech like I do. There is nothing disingenuous going on here actually. I do have to say tho; if you can't figure out why inciting violence through speech is a line crossed, but discriminatory speech is okay, we will just have a fundamental problem of talking through each other.[/quote] This is a copout. You don't have an actual reason for making the distinction so you're giving up the argument by saying that we've reached an impasse. [quote]I can tell you it is as simple as hateful ideas and racials slurs are not going to kill you, but calls to action can lead others to physically harm you.[/quote] So something should only be illegal if it will lead to physical harm? What if hateful ideas or racial slurs lead to segregation or non-violent harassment? That's all good? Your argument is completely arbitrary. [quote]Also it doesn't matter if I am compelled to say something or compelled to not say it. That is infringing on the principle of freedom of speech.[/quote] So why did you make the distinction in the first place if it doesn't matter?

[QUOTE=Rusty100;52950621]I've said this once and I will say it again: bigoted people should NOT be allowed to have a platform. They're only entitled to their own private beliefs.[/quote] You are for a authoritarian/totalitarian system then since it is the only way to implement such a policy. [quote] do you really think "every country has some racists" is a good argument to allow free racist speech?[/QUOTE] Just doesn't seem this system you speak highly of actually stops the problem. Just makes it go underground but it can and quite often becomes a bigger issue in the future if you want to take a brief look on the history of censorship.

Tudd, you being against calls to action seems highly contradictory with your post history all things considered. Are you sure you're not only against calls to action against your viewpoint? Because you don't really seem to care when it's the side you purportedly support.

[QUOTE=Rusty100;52950621]I've said this once and I will say it again: bigoted people should NOT be allowed to have a platform. They're only entitled to their own private beliefs. of course you do dude. do you really think "every country has some racists" is a good argument to allow free racist speech?[/QUOTE] Why would people ever need to be held accountable for their words and actions? Fuck that. What is this, jail?

[QUOTE=Tudd;52950630]You are for a authoritarian/totalitarian system then since it is the only way to implement such a policy. Just doesn't seem this system you speak highly of actually stops the problem. Just makes it go underground but it can and quite often becomes a bigger issue in the future if you want to take a brief look on the history of censorship.[/QUOTE] Where as the US version of the problem is the KKK and neo nazis raising to prominence in a way they haven't for many decades. Is that actually better? Is there no incitement to action that you're concerned about there? Are you being honest

[QUOTE=Tudd;52950579]I disagree, especially because I think Freedom of Speech is exactly how these groups were able to get into a position of society to be able to voice their concerns without legal retribution. To limit someone's freedom of speech (bar shouting fire in a theater/incitement to violence) because you feel someone has to be protected is sacrificing a key principle that lets our society be able to exchange ideas in a free manner and expose terrible ideas. Not to mention there is a certain bigotry of low expectations to suggest certain groups of people will need protection from speech.[/QUOTE] What do you gain by limiting the rights of people you don't like Tudd? [editline]5th December 2017[/editline] By the way, [i]nobody[/i] is trying to limit your rights in any way, shape, or form by choosing to identify as something you don't want to understand or comprehend.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52950630]You are for a authoritarian/totalitarian system then since it is the only way to implement such a policy.[/QUOTE] No. It's called democracy. You have a government, that passes laws and then those laws are enforced. That's called a democracy.