you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (64 children)

Personally I don’t believe in labeling other peoples sexualities. So it’s a matter of what you think it is.

[–]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (63 children)

I generally agree with not labeling other people's sexualities. But the OP directly asked us to.

Also, my lack of interest in labeling other people's sexualities comes from a different place to yours. You think anyone's sexuality is merely a matter of what they think and say it is, just the way you think that's true of everyone's sex and "identity." I disagree. Coz I think there is an objective reality to both sex and sexual orientation.

Therefore, I don't think it's accurate for two people in a male-female sexual relationship to be called homosexuals, even if that's what they say they are. Similarly, I believe it's a lie to call two males in a sexual relationship with one another either lesbians or heterosexuals, though some males in sexual relationships with other males today are claiming those very labels for themselves.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (62 children)

You are right in that we fundamentally disagree here.

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (61 children)

So is the bottom line that you don't believe that that objective material or social reality exist - only self-perception, self-description and self-identity? Or do you think that there is such a thing as objective material reality and social reality, but that objective reality is of little or no importance compared to the way individuals see and define themselves, the world, and the words/labels they use?

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (60 children)

Objective reality exists but the subjective is what matters when it comes to identity.

[–]MarkTwainiac 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (59 children)

Why?

So the deception that Alicia Estes committed by pretending to a be a heroic survivor of the 9-11 attack on the World Trade Center matters less than her "identity" as Tania Head? https://youtu.be/UfYQfeLuSrQ

Donald Trump's self-identity as the greatest POTUS ever, the best dealmaker in history, and the winner of the most recent US presidential election matters more than his record, other people's views of him, and the verified vote counts?

Elizabeth Holmes' identity as a good person and a tech genius on par with Steve Jobs counts more than her actions at Theranos and all the lies and hoodwinking she tried to get away with?

Christian Karl Gerhartsreiter's long-claimed identity as Clark Rockefeller matters more than the murder and other crimes he committed? https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2009/01/fake_rockefeller200901

Again, why?

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (58 children)

I don’t consider any of those identities. They are beliefs, but that’s different than an identity.

An identity is inherently subjective. I have a male body. That’s a fact. I also consider myself a woman but that isn’t dependent on external physical reality. It’s subjective. Now in that case there could be an objective basis in brain structures etc but ultimately how one identifies is inherently subjective. I can’t tell you how you should identify any more than you can tell me how I should. We just do.

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (55 children)

I'm not telling you how you should conceptualize yourself. I don't care. I don't care how you dress or "present" yourself either. You do you.

My concern is that QT says your subjective psychological sense of yourself as a woman should have as much, or even more, validity in life, law, sport, medical care, public provisions, social customs, communal accommodations and services as the objective physical reality of me actually being a woman owing to the verified and verifiable fact that I am a human who is female and of adult age.

My concern is that QT says the general public - and girls & women in particular - need to give up rights and bend over backwards to accommodate, validate and "affirm" the subjective psychological sense of self that you and some other people have in your heads.

In exchanges with me and other female posters on other threads, you've not shown us much respect. You've also taken it as your right to define what being a woman is and means, and what specifically female body parts are for.

My own subjective self-image is not an issue here coz I am not trying to impose my internal feelings, thoughts and imaginings about myself onto the world and other people in it. I'm not demanding that other people take seriously what I believe about myself and show my ideas about myself respect. I'm not trying to use my inner ideas about myself to take away any other people's rights or remove safeguarding provisions put in place to benefit children, women and disadvantaged persons the way QT and trans activists are.

Also, I don't have an "identity" the way you do. I'm of a generation that doesn't do the "identify as" thing, and for whom the very idea of "identifying as" what we are not seems utterly alien. I just have a boring old internal self-concept. Or rather two self-concepts, one which represents who I think I am - my "as is" self- and the other that represents who I wish I were - my ideal self. But I can't imagine trying to impose my views of who I wish I were on other people, much less demanding that they take my idealized, indeed imaginary, self as true and show "respect" for it - especially when it contradicts what they can see for themselves with their own eyes.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (54 children)

My own subjective self-image is not an issue here coz I am not trying to impose my internal feelings, thoughts and imaginings about myself onto the world and other people in it. I'm not demanding that other people take seriously what I believe about myself and show my ideas about myself respect.

You are demanding your conception of identity define how everyone is treated, not just you. You want your ideas to control how we are treated.

[–]BiologyIsReal 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You're the one who is dictacting how we must see you and how we must treat you even though biology goes against your self-image. Do you apply the same logic for other situations? Can someone practices medicine just by "identifying" as a doctor, even though they never studied for it? Can someone just "identify" as innocent in a trial so all the evidence against them is ignored? Can someone "identify" as Olympic champion runner even though they has never won any race? Can someone identify as a governor even though they lost the elections?

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

No, that's not true, and you know it. I'm a pluralist and democrat. I want laws, public policy and social customs to be decided by all the various kinds of people who make up society working together and based on democratic principles and objective material and social reality that's measurable, verifiable and widely agreed upon. I want all sides to have ample opportunity to discuss, present evidence and engage in vigorous debate where everyone gets a chance to have their views heard.

Whereas you want laws, public policy and social customs to be decreed in dictatorial fashion by you and others who constitute a tiny, self-selected, self-serving special interest group and whose members all believe that a) the subjective feelings that individuals like you have about yourselves matter more than objective reality that the rest of society agrees on; and b) the desire/need of a tiny authoritarian minority to get your own way and to bend the world to your will should take precedence over other people with different views being able to have, hold on to and exercise their/our rights and freedoms.

I don't want to control you. I don't want you to be mistreated, either. I think you should be protected from discrimination and able to live your life as you wish without harassment, abuse or violence.

But at the same time, I also don't think the totally unverifiable claims you and others make about the "identities" you have in your heads are a good foundation on which to make law, public policy and to try to build a fair society. You're the one who wants a society based on coercive control, not I.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (47 children)

Aren’t you kind of demanding that your conception of identity (an “identity” that is based on the fact of half of the human population, the half that you weren’t born as…) dictate for actual female humans as well as pretty much everyone else what it means to be a woman?

Meaning aren’t you trying to make the rest of the world, including the very people you based your identity on, conform to your personal sense of identity?

You want your ideas to dictate female spaces and rights and the language everyone uses.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I don’t get how a male identifying themselves as a woman is any different from Trump identifying himself as a great president.

Both of you are basing your criteria of what makes a woman/great president based on what is convenient for you. You can identify as a “woman” if you define for yourself what it means to be a woman. That doesn’t make what you’re identifying with anything close to actual “womanhood”. That doesn’t make it any more valid than Trump. You’re basing your identity on your belief, rather than on the objective reality of what it is to be a woman.