All: Is gender identity falsifiable? If so, what would disprove it?

submitted by Penultimate_Penance from (self.GCdebatesQT)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]SnowAssMan 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

not what you personally think it should mean

You think I'm making it up?

Transgenderists haven't got many terms of their own, they usually hijack others, like they hijack everything else. They call men women bc of their own "definition" of the word woman: a man who makes a self-declaration. Does that mean GC feminists should use 'woman' with the transgenderist misunderstanding of the word? Or should we try to use the correct terminology?

A strong desire to be the opposite sex, a self-declaration as the opposite sex, role-playing the opposite sex – none of these things constitute a gender identity, no matter how often people incorrectly call it that. The question should be: is transgender identity falsifiable.

[–]Penultimate_Penance[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Using the other sides words and definitions when it makes sense to do so is essential to debate. I'm well aware there are different meanings, which is why I listed which definition of gender identity is being discussed. I'm not fond of the other definitions of gender identity either, but that is a separate discussion not applicable to this one.

(This is for the lurkers) Identity should be based on who you are not what you are.

That's what the fight against sexism, racism & homophobia is about. A person's sex, skin color or sexual orientation does not dictate the content of their character. That is why discrimination against those groups is unjust. That is what progressivism was supposed to be about until it got poisoned by myopic naval gazing identitarians.

That is what the genderists have gotten horrifically wrong. By claiming gender aka cultural sex stereotypes as innate parts of their identity they are cementing sexism instead of eradicating it.

[–]SnowAssMan 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Using the other sides words and definitions when it makes sense to do so is essential to debate

Whoever uses the terms of the opposition is capitulating. Always make them use your terms, not the other way around. As soon as you start playing by their rules you've helped them monopolise the "debate", which is the their winning move in said debate.

I'm not fond of the other definitions of gender identity either

They're not on the same level. "TWAW" isn't supported by any scientific discipline.

Identity should be based on who you are not what you are

That's only personal identity. Social identities also exist. Billion dollar industries depend on individuals within demographics all sharing behavioural patterns.

A person's sex, skin color or sexual orientation does not dictate the content of their character

A person's class dictates a lot about them. Admitting that isn't justifying classism.

Transgenderists believe that gender identity is a personal construct. They swing between biological determinism & free will, like conservatives. As usual, it's socially determined, otherwise all the dysphorics in media, politics & crime would be homosexual females, not heterosexual males again.

[–]Penultimate_Penance[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Never said the different definitions of gender identity are on the same level. No shit shirlock I'm aware social identities exist. Also no shit sexism, racism, classism and about any other ism's effects people's prospects and position in life. Never said it doesn't.

[–]SnowAssMan 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Then why did you say: "Identity should be based on who you are not what you are"?

[–]Penultimate_Penance[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Here's an attempt to explain it better. I'm talking about personal identity. Many people choose to or are taught to focus on certain physical traits and base their identity around that. (The what you are.)

It's a value statement. Identity should be based on who you are not what you are means:

  • Your humanity matters more than your sex.
  • Your humanity matters more than your weight.
  • Your humanity matters more than your skin color and so on.

Couldn't think of a clearer way to get the idea across to the QT crowd. I'm open to suggestions.

Queer theorists have conflated the cultural sex stereotypes with the physical reality of being a man or a woman. There's no social need to transition whatsoever if people separate the sexist stereotypes from what it means to be a man or a woman and stick strictly to the facts. Woman/man by itself isn't a full fledged identity nor should it be. It's just a fact about people. Same for skin color and other physical characteristics. I can simultaneously understand that being a man or a woman in our sexist culture has a huge impact on people's lives while also believing that their sex should not be a core part of their personal identity. Culturally and historically it's a huge deal, ethically it shouldn't be. The same idea also applies to skin color and other physical characteristics.

  • Skin tone doesn't = character or personality
  • Man/woman doesn't = character or personality

There's a bit of political black and white thinking divide that's going on with the word identity right now too, so it's real hard to talk about the concept casually without people getting up in arms about it and talking past each other.

Edit: Fixing formatting