Transgendered Woman Disqualified from Miss Universe

[Misclick]

Originally Posted by YamahaR1

If you don't like living there, you don't have to? You can choose to live wherever you like so long as it suits your means. CLE area is vast. If you wanna live section 8 in the ghetto two cities over, your more than welcome to. If you want to live in a nice yuppy neighborhood, we have those too. There are systems in place to keep the neighborhood nice, and the people who chose to live here appreciate those systems. Its why we chose to live here.

...um, tell that to the American Indians? Or gays in the 1960's, or blacks in the 1940's, or women landowners in the 1900's, or the homeless throughout time...

@B_S: Off topic, Greek?

[YamahaR1]

Originally Posted by Misclick

...um, tell that to the American Indians? Or gays in the 1960's, or blacks in the 1940's, or women landowners in the 1900's, or the homeless throughout time...

@B_S: Off topic, Greek?

Sorry man I don't really know what your getting at or what your looking for. I can spell the post out for you. Tei claimed that housing bilaws were in place, tho largely not enforced, to keep transgendered out. My post explains those bilaws, their origination, why their still there, and how they don't prevent Tei from buying a house because of being transgender.

If your claming that a neighborhood's practices keeps out people who can't afford to live there or keeps the neighborhood from becoming trashy, then you are correct. If you have angst about that, I don't know what to tell you. I'm not a socialist who has a problem with that system.

[Misclick]

Originally Posted by YamahaR1

Sorry man I don't really know what your getting at or what your looking for. I can spell the post out for you. Tei claimed that housing bilaws were in place, tho largely not enforced, to keep transgendered out. My post explains those bilaws, their origination, why their still there, and how they don't prevent Tei from buying a house because of being transgender.

If your claming that a neighborhood's practices keeps out people who can't afford to live there or keeps the neighborhood from becoming trashy, then you are correct. If you have angst about that, I don't know what to tell you. I'm not a socialist who has a problem with that system.

Fair enough, thanks for the clarity. It seems my wires got crossed between your point and my own belief that nobody directly chooses to live in someplace they don't consider "nice."

[YamahaR1]

Originally Posted by Misclick

Fair enough, thanks for the clarity. It seems my wires got crossed between your point and my own belief that nobody directly chooses to live in someplace they don't consider "nice."

Oh. I see. No, they often don't directly choose. I do believe many could do something about it and change it, but often don't know how, don't have the desire to or don't have the resources to start. My friend and I have this conversation at least every couple weeks. Hes black, and I'm the privileged white boy who had a better start from the beginning, wasn't born in a poor community etc etc etc.

[dcartist]

http://volokh.com/2012/04/25/califor...on-or-conduct/

California bill banning psychotherapy aimed at Changing minor's same sex desires. Sort of related. I wonder if gender dysphoria will be similarly protected.

[FoxBlade]

Originally Posted by Cervid

This is the same type of argument people make against gay marriage when they bring up "why stop at men marrying men, why not marry your pet, or your car?".

There's no slippery slope here - all I'm doing is pointing out the flaw in this logic:

Originally Posted by Cervid

Are you more your mind, or your body? I would argue that your self is your mind, regardless of your body.

Do you not see what you're saying here? Your sentence reads that you would argue that self is determined by your mind and that it doesn't matter what kind of body you have.

So logically we can conclude then that it doesn't matter what sex your body is - you are what your mind says you are.

Problem is like I said, we can use the same logic and apply that to clinical lycanthropy - because it doesn't matter what species your body is - you are what your mind says you are.

Originally Posted by Cervid

However, if you want a real answer to your hypothetical question, I will respond with a hypothetical answer. If you were to transplant an wolf's brain into a human body, then I would agree that that being's self is still a wolf.

That's not a very good comparison because transgenders and lycanthropes are both still human. For your example to be accurate, the wolf would have to identify itself as a human and then we could use your same logic to conclude that the wolf is human, you know - regardless of it's body.

Originally Posted by Cervid

I can provide all kinds of citations if you want me to show that the physical results in the mind. Are you denying that things like injuries to the brain don't affect the mind?

No, you said that the mind is caused by cells, you need to give a citation for that. You also said that the mind is the brains presentation of itself, you need to give a citation for that too.

I'm not even sure what this sentence means: "I can provide all kinds of citations if you want me to show that the physical results in the mind."

Originally Posted by Cervid

That's interesting, because those are things that we also bring in to what we call the human mind.

Those are attributes that we think the mind has, yes. However you should keep in mind (I think HTime said it) that there is no unified theory on the mind.

Originally Posted by Cervid

Actually, how your process pain would be a phenotype. Your mind is absolutely a phenotype, unless you'd like to argue that the mind has non-physical (i.e. supernatural) causes.

Yes, how you process pain is a phenotype, but I said 'pain' isn't a phenotype.

Yes, your brain is a phenotype, but the mind is not. I've asked you twice now to provide an academic peer reviewed article that describes the mind as being a phenotype, I'm asking you now once again to do so. You seem to have trouble doing that. Why is that?

Originally Posted by Cervid

No, that's not exactly what I'm arguing. Being delusional is different from having actual anatomical characteristics determined pre-birth, either through genetics or environment, that result in a different phenotype.

First off before you go claiming the mind is a phenotype, you need to provide a citation for that.

Secondly, if you're claiming that the brain in transsexuals is fully the opposite sex, from the articles the Teia posted, that's not the case. You don't get to point to one part of the brain that is feminine or masculine and conclude the whole thing is that way too.

Thirdly, I'll even grant you that point anyway. Just because transsexuals identify as a different sex than they are born as - that doesn't make them that sex. Just because someone with clinical lycanthropy identify as a different species than they are born as, that doesn't make them that species.

Originally Posted by Cervid

No, they do not seem to be parallels.

The only difference here is what they identify as, one is sex - the other is species. That's a parallel.

[Cervid]

Originally Posted by FoxBlade

Do you not see what you're saying here? Your sentence reads that you would argue that self is determined by your mind and that it doesn't matter what kind of body you have.

So logically we can conclude then that it doesn't matter what sex your body is - you are what your mind says you are.

Problem is like I said, we can use the same logic and apply that to clinical lycanthropy - because it doesn't matter what species your body is - you are what your mind says you are.

Except clinical lycanthropy is not in the same ballpark as trans gender. Similarly, I wouldn't agree that someone who really believes they are the best baseball player to ever live, is actually the best baseball player to ever live.

Gender and species are not comparable. I will concede that my statement, "Are you more your mind, or your body? I would argue that your self is your mind, regardless of your body" was in too absolute, or failed to encompass my thoughts on the issue. I don't find someone who is born trans gender to be comparable to someone who develops a psychological illness that results in the delusion that they are a different species.

Originally Posted by FoxBlade

That's not a very good comparison because transgenders and lycanthropes are both still human. For your example to be accurate, the wolf would have to identify itself as a human and then we could use your same logic to conclude that the wolf is human, you know - regardless of it's body.

Well, it's hard to judge whether or not it's a good comparison or not when you seemingly have misunderstood it to begin with. The contrast I was attempting to portray is that a human brain with a key region that is anatomically expressing a phenotype opposite of the genetic sex of that individual is different from a human brain that has some other mental illness that has resulted in the delusion that the person is a wolf.

Originally Posted by FoxBlade

No, you said that the mind is caused by cells, you need to give a citation for that. You also said that the mind is the brains presentation of itself, you need to give a citation for that too.

I'm not even sure what this sentence means: "I can provide all kinds of citations if you want me to show that the physical results in the mind."

Those are attributes that we think the mind has, yes. However you should keep in mind (I think HTime said it) that there is no unified theory on the mind.

Okay, before we go further, you need to tell me what you think "the mind" is. Either we are working from different definitions, or you are arguing for a supernatural mind.

Originally Posted by FoxBlade

Yes, how you process pain is a phenotype, but I said 'pain' isn't a phenotype.

Well of course the concept of "pain" isn't a phenotype. Why is that even something to bring up? Music isn't a phenotype either, neither are track competitions. However, someone musical or athletic ability is.

Originally Posted by FoxBlade

Yes, your brain is a phenotype, but the mind is not. I've asked you twice now to provide an academic peer reviewed article that describes the mind as being a phenotype, I'm asking you now once again to do so. You seem to have trouble doing that. Why is that?

Because we must be working off of different definitions. Here is why I haven't provided one:

1. It's completely obvious that a person's mind is part of their phenotype. The fact that you disagree either displays a lack of scientific understanding, or that we have different definitions. I suspect the latter.

2. It is so easy to find a journal article that talks about physical processes in the brain resulting in differences in brain processes that it seems silly for me to have to go find you one. If you go to google scholar and search, you'll find pages and pages of them. I'm totally happy to provide citations when I make a very specific reference to a finding, but in this case it's unnecessary.

Originally Posted by FoxBlade

Secondly, if you're claiming that the brain in transsexuals is fully the opposite sex, from the articles the Teia posted, that's not the case. You don't get to point to one part of the brain that is feminine or masculine and conclude the whole thing is that way too.

That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm not saying that a trans woman's brain is entirely female. What I'm saying is that the part of the brain responsible for gender identity is anatomically feminized, resulting in a female phenotype. We good?

Originally Posted by FoxBlade

Thirdly, I'll even grant you that point anyway. Just because transsexuals identify as a different sex than they are born as - that doesn't make them that sex.

Is our debate entirely the result of definition issues? Obviously someone who is a trans woman is not genetically male. I've never argue that, because that would be silly.

Originally Posted by FoxBlade

Just because someone with clinical lycanthropy identify as a different species than they are born as, that doesn't make them that species.

When we say "species", we are inherently implying genetics, whereas when we say "woman" we are not. Again, I do not think this is comparable to trans gender.

Originally Posted by FoxBlade

The only difference here is what they identify as, one is sex - the other is species. That's a parallel.

It's not a parallel, it's two completely different ideas.

[FoxBlade]

Originally Posted by Cervid

Gender and species are not comparable. I will concede that my statement, "Are you more your mind, or your body? I would argue that your self is your mind, regardless of your body" was in too absolute, or failed to encompass my thoughts on the issue. I don't find someone who is born trans gender to be comparable to someone who develops a psychological illness that results in the delusion that they are a different species.

Okay good, this is all I really wanted you to acknowledge.

Originally Posted by Cervid

Okay, before we go further, you need to tell me what you think "the mind" is. Either we are working from different definitions, or you are arguing for a supernatural mind.

I would agree that we are arguing from different definitions. However, like I said I'm not sure what the mind exactly is because I feel the concept is very abstract and not tangible.

I think the mind is something that describes what our brain does in terms of other non-tangible concepts like thought(s), feelings, memories, consciousness, imagination, dreams, etc. and I think the concept of a mind is very philosophical.

Originally Posted by Cervid

Well of course the concept of "pain" isn't a phenotype. Why is that even something to bring up? Music isn't a phenotype either, neither are track competitions. However, someone musical or athletic ability is.
Because we must be working off of different definitions. Here is why I haven't provided one:

1. It's completely obvious that a person's mind is part of their phenotype. The fact that you disagree either displays a lack of scientific understanding, or that we have different definitions. I suspect the latter.

2. It is so easy to find a journal article that talks about physical processes in the brain resulting in differences in brain processes that it seems silly for me to have to go find you one. If you go to google scholar and search, you'll find pages and pages of them. I'm totally happy to provide citations when I make a very specific reference to a finding, but in this case it's unnecessary.

I think wikipedia does a good job in describing phenotype:

Spoiler:

Despite its seemingly straightforward definition, the concept of the phenotype has hidden subtleties. It may seem that anything dependent on the genotype is a phenotype, including molecules such as RNA and proteins. Most molecules and structures coded by the genetic material are not visible in the appearance of an organism, yet they are observable (for example by Western blotting) and are thus part of the phenotype. Human blood groups are an example. It may also seem that this goes beyond the original intentions of the concept with its focus on the (living) organism in itself, meaning that the lowest level of biological organization compatible with the phenotype concept is at the cellular level. Either way, the term phenotype includes traits or characteristics that can be made visible by some technical procedure. Another extension adds behavior to the phenotype, since behaviors are also observable characteristics. Indeed there is research into the clinical relevance of behavioral phenotypes as they pertain to a range of syndromes.[3][4] Often, the term "phenotype" is incorrectly used as a shorthand to indicate phenotypical changes observed in mutated organisms (most often in connection with knockout mice).[5]

As I said before phenotype has to be something that is observable, since the mind isn't something observable, it isn't a phenotype. The brain for sure is, but not the mind.

From the way you are using mind/brain it seems like you are using them interchangeably and I don't think they are interchangeable. As I said in my definition, I think the mind is something that describes what our brain does with other things that aren't tangible.

That's why I liked that you brought up pain, pain itself isn't a phenotype, it just describes our body's response to stimulus. I think this is similar to the mind - in that the mind itself isn't a phenotype, it's simply our brain reacting to stimulus.

Originally Posted by Cervid

That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm not saying that a trans woman's brain is entirely female. What I'm saying is that the part of the brain responsible for gender identity is anatomically feminized, resulting in a female phenotype. We good?

Yep, we're good .

Originally Posted by Cervid

Is our debate entirely the result of definition issues? Obviously someone who is a trans woman is not genetically male. I've never argue that, because that would be silly.

You mean not genetically female, but yeah I thought that was what you were arguing. Clearly then this is a misunderstanding on both our parts.

Originally Posted by Cervid

When we say "species", we are inherently implying genetics, whereas when we say "woman" we are not. Again, I do not think this is comparable to trans gender.

Well like I said above, clearly we've misunderstood each other here.

Originally Posted by Cervid

It's not a parallel, it's two completely different ideas.

It's a moot point since we're not even arguing what we thought we were.

[Teia Rabishu]

Originally Posted by HTime

I don't have to. Anyone with the slightest understanding of logic realizes that you can't appeal to "If I identify as X, then I am X" if it isn't true for all X. And it's false for X=God. That means any argument that uses the premise "If I identify as X, then I am X" is unsound. If "identifying as a woman" were different from "identifying as God" in the sense that it actually would imply "being a woman", then the burden of proof is on nobody but you!

"If I can drink X, then X is good for me."

Substitute in water, soft drinks, alcohol, bleach... clearly it's all the same and not related to any actual qualities of X. Also I spent quite a few posts in this thread going over how transsexuality and clinical lycanthropy aren't comparabe.

"Female means X" is always utterly arbitrary and not inherently objective.

People throughout this thread have hidden behind the dictionary with regards to what "female" means in some kind of absolute sense. I propose alternate criteria, and the response is more or less "no, female means XX." If it's so arbitrary, then the XX chromosome definition shouldn't be held as such an ironclad standard.

Nobody in this thread has cited a dictionary that defines a woman in terms of chromosomes, so that claim is simply a lie on your part.

I've seen dictionaries thrown around all over the place. "Woman means adult female human, female means 46,XY." There were all kinds of dictionaries thrown around, even a medical dictionary. I'm not sure why you pretend this isn't the case.

Originally Posted by YamahaR1

Because of your weak examples. If you yourself admit your examples are not enforced, then are you not exaggerating or complaining about an issue that doesn't really exist? Or are you just finding things to whine about to support your arguments?

Actually, I'm trying to limit the amount of "sob stories" (as people derided them) in this thread. I do have to wonder, though, under what authority you make your "exaggeration" claims. You're presumably not trans, so you've never faced these issues firsthand. You can simply choose to ignore them, and to downplay them when you come across them.

It's actually a pretty dangerous trap to fall into, when you get right down to it. Privileged people will look at cases which, though not outright harmful on their own, add up over time to be painfully oppressive. Yet they only look at single instances of this, like looking at single hailstones in a storm, and conclude that since they could weather that single blow, the marginalized group should too, all the while blind to the sheer number of such hailstones striking a person.

Our housing community has such bi-laws that you listed as one of your examples. They were written in the early 70's during period of reform. And it doesn't say "no transgender people allowed" or "no minorities allowed" or anything of the sort. It says, they "reserve the right to deny housing to anyone at their discretion."

Some 35 years later, its never been revamped. But as you yourself said, it isn't enforced. They can't. Its against the fair housing act. Even if they tried, they would find themselves in court.

Almost no one actually says "you're trans, so we're going to deny you housing." Rather, trans people fall victim to any number of plausible-sounding excuses. Excuses that don't name trans status directly, but are still targeted towards them.

It doesn't matter if your a racial minority or a member of the LGBT community. If you've got the money, and agree to the policies regarding housekeeping, maintenance and preserving the quality of the neighborhood, you will be welcomed here. If your the type who'd like to sit on your front porch without a shirt on, drinking beers and admiring your collection of immobile cars, thinking about your next Obama check which is already spent, while your nappy kids run rampant through your tall-grass then your going to run into issues and the neighborhood will work to oust the issue.

Likewise, if you're visibly trans, openly LGB, whatever, then you're also going to run into issues and the neighbourhood will work to oust you. Maybe those standards will be enforced all that much more strictly with you. Maybe you'll just face extreme social pressure. If you're near a school, maybe parents will complain about you (as if LGBT people are threats to children—and this kind of complaining has been known to happen). Maybe people will openly harass you while everyone else turns a blind eye—"freedom of speech" protects offensive epithets being slung at someone on a regular basis. Whatever the approach, you're still going to find yourself made into an "issue" and therefore "ousted" for no reason other than being undesirable.

And that's only for housing. Employment is another major issue, and let me tell you, employers get downright creative when it comes to discriminating against marginalized groups. They'll suddenly find themselves "not hiring" when you come by, and yet when the straight cis white guy comes by a few days later, the "situation has changed" and they can magically fit him in. They'll employ multiple people in the hiring process, one with looser standards to apply to straight cis white guys ("oh, the job requirements are more of a wish list, you don't need all of them") and another with stricter standards to apply to marginalized groups ("I'm sorry, but you're missing this one single thing we're looking for"). When hiring requirements are entirely subjective, it's very easy to blame not hiring someone on anything but protected classes. And even if a marginalized person does get the job, that's no guarantee they'll be able to keep it. Maybe they'll find themselves "let go" because they "weren't fitting in," or maybe they committed some trivial workplace violation never actionable in the case of a straight cis white guy ("you left crumbs on the break room floor").

Double standards don't just end there. Employers can get pretty creative with what they'll do to keep their workplaces free of marginalized groups they don't like.

You could easily come back (yet again) with "I personally know trans who were denied housing for being trans" to which I'd tell you - Call a lawyer like anyone else.

Great on paper, terrible in practice. Highly marginalized groups generally don't have the resources to be able to take things to court, much less win. And even when they do win, a lot of cases are simply appealed. It'd be great if "calling a lawyer like anyone else [who's privileged]" worked for everyone, but it doesn't, and that's part of the problem.

Originally Posted by Blinking Spirit

...or "female means having a female identity". You forgot that one.

I'm not sure I claimed that one to be objective.

Complete non sequitur.

Also missing the point of what I said. The point was to highlight the double standard at play here: Apparently painting others' arguments in a negative light is okay when done to me, but not when done by me.

You have said that anyone who identifies as female and has female encephalic sex is female. You have said that female identity is a "truly all-encompassing trait". And you have said that once upon a time you did not identify as female. If you don't like the logical consequences of these propositions taken together, that's your problem, not mine.

I'm not going to go into the details my life story, so I'm just going to generalize a bit (if you want trans people's life stories, they're all over the Internet, but you're not getting mine). In the case of trans people still in the closet, the "I identify as <assigned gender>" is merely a statement, not actually backed up by anything. It's not backed up by one's encephalic sex at all. It's simply an erroneous statement made due to incomplete information about oneself. People can be made to believe a wide variety of untrue things if they're so indoctrinated.

Your reluctance to abandon the concept is what keeps tripping you up when people draw parallels to other forms of identity.

Gender identity is simply one subset of identity. It's a common mistake to assume that all types of identity share exactly the same traits.

I called you the Boy Who Cried Wolf just now. Did you complain because you're not a boy

Thought about asking you what's wrong with saying "girl who cried wolf," but I decided the inevitable answer (probably "well the story isn't about a girl so 'girl who cried wolf' would be wrong" in the vein of when someone said "strawperson" and got flak for it) wasn't worth asking the question for.

Originally Posted by YamahaR1

Tei claimed that housing bilaws were in place, tho largely not enforced, to keep transgendered out. My post explains those bilaws, their origination, why their still there, and how they don't prevent Tei from buying a house because of being transgender.

Nope. I said that discrimination exists, not that specific bylaws do. You're confusing it with the air travel example, where I cited the specific portion of the rules in which trans people are prohibited by the rules from flying.

[HTime]

Originally Posted by Teia Rabishu

"If I can drink X, then X is good for me."

Substitute in water, soft drinks, alcohol, bleach... clearly it's all the same and not related to any actual qualities of X. Also I spent quite a few posts in this thread going over how transsexuality and clinical lycanthropy aren't comparabe.

A counterexample is only intended to show that the general case is not true. As for the special case, Blinking Spirit and I have raised quite a few objections to this argument that you have apparently chosen to ignore.

Originally Posted by Teia Rabishu

People throughout this thread have hidden behind the dictionary with regards to what "female" means in some kind of absolute sense. I propose alternate criteria, and the response is more or less "no, female means XX." If it's so arbitrary, then the XX chromosome definition shouldn't be held as such an ironclad standard.

If anyone here actually claimed "female is defined as being XX", I'd like that person to stand up and say this, because I don't recall anyone doing so.
And no one claimed that the definitions that the dictionary gives are objective in the sense that it accurately represent the meaning of words that is distinct from what we intend them to mean, it's because it accurately represents what we mean by certain words, which is all there is to them.

Originally Posted by Teia Rabishu

I've seen dictionaries thrown around all over the place. "Woman means adult female human, female means 46,XY." There were all kinds of dictionaries thrown around, even a medical dictionary. I'm not sure why you pretend this isn't the case.

If someone quoted a dictionary as saying "female means 46,XX" then I'm sure you can prove that by giving me a link to that post. I'm waiting.\

[Teia Rabishu]

Originally Posted by HTime

A counterexample is only intended to show that the general case is not true. As for the special case, Blinking Spirit and I have raised quite a few objections to this argument that you have apparently chosen to ignore or didn't understand because you have not written anything that adresses them.

Or that got lost/intentionally ignored by people. I mean, the obvious differences between womanhood and eagle-hood aside, if you want to take the "identify as female" case rather than "identify as woman" case, I'm still waiting for you to show how humans can have non-human body maps (as well as the other things I asked of you in that post).

If anyohe here actually claimed "female is defined as being XX", I'd like that person to stand up and say this, because I don't recall anyone doing so. If I'm wrong, link to that post.

If someone quoted a dictionary as saying "female means 46,XX" then I'm sure you can prove that by giving me a link to that post as well. I'm waiting.

"How about we define 'human female' as an individual who has the XX karyotype and who's cell nuclei contain barr bodies and 'human males' as an individual who has the XY karyotype and who's cell nuclei do not contain barr bodies."

Linking to two dictionary definitions.

First two I could find off searching this thread for "dictionary." In general, the first thing I quoted is what FoxBlade has been insisting for the bulk of the thread, to the point of trying to dismiss counter-arguments because such counter-arguments don't agree with the dictionary definition of the term. There are other dictionary arguments (including non-medical dictionaries) floating around if you care to look for them.

[HTime]

Originally Posted by Teia Rabishu

Or that got lost/intentionally ignored by people. I mean, the obvious differences between womanhood and eagle-hood aside, if you want to take the "identify as female" case rather than "identify as woman" case, I'm still waiting for you to show how humans can have non-human body maps (as well as the other things I asked of you in that post).

Really? We just ignored that you answered objections like "Your arguments incorrectly assume that there is no such thing as how a word "should" be defined or that science can tell us something relevant when it comes to how things are defined." despite the fact that I repeated this a million times and Blinking Spirit has done the same and you never actually write anything in response? Did you use invisible font?

It's obvious that it's possible for a human to have a non-human body map since being human isn't defined in terms of having a human body map and a human could develop an abnormal body map for any number of reasons that don't interfere with the species.
And "being a God" and "being a woman" have the common trait that one can identify as having this property while lacking it. Beyond that, I already explained that counterexamples don't have to be analogous in every way, or even more than one way.

Originally Posted by Teia Rabishu

"How about we define 'human female' as an individual who has the XX karyotype and who's cell nuclei contain barr bodies and 'human males' as an individual who has the XY karyotype and who's cell nuclei do not contain barr bodies."

Linking to two dictionary definitions.

The first one a proposal by FoxBlade to define the word "female" in a certain way. It's not necessarily a claim about how the word "female" is defined by dictionaries. But I guess I'll let that one count.

But those two links give definitions of "genetically female", which is not the same as "female". I asked for a dictionary that defines "female" as "being XY". In case you haven't noticed, those links cite the American Heritage Medical Dictionary, which defines the adjective "female" as "of, relating to, or denoting the sex that produces ova or bears young" and the noun "(a) female" as "(a) member of the sex that produces ova or bears young/a woman or girl".
In case you forgot, that was the definition I presented from the beginning. So it's defined in terms of sex, which the same dictionary defines as "The property or quality by which organisms are classified as female or male on the basis of their reproductive organs and functions."
What is suspiciously absent That's right, any mention of chromosomes.
Nice try, but fail.

[Ulfsaar]

Originally Posted by Teia

"If I can drink X, then X is good for me."

On the contrary, Teia, this is the form we're using to criticize your argument "identify as X therefore is X." Your statement is a fine example of poor reasoning.

It doesn't matter if clinical lycanthropy and transgenderism are different in respect to physical possibilities, because your argument, at least for a while, was if a person identifies as female, they are female. By inserting clinical lycanthropy into your "identifies as X therefore is X" reasoning, we can clearly see that this is not the case and that your reasoning is poor.

[HTime]

Originally Posted by Ulfsaar

On the contrary, Teia, this is the form we're using to criticize your argument "identify as X therefore is X." Your statement is a fine example of poor reasoning.

It doesn't matter if clinical lycanthropy and transgenderism are different in respect to physical possibilities, because your argument, at least for a while, was if a person identifies as female, they are female. By inserting clinical lycanthropy into your "identifies as X therefore is X" reasoning, we can clearly see that this is not the case and that your reasoning is poor.

Exactly. If "I identify as X, then I am X" isn't true for all values of X but you still want to reason "I identify as a woman, therefore I am a woman" then you need to go back to what it means to be a woman and show that identifying is sufficient to meet the definition of a woman. But as Teia has admitted, it isn't unless the word "woman" gets arbitrarily redefined.

[Blinking Spirit]

Originally Posted by Teia Rabishu

I'm not sure I claimed that one to be objective.

You didn't, but it was conspicuous in its absence. Dismiss all the others as arbitrary, you have to dismiss that one too. Where does that leave you? Where do you go from there?

Originally Posted by Teia Rabishu

Also missing the point of what I said. The point was to highlight the double standard at play here: Apparently painting others' arguments in a negative light is okay when done to me, but not when done by me.

It is of course not okay in either case. Which is why I never did it. You used "You're not educated on this subject" as an excuse to avoid explanations that might lead to stating facts you don't like, which was not only patronizing but dishonest. But nobody has used "How is transsexuality like lycanthropy?" to try to avoid anything. On the contrary, we were prompting you to explain yourself further. (Which you now avoid by dismissing it as "ridicule". ) There is no connection between your action and mine. Hence: non sequitur.

Originally Posted by Teia Rabishu

In the case of trans people still in the closet, the "I identify as <assigned gender>" is merely a statement, not actually backed up by anything. It's not backed up by one's encephalic sex at all. It's simply an erroneous statement made due to incomplete information about oneself. People can be made to believe a wide variety of untrue things if they're so indoctrinated.

Gender identity is simply one subset of identity. It's a common mistake to assume that all types of identity share exactly the same traits.

By "merely a statement" I'm going to assume you mean a conscious belief. Anyone can state "I'm Irish" for whatever reason, but we don't think that they self-identify* in the relevant sense as Irish unless they believe what they just said. Now, if someone believes they are Irish, it is true that they self-identify as Irish. But is it true that they are Irish? That's still an open question. And it depends on how you define "Irish". If to be Irish is to self-identify as Irish, then of course it's tautologically true (and meaningless). If it's to have Irish genetics then it's probably true, but maybe they're adopted and don't know it. If it's to be familiar with and participate in Irish culture, then it may be true, but there are many Irish-Americans who don't know a shamrock from a shillelagh but just like to get plastered on St. Patrick's Day, and so self-identify as "Irish" erroneously by this definition. And if it's to actually live in Ireland, then of course those Irish-Americans are wrong there.

The term "self-identity" refers to what people believe they are. And you're absolutely correct that this belief can coincide with or even be based on a mistaken understanding of the facts. In the case of our adopted Irishmen and Irish-American posers above, we might say that their self-identification is untrue. But here's the thing: we would not say it's untrue that they self-identify as Irish. Right or wrong, they do.

And, right or wrong, closeted transsexuals do self-identify as their physiological sex. By your definition of sex, in their belief that they are male or female they are mistaken about certain neurological facts. This doesn't change the fact that they believe it. This doesn't change how they self-identify. Your problem is that you're trying to use the term "identity" to refer to these neurological facts as well as to conscious self-identification. That's not a "subset" of identity, that's something else entirely. You're using the same term for two different concepts at two different levels of description. That's like calling genetics "identity" and saying that the adopted Irishman's Irish identity is mistaken because he doesn't have an Irish identity. Just a little bit confusing, right?

So no, it is not a "common mistake" to expect that when you use the same term you mean the same thing; that's just good ambiguity-avoiding argumentative practice. What is a common mistake is equivocation. And that is precisely what you're doing here. Don't blame me for it. Swallow your pride and accept that the word you've been indoctrinated to repeat ad nauseam may not be appropriate in every circumstance.

*I'm going to start appending "self-" to "identity" so as not to confuse it with the mathematical/logical concept of identity.

Originally Posted by Teia Rabishu

Thought about asking you what's wrong with saying "girl who cried wolf," but I decided the inevitable answer (probably "well the story isn't about a girl so 'girl who cried wolf' would be wrong" in the vein of when someone said "strawperson" and got flak for it) wasn't worth asking the question for.

Actually, the answer would have been "you fail metaphors... again", with an exposition of relevant and irrelevant facts in metaphor very similar to what you just saw (and, I can't help but notice, did not acknowledge, but instead focused on this irrelevance... do I have to start the List again?).