Armstronglivs wrote:
Don't twist my words, you know what I mean, no one is the literal colour black or white, not they aren't societal black or white. There are a people who are inbetween. You don't "base" your gender, it is what it is. Sure you can choose to outwardly identify with it or not.
I'm really not sure at this point what you are trying to achieve. I said I'm not trying to reconcile the two, and you seem to suggesting you can't. So why keep going on about it in that context. If you want to make a point, make the actual point you are concerned about :D.
The point that continues to elude you is that it is argued by LGBQT that a person can choose their gender but the same argument is not accepted if we wish to choose our race or even the culture we wish to identify with. That is because it is maintained that gender is "in the mind" but race and culture are not. This is notwithstanding that sexual differences are biological - as race is - and even though cultural differences are not - they are in the mind - a person cannot credibly claim to be of a particular culture simply because they identify with it. The conclusion is that the view supporting fluidity of gender is essentially political. It is favored by a particular lobby, while the same argument applied to race or culture is not.
My other point about gender is that if it does not have a biological basis (as is increasingly being argued) it doesn't exist except as an idea - like an ideology or even a religion is of the mind only. An idea does not have an objective reality; it is entirely subject to the view of the person that holds it. Hence, to say one is "male" or "female", or to use pronouns like "he" and "she", is to say only that these are terms of imagination. They can mean anything you like - because they are not based on biological criteria. It thus raises the question that if gender is not biological (which of course I dispute) why bother to have gender at all - and so become an agnostic on such matters? But that isn't the view of LGBQT - because biology does matter, as inconvenient as that may be.
If you are accepting that biology defines gender but that some might choose to identify with a gender other than their biological sex, I return to my original point that they "identify" but do not become what they identify with. Hence, transgender remain "trans", they do not become male or female by that choice. But we treat now them as though they have (except where a line is currently being drawn over their participation in women's sports).[/quote]
>>>The point that continues to elude you is that it is argued by LGBQT that a person can choose their gender but the same argument is not accepted if we wish to choose our race or even the culture we wish to identify with.
Firstly, no. LGBQT people don't say they can choose their gender. They "are" their gender. There is no choice in gender at all. You simply "are". You can certainly choose to "identify" with a gender. I really don't know if this is what you mean or not though.
You keep harping on about race as though it's a key point I'm not comparing them right or something. I don't really care about race in this discussion, it's about gender, so I don't see why it's so important to you. If you think race is involved, you need to be clearer about why though.
>>>a person cannot credibly claim to be of a particular culture simply because they identify with it
Sure, but that's not what's happening here, culture by definition is very different. So I don't really see the point, stick to gender, not culture maybe. People live with their gender, just like sexuality. People don't just identify as gay on a whim. I'm not sure I see it any different here (and no, I'm not trying to imply they are the same, just give a similar example).
>>>Hence, transgender remain "trans", they do not become male or female by that choice
Sure, they are transgender still. As to whether they become female or male in your mind, that's up to you if you want to be offensive to them or not. In their mind, they are a certain gender.