The Right to Have an Exclusionary Identity

[Purple Knight]

Question for Debate: Is it immoral to have an exclusionary identity?

Let's start with the premise that woman and man are (at least primarily) self-labeling identities which people should have a right to choose for themselves.

We've now established that people may self-identify.

Now, can I have an identity that is gatekept, either by myself or someone else? Is that permissible?

At first glance it seems mean to be so exclusionary, but the fact that Suzie is allowed to gatekeep the group identity of "people who are friends of Suzie" and this is accepted as valid by our entire social consciousness, suggests that yes, people may have exclusionary identities that are gatekept, either by themselves or others.

This may be confusing because words are not anyone's personal property and although I may identify as a gorp, and I may define that to exclude others, I can't stop someone else from identifying as a gorp and having it mean something completely different. But if I define gorp as "member of a group of people Purple Knight believes are gods" then as far as this describes my identity, it is just as wrong to impose on me to force me to acknowledge someone else as a gorp, as it is to force Suzie to acknowledge someone she does not like as a member of the group of people Suzie considers to be friends.

In other words, I can identify as a bat, and you can't stop me, but as far as other bats, if their identity includes themselves and not me, this isn't wrong either. I can't force other bats to accept me as a bat, because when they define that identity, for them, it means what they want it to mean and not what I want it to mean, and they can, if they wish, define it to exclude me. I'm still a bat as far as I'm concerned, but I can't force them to call me a bat as far as they're concerned. If I could, that would be trampling their identity.

So far so good?

If so, a group of people born with vaginas may call themselves women and define it to exclude other women. I don't see this as any more wrong for them to gatekeep that identity as far as they're concerned than it is for Suzie to gatekeep the group "friends of Suzie" as far as Suzie is concerned.

This does not mean policy should be written to placate Suzie and disqualify people who are not her friends from competing against those who are to earn real rewards like scholarships. Policy should be fair to all and should not concern itself with what Suzie wants or who she acknowledges.

This only means that Suzie has a right to say who the friends of Suzie are. And if she wishes her friends to be only those who were born with vaginas, and she wishes to call that group "women" then she can. It's only as far as she's concerned and it has no bearing on anyone else's identity or how policy should treat them.

[brunumb]

I can see the possible un-reversible side effects that could happen if a young person grew out of their body dysmorphia after having taken measures to identify as another gender. Especially if counselors can only be affirmative and surgery and/or drugs are being recommended.

You're operating under numerous misconceptions. Read this please: https://medicine.yale.edu/lgbtqi/resear ... ive-organs

You keep relying on one medical institution. Broaden your scope a little and perhaps the truth will hit you in the face.

[brunumb]

Good things, with anorexia. I am one of the people disgusted by even a tiny amount of body fat on a woman. I like only the thinnest of runway models. This is very normal.

Unfortunately Purple Knight, you will now simply be regarded as fat phobic. Somehow the geniuses who are promoting this notion have managed to associate it with white supremacy, the patriarchy and homophobia. Just going to the gym demonstrates all of that. As far as I'm concerned, social media has allowed all of those from the wrong end of the Bell Curve to have their say and as a result society is being eroded.

If we can acknowledge that anorexic women are not fat women regardless of how they feel, then we can acknowledge that trans women are not women regardless of how they feel.

It used to be that you like what you like. If someone wants to pound buttholes, that's them doing them and I'm supposed to let them be, not call them vagina-phobic.

That may be an appropriate label funnily enough, but it does not fly in the face of reality. Sex is determined at conception and there is nothing we can do to change it. If a man believes he is a woman, that is his own internal identification. If it is contrary to the sex he was born with, then I see no compulsion to go along with his feelings. And that does not mean that I will subsequently abuse him and treat him badly. But, my own feelings and beliefs should have as much value as his. I should not face abuse and mistreatment because I do not uphold his ideology.

[brunumb]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #82]

Tactics used by activists to keep the truth hidden.



00:00 What Happened to Michael’s Recent Article?
04:29 The Topic that Got Michael’s Article Cancelled
12:49 Why Transgenderism Has Increased
21:20 Is Gender Dysphoria Linked with Autism?
25:17 Solutions Following Michael’s Research
31:00 Sexual Orientations of Trans People
41:50 Is Being Sexually Attracted to She-Males Common?
47:14 Are Women Aroused by Straight, Gay & Lesbian Porn?
54:07 Why More Men Experience Strange Sexual Interests
1:00:48 Environmental Impacts on Sexuality
1:10:28 How We Have Become Better at Identifying Gay People
1:14:47 The Malleability of Male Mate Value
1:20:29 Where to Find Michael

Link to the article that was 'retracted':
Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria: Parent Reports on 1655 Possible Cases
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 576-9#Tab1

[Purple Knight]

Just as it is someone's right to define feeling and identifying as a woman, as being a woman, it is also Suzie's right to define having two X chromosomes as being a woman and identify as that. Nobody has to indulge her as far as their identity, but they also shouldn't dump on hers.

As soon as you go down that path all scientific classification may just as well be chucked in the bin. My dog is now a cat and my budgie is an eagle. That's how I feel so that must be all that counts. We're heading for clown world real fast. Self-identification is denial of reality and needs to be resisted, not affirmed. Tacit approval is how we hand over the world to the lunatic fringe.

They hold the definition of woman. All I can do is try to get them to see that allowing people to have an alternative definition (having two X chromosomes and no Y) and allowing those people who identify as that, to choose their identity, is something everyone else lets them do, and they let nobody do.

[Clownboat]

FYI, that was a fake story.

Both of my girls are in school and the cat thing is real. You can't just point to an article about something I haven't argued (I didn't mention litter boxes or schools encouraging it) and then ignore my actual words. Stick your head in the sand if you would like, but it is a fact that my friend feels that this 'Cat' phenomenon is just the new 'Goth'. You are free to pretend that kids are not acting like cats in school and can ignore that some feel it, like some dysmorphia kids will just grow out of it.

Works great as you didn't even consider my friends position.

I can see the possible un-reversible side effects that could happen if a young person grew out of their body dysmorphia after having taken measures to identify as another gender. Especially if counselors can only be affirmative and surgery and/or drugs are being recommended.

You're operating under numerous misconceptions.

I challenge your to point to each and every misconception above actually made by me.

[Clownboat]

They hold the definition of woman. All I can do is try to get them to see that allowing people to have an alternative definition (having two X chromosomes and no Y) and allowing those people who identify as that, to choose their identity, is something everyone else lets them do, and they let nobody do.

I believe many are convinced that this is nothing but the loving/accepting side vs the bigot side. Therefore, they can internally feel like they are justified to engaging in the exact behavior the bigot side is presenting like you pointed out above.

Person A) I feel that a woman is any human that feels like a woman.
Person B) I think there is more to it then just feeling.
Person A) You're a bigot.
- meanwhile -
Person B) I feel it is important to be able to define 'woman'.
Person A) You're a bigot.

I wonder what percent of our elderly have become bigots just in the last few years? Both of my grandmothers were wonderful humans, but if they were still alive, they would now be hateful bigots for their personal feelings on what a woman is for them. Ironically not very inclusive when the bigot defense is employed.

[Purple Knight]

I should not face abuse and mistreatment because I do not uphold his ideology.

That's my whole point. Trans people are more than welcome to tell me I'm not trans. That might make me sad but oh well.

Now, they'll say, gender is [essentially] fake, but trans and cis describe real things in reality - you either are or you're not. And if you want to be, but you're not, then too bad so sad.

And I'll still go along with that despite the fact that if gender is not real, neither is trans/cis. It's possible I am trans and I'm 1) hiding it 2) not brave 3) not able to express feelings I actually have in a way that people will understand.

But, I stand up for their right to say I'm not trans. I stand up for their right to gatekeep their group, by the qualities they decide. I will say they should not be mobbed and abused for doing this, even if it makes people feel bad.

So how can I not stand up for someone's right to think they're a woman because they menstruate? How can I not say, biological females should have the right to gatekeep their group, by the qualities they decide? How can I think it's right for that person to be mobbed and abused for wanting the same thing trans people have?: A group identity.

[brunumb]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #97]

Millions of years of evolution and nature have established a default of male/female and man/woman. We do not need to introduce descriptors like cis to define the norm. If we are breeding animals or plants and produce an offspring that is completely lacking in pigment, that is an exception and we use the term albino to distinguish it from the norm. We do not then begin referring to the general population as non-albino in normal conversation.

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #97]

Millions of years of evolution and nature have established a default of male/female and man/woman. We do not need to introduce descriptors like cis to define the norm. If we are breeding animals or plants and produce an offspring that is completely lacking in pigment, that is an exception and we use the term albino to distinguish it from the norm. We do not then begin referring to the general population as non-albino in normal conversation.

This is just arguing over who has possession of words and their correct usages. The right answer has to be nobody.

You're right that convention does not usually become for the default to have a special descriptor. But if someone wants to refer to me as non-albino, they're correct and I'm not going to complain. In fact, if they have any consistent definition scheme, I will just go ahead and use theirs when I communicate with them. I won't sock-block their point (if they have one) by saying, "Uh no, the dictionary says the word you used doesn't mean that, therefore your argument collapses and you're wrong." The dictionary doesn't cover everything and sometimes, to make a point, using nonstandard definitions is actually necessary. I think trying to block a point in this way is a fallacy and I think it should be called definitionalism.

Thus if trans women want to be called women I don't see a problem with it. They can have their definition of woman that includes them, and excludes others. "Person who identifies as a woman," is actually very clear-cut (you don't need to know what they're identifying as, just whether they identify that way) so I not only tolerate the definition, I fully endorse it.

...Unless, of course, they don't extend that same courtesy to others. If others try to have a definition of woman that includes them, and excludes others, and trans people mob and socially destroy them for it, then they don't deserve to demand that anyone respect their definition, either.

Personally I don't care about definitions. I care about logic. I care which arguments are valid, and which are not. If I prefer one definition over another, it will only be to elucidate those things. I only have a problem with unclear, nondescriptive, or nebulous definitions, because they're less useful for the purpose.

What I hate are people who trample logic. And yes, when people try to own words, saying what they can and cannot mean, that qualifies. I don't care if you say it's because the definition is technically wrong. I don't care if you say it's because it's a hurtful definition. Not every possible categorisation has a word already attached to it, so sometimes I need to grab a word that already exists and use it in a nonstandard manner. If you tell me I can't do that, you're just sock-blocking logic.

[brunumb]

Thus if trans women want to be called women I don't see a problem with it.

I guess it's just my problem then because I do not regard trans women as women and I don't think that simply applying self-identification is valid. The words aren't the real problem, it's the contrary nature of the whole idea.