Ellen Page has changed her name to Elliot Page

On GS for the first time in a long time and have so many questions about this stupid fucking thread.

1. Why is it political

2. Why is apparently half the users here transphobic as ****

3. How the **** has this thread not been shut down yet

@Maroxad

It does nothing to disprove the fact that brains of transgender people are more akin to the gender they identify with.

By what measurement?

Brain size? No

Weight? No

Overall brain structure? No

At the cellular level? No

You're clinging to very small data points that show mixed results in a field that has very limited data.

@Maroxad

Why is this topic particularly interesting? Because despite what some might claim this isnt really a topic of science. Instead what defines a man or a woman, concerns philosophy. Specifically essentialism vs existentialism.

Specifically: Science vs pseudoscience

Why is this thread still going?

I dunno but seeing a guy try to handwave a field of science, one that seems to provide substantial evidence that contradicts his deeply held beliefs, then accuse others of being pseudoscientific is hilarious.

Has it been that bad? I must admit I dropped following from the second page or so.

You can read through the sea of garbage we produced if you wish, I dont think there is enough to warrant this thread being locked.

But as for this thread,

1. A transphobic slur was thrown out
2. Some general transphobic comments
3. Conspiracy theory peddling

I dont mind one way or another. But this thread hasnt really violated the ToS. But the thread has been going on for a month now, and I am quite frankly, tired of responding to the same weak arguments over and over, transphobes are really boring.

I don't know why it wasn't put in OT.

In the case this thread gets locked. I just want to put my final words in.

Whether someone is a man or a woman is not really a concern about science. Science doesnt deal with semantics. While some classifications do exist in science, of course, this is not one of them. Scientists classify in accordance to genotypic sex, phenotypic sex and gender, and classify them seperately, it gives them far greater precision than a simple binary does. Man and woman itself are not really terms scientists use for classication. These fall way too heavily under semantics, and for scientists, they broad, vague terms are simply put, not very useful for the kind of stuff they do.

If we can refer fictional characters, including fantasy races and aliens, to as a man or a woman, despite not having a genotype, and usually not any secondary sexual characteristics. It is a pretty strong indication that what we use to define a man or a woman, is their gender.

Even when we get to sex itself, by far the most consistant way to deal with things is to refer to someone as male or female by their phenotypes, rather than genotypes. Some animals change their sex during the course of their lifespan, others have their sex determined by temperature. And then there are things like Swyer Syndrome, which affect us humans. As societies, we have no issues referring people with Swyer Syndrome as female, despite having XY genomes.

In order to remain the most consistent, and having clear criteria, which is REALLY important for any type of coherent thought, referring people by their gender, and their sex by their secondary sex characteristics. Is the method of classification I know of that requires the smallest amount of steps and while remaining consistent. And as a result, the best one.

Edit: And for the record: Transgender people are likely to be medically and scientifically valid. There has been a lot of research on transgender people, and they are coming out with positive results. If transgender people were pseudoscientific, the results of said research would be turning out negative results.

Yeah, the amount of transphobia in this thread is frankly jaw dropping just from the first page, which I read while KO'd and waiting for my death saves while playing D and D last night. God there are some real assholes/ idiots on this site.

Sure, there have been some unwelcome comments in this thread. People suffering from gender dysphoria need help. I'm just concerned about what help they get.

@Maroxad: I dunno but seeing a guy try to handwave a field of science, one that seems to provide limited evidence that contradicts itself, seems quite reasonable.

Fixed your post.

@Maroxad: Even when we get to sex itself, by far the most consistant way to deal with things is to refer to someone as male or female by their phenotypes, rather than genotypes.

People have done this for centuries, Normally at birth. And left alone, the phenotype is ultimately determined by it's genotype.

@Maroxad: Some animals change their sex during the course of their lifespan, others have their sex determined by temperature.

Yeah, some fish and some reptiles. Unfortunately, Humans are mammals (two sexes) were this doesn't naturally occur and is actually impossible to do for now.

I'm sure we will reach that point in the future.

Yes. Who cares about fundamental natural order and balance. What could go wrong? *coughlimatechangeough*

@NukleaWorfair: Its about classification. If we are going to classify stuff, we need consistency. Regardless of species, or Class. So far, the model holds up really well, to new data. There is no need to change the rules and add exceptions. If it no longer works, we can modify or replace it to something to account for the new data.

The amount of exceptions you have been throwing into your model, just to make it "work", is intellectually dishonest: you have practically made it unfalsifiable. Every time something new comes up, you can just throw in another exception.

For the sake of argument, I will argue that natural means anything that isnt man-made.

The reason climate change isn't bad, isn't because it is unnatural. It is bad because it changes the conditions of the world, far faster than most species can adapt the economic and ecologic damages are demonstrable demonstrable. There is nothing unnatural about climate change either. The earth used to be a lot warmer than it is now. But what is the best way to deal with climate change? Actually, it is to further "violate the natural order", and develop better technology. Nuclear is a great source despite being "unnatural", and renewables are getting there, and in some countries, already are.

Besides, what exactly is the natural order? Nature doesnt care. It is cold and uncaring, it provides the natural laws we operate by, and little more. It does not dictate how things should be. Just provides framework in which they can exist under. Tell me, what picture best describes nature for you? For me it would be this,

How are those 2 things even comparable. One can and probably will (and has) result in massive deaths and destruction, the other hasn't and won't.

Not sure how or why this is important.

For most people, it is just petty identity politics. Hence why it is more of an OT worthy thread than a PG thread.

I did find this thread interesting though, because it does underlie political philosophy. Whether people want to admit to it or not.

What if I told you.....

That you can have a ton of stereotypically feminine traits as a male. Or an abnormally high number of masculine traits as a female?

You're just simply a very feminine male, or very masculine female.

Its almost as though there's a very common traits for both and less common traits for both!

Neither case suddenly makes a male a female or vice versa.

The true genetic abnormalities are extreme outliers, present in any statistical bell curve, and shouldn't be used as a red herring in this discussion.

@girlusocrazy:

"We cure diseases and heal people all the time. We fix defects, do transplants, install pacemakers. All of that is "messing with the natural order."

Right, but you don't believe the following and expect others to believe it as well do you? :

That person never had a disease in the first place.

That's not a pacemaker, that's a biological heart.

Thats not a transplanted heart, it was always there.

Yes, I agree that we mess with the natural order. I disagree with messing with the natural order, and being shamed/compelled to agree that it was always part of the natural order.

@girlusocrazy: Also, as part of the natural order, nature tries all sorts of things. There is a man who was born with two penises. Look up "double dick dude". Literally. It does not make him something new, he's simply a man where nature decided to try something new and see if it sticks.

If my son was born with a vestigial tail, he would not suddenly be a super saiyan either, he's a boy who had a tail at birth.

That being said, the treatment I witnessed growing up of males and females who did not confirm to common characteristics of 85% of males/females was pretty brutal. Treatment which I am ashamed to say I participated in, so not to be the next target myself. :( So it makes sense that folks would not want to identify with either group, having been grossly mistreated by either group.

If we were able to look at a very feminine male, or a very masculine female, and value/love/respect them as equally as the 85% who do exhibit the common characteristics, I hypothesize that gender dysphoria would be nowhere near as prevalent.

Excuse me? Where did I say I disagree with people getting life saving or life extending procedures?

@girlusocrazy: Quote the entire sentence instead of just the part you want to attack please.

@girlusocrazy: No. That's a straight up strawman on your part im afraid.

If that actually WERE my position, I would be a hypocrite, as I have already had a life saving surgery in my life.

If you want to debate further in a civil manner, please refrain from such childish tactics.

Yes, absolutely. I think messing with our biology is the next step in evolution.

I'm just against compelled speech and being forced to refer to someone in a way I disagree with. IE: being forced to use certain pronouns by law, under threat of being branded a bigot, user of hate speech, etc. Not saying you or anyone here is doing this of course.

As to gender re-assignment surgery, I will admit wholeheartedly that at one time, I was vehemently against it, but for the wrong reasons. Where I live, Gender re-assignment is completely covered by our public health care, whereas IVF (in virtro fertilization) is not. My wife and I were having problems conceiving. So I think I inadvertently projected some of my frustration with our stupid health care system onto Trans people who really had nothing to do with the particular issue I had with our health care.

All we can do moving forward is to constantly question why we feel a certain way, and use logic to see if it makes sense to feel that way. What we can't do is negate feelings, or tell people they are "wrong" for feeling or a certain way, or believing certain things. If anyone does this, we begin down an extremely slippery slope where the backlash from the other side could end up being massive.

@girlusocrazy:

Clearly nobody can make anyone else personally say what they want you to, but you can't expect to control everyone else's perception about what you do.

Well, this isn't necessarily true, and this is why I suddenly care about an issue which otherwise should not affect me. Look up "Bill C-16" in Canada. To summarize, it is now possible by law to be prosecuted for referring to a transgendered individual by the wrong pronoun. Now proponents of this legislation like to deflect by saying "well, nobody is actually going to put you in jail for doing this, that's just silly", but that's not the point. This extremely dangerous precedent has now been set, that the government can legislate not only what words CAN'T be said, but what words MUST be used.

But if someone is worried about shame then maybe it's because they don't feel they're coming from a position of integrity and conviction and have doubts about their beliefs instead of pride in them.

Perhaps true for some individuals, but my worry about being shamed, or being called a bigot, cancelled etc comes from the very real example of Jordan Peterson, a professor in Canada, being shouted down, called a bigot, for expressing a contrasting view. The man has a degree in clinical psychology, and now some of what he would normally teach is considered "hate speech". It's absolutely ridiculous how, what I can only hope is a very small subset of extremist transgender proponents have attempted to skewer him all over social media.

@girlusocrazy: Right, but in any of the above examples you mentioned, are you compelled by law to use certain words? All of those seem to be examples of things you cannot say, rather than what you must say. I feel there is a huge difference.

And this is why I don't want government involved in speech. Private entities can create their own rules. Sad to see Canada do this. The UK seems a bit restrictive as well.

@girlusocrazy: Well, that's the thing. This legislation was pushed into law under the radar. Most Canadians didn't even know about it until it was too late.

Supposedly they polled a certain subset of the population, but i can almost guarantee it was NOT made crystal clear that one could be prosecuted for refusing to say things like zim, zer, whatever.

@girlusocrazy: Too late to oppose it or provide any input on the matter. I'm saying it was passed all the way into law before a large chunk of the country even knew of its existence.

On the plus side, it would appear that no action has been taken in court so far, due to this bill. There have been cases of non judicial entities taking action on it by mis-interpreting it. IE: a University of Toronto professor was censured by the administration for playing a clip of one of Dr. Peterson's lectures on the subject, and even compared it to "impartially playing a clip of Hitler". Yes, not joking. Someone who doesn't agree with the University's viewpoint is now being compared to Hitler.

The kicker was, this bill does not apply to Universities, so they erroneously tried to censure her based on their own mis-interpretation.

I feel this just raises another very valid point.

It's been 4 years since this was passed into law, and not one person has been arrested solely based on it that I can find.

So what problem was this bill even setting out to solve? If no action has been taken based on this new amendment over the last 4 years, does that not strongly imply that there never was a serious problem to be solved by it? I suspect the current government simply saw an issue they could politicize for their own gain.

Honestly, if they could simply amend it to clearly state that "no entity shall be charged solely on the basis of using the wrong pronoun", then there would be no objections from me, or likely any of the other detractors. But of course, Ottawa doesn't seem to want to do that.

Anyways, thanks for debating. We're so far off topic now, I don't blame you if you want to bow out at any time.

Not sure why this is newsworthy. If she wants to be treated equally then why make a big deal about it?

I feel you are misrepresenting Bill C-16, much in the same way that Peterson did. The only places where one could possibly run into hot water for using the wrong pronouns is: If you're a teacher, government employee, landlord or boss. And even then there is a lot more that is taken into account than just... "you used the wrong pronouns." Furthermore, if it ever did come out that a teacher was discriminating against a student, and their repeated usage of the wrong pronouns was taken into account, that would not be considered "Hate speech" just to be clear.

Also I would be very very interested in what Jordan Peterson was teaching that would be considered hate speech. I think it's far more likely you don't know what you're talking about, than that actually being the case.

@girlusocrazy: Cheers. I find Jordan Peterson frustrating because it's hard to tell whether he just misunderstands the law, is purposefully lying about it or is phrasing his concerns in a very poor manner.

@bob_toeback:

You are right in the sense that I mistakenly assumed this applied everywhere, and not just government institutions, etc. For which I did correct myself already if you read my later posts in this thread.

If I am misunderstanding, that's fine. I'm willing to be educated on how I'm misunderstanding and potentially change my stance.

However Jordan Peterson is far from the only very well educated individual who sees a problem with bill C-16. And dismissing outright anyone who does have issues with it is far from helpful. Not saying you are of course. I think part of the problem is, bill C-16 is an amendment to an existing charter, which, unless you're a lawyer yourself, is not exactly easy to fully understand.

This is ultimately what I find the most concerning:

https://currentdebate.org/news-article/bruce-pardy-meet-the-new-human-rights-where-you-are-forced-by-law-to-use-reasonable-pronouns-national-post-7/

From the above article

When Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould testified before the Senate’s Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, she specifically denied that the bill would force the use of gender-neutral pronouns. There are reasons to doubt her sincerity. First, human rights commissions say otherwise. Along with human rights tribunals, they have primary control over the meaning and application of code provisions, something the justice minister must know. Human rights commissions are not neutral investigative bodies but advocacy agencies with expansive agendas. In comparison, courts and governments play only a minor role in interpreting these statutes.

First, the Justice Minister denies that this will force the use of gender neutral pronouns.

Second, Senator Donald Plett proposed an amendment to the bill that would have clarified that it was not the bill’s intention to require the use of particular pronouns. The minister flatly rejected it, as did Liberal and most “independent” senators. In fact, like its provincial counterparts, Bill C-16 will give transgendered and non-gendered people the ability to dictate other people’s speech.

Then flat out rejects a proposed amendment that would have made it crystal clear, and eliminated any and all concerns I have, and likely Jordan Peterson and his supporters.

Here is the actual senate hearing:

You can skip past Peterson to the second speaker Jared Brown, the lawyer if you want, who breaks down exactly what this bill can and cannot do.

8:45: How does C-16 get us to compelled speech?

23:27: Quote from Ontario Human rights commission which supposedly gives us the right to NOT the proper pronouns, and instead refer to them as their chosen name, or "They". So pronouns aren't mandatory.

Except when they ARE mandated, by the very same council!

24:33: Direct quote from Ontario Human rights commision, that "refusing to refer to someone by their self identified name AND proper personal pronoun constitutes gender based harassment."

So which is it?

I get it that Peterson comes off as a dick. That being said, the following is a good sign that he's trying to be as impartial as possible, and not motivated by some hateful agenda like I feel some of his detractors are making him out to be:

The hilarious thing, is this video was meant to discredit him, but in my eyes he gained a bunch more.

Nobody is ever right 100% of the time. Yet I have a very hard time finding a similar admission from any of his detractors.

Edit: A redundant phrase and mispelled word.

@appariti0n:

First off would like to say I appreciate that you corrected yourself on where it applies, I hadn't seen those responses from you, apologies. I was mostly interested in correcting those statements, as I see them repeated constantly (along with misuse of the term “hate speech”) when Jordan Peterson is brought up.

But yeah, I will say that the write-up by OHRC could possibly be a bit too vague, and could use some clarity. I think the idea is sound, but concerns over it being too broad seems fair to me. Bill C-16 in and of itself makes sense to me, though.

Kind of a short response, but I was typing up a longer one but honestly I think this covers it alright, without getting too off topic/long winded.

Uh-hu. You think, back in the 18hundreds, when the first fossil fueled automobiles cruising the streets, peoples had thoughts like: "Massive deaths and destruction in the far away future, but tis so much fun!".

What is "the other"?

You determine the human species knows what it is doing. Good. I'll see you in a hundred years... in the year 2121, if man is still alive, if woman can survive...

Do you have a study supporting transsexuals' will result in massive loss of life?

@bob_toeback: Thanks for the reply! Nice to see someone who understands that not everyone who objected in some way to this bill is motivated by dislike/bigotry towards trans people.

I also posted here without reading the entirety of this thread, so no knock on you for missing my correction. :)