Comments by "Vic 2.0" (@Vic2point0) on "FRONTLINE PBS | Official"
channel.
-
4
-
2
-
@abbytrilights4692 "The problem about the term man or woman, is the used of it."
Well, not for those of us who don't subscribe to the transgender worldview.
"People give gender role to someone on the basis of their genital."
You're quite right, which is one of the biggest confirmations that gender and biological sex are one and the same. People look at you, determine that you're biologically male, and expect you to conform to the gender roles and norms of a man.
"There 3 things that must be consider, 1) gender identity is like the consciousness that make you know your existence, your being, your person whether through your comprehension you know which set of people you mostly align with."
But how someone identifies can be different from what they are. Again, this is acknowledged in every other category, except gender. If a white man identifies as black, he's simply incorrect. But if he identifies as a woman, this is just "her truth" or some such.
"2) gender expression how you express yourself maybe as femininely or masculinely or gothly or hippies. Its how you present yourself irrespective of your gender identity. And expression had varies over time and place and culture."
Certainly. And this has more to do with gender roles and norms (or your inclination/disinclination to adhere to them) than gender itself.
"3) sex and your body, yes it's important, your biology is important. But not to an extent that its everything."
Completely agree. So we should be able to acknowledge, for example, if we're a man who simply doesn't conform to all of the gender roles/norms of men. That shouldn't make us think we're a whole other gender. Men and women differ, not just with one another but with other men and women respectively.
"You don't need to know about someone chromosomes or genitalia to address to someone."
Sure, but I won't be using language in a dishonest way either. And that brings up another incoherence, regarding the trans worldview: I've had a number of them admit to me that gender doesn't have an objective definition (according to them). But if that's true, then there's no such thing as "misgendering", because there's no correct or incorrect gender to call someone.
"If you need to address a stranger just ask them about their names, pronouns and address with great respect surely."
I would no more ask an apparently male person his "pronouns" than I would ask them if they're black, an adult, a human being, etc. We have eyes for a reason. Not to make 100% sure of something but to help us logically deduce the truth.
2
-
@abbytrilights4692 "transgender people had existed since history."
Sure, but that doesn't in any way validate their beliefs.
"Colonization had brought sexism and triggering Transphobia to the trans individuals."
Even if all this were true, that wouldn't validate the transgender worldview (in light of the criticisms I've given so far and many others), nor would it invalidate "transphobia" (if you mean "disagreeing with transgenderism").
"misinformation."
If my disagreement with this incoherent worldview is based on misinformation, feel free to directly address something I've said and point out how it's wrong.
"why its on you to give gender roles on genitalia basis."
It's not on me as an individual, but different cultures assign roles and norms to people based on their biological sex (called "gender roles"). And though these differ in how they manifest from culture to culture, it is in fact a universal phenomenon that men and women are expected to dress and act differently.
"You are messing up with someone nature. Because u r giving and ordering them to do so."
If you mean to ask me if I approve of strictly holding people to gender roles and norms, I do not. There are some biological differences between men and women that we shouldn't ignore, but by and large I'm fine with people choosing how to live their own lives (so long as they're not trying to force others to live how they want them to).
And of course, all the labels you try to throw at me bounce off. I'm not sexist, racist, transphobic, etc. just because I disagree with a worldview that falls apart under scrutiny.
2
-
2
-
@abbytrilights4692 You may believe gender is different from biological sex, but I've given an argument as to how we know better. And you've yet to provide any objective definition of "gender" by which to even start building your own argument.
"And when given facts about history and colonization."
Actually, all I did was point out that even if your claims there were true, it doesn't validate/invalidate the positions of anyone living at that time.
"i know the transphobe are so broken"
Seems quite irrelevant to our conversation, since I'm not someone who hates, dislikes, fears, or has a prejudice against trans people.
"they claim that trans community say " sex is not real". But all this was a lie. U invented your own lies"
Again, this isn't something I've claimed. If you would like to debate those people, feel free. But I'm still waiting for an answer to the questions and arguments I've presented, and you're stalling.
"And now you are claiming " obejective definition "."
If you mean to say that I pointed out how no one advocating transgenderism has been able to provide an objective definition for "gender", you're right. But you're not realizing the importance of that, if you want to insist that we're "misgendering" someone. If "gender" is simply a subjective matter (which it is on your worldview only), then it's not actually possible to misgender someone, because no one can actually be correct/incorrect when they call someone a particular gender.
"Many term don't have objective definition. Like love. I hope you still believe in love."
Ah yes, but I don't go around insisting that x person does/doesn't love someone. I don't call them -phobic or some such because they disagree with me on what love is.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@abbytrilights4692 "you are not trans, so why you need to agree or disagree with them."
As I pointed out in my last comment, this angle doesn't work either. You are not someone who identifies as Superman, or a white person who identifies as black, etc. either. Yet you would disagree with such people, on how they identify.
Furthermore, you're not someone who disagrees with transgenderism; so why do you need to agree/disagree with those of us who disagree with transgenderism? :P
One final problem with that approach: If I agreed with transgenderism, you would not be downplaying my opinion. It's only when people disagree with you, that this actually "matters".
"You are limiting your belief."
To coherent worldviews that doesn't fall apart under scrutiny, yes. BTW, you can also be accused of limiting your beliefs, by not agreeing with me.
"By saying objective definition or whatever."
I gave sentences including the phrase "objective definition", which you are trying to dismiss without addressing.
2
-
@abbytrilights4692 "You are saying scientists as if you will stop believing in love because scientists can't prove that love is heart shaped particularly."
No, I pointed out that scientists can't provide an objective definition for "gender" even though you're making the claim that this is in some way different from biological sex. And also note that while people will differ on what does/doesn't constitute love, they will not agree that anyone who identifies as someone who loves another, necessarily does. So for example, a man who beats his wife may sincerely believe that he loves her, but most people would say he's incorrect about that.
So the difference really is that "identifying as" x doesn't work to convince people, except on the subject of gender where you make an arbitrary exception.
"You are brainwashed to do not believe in gender identity."
Depends on what you mean by that. I certainly acknowledge that people identify as different genders. I simply disagree that your inclination/disinclination to adhere to gender roles and norms should be confused with gender itself.
"the superman part is an all transphobe argument."
Not at all, it's just a valid point in which I turned your reasoning back around on you and you didn't like it (so you resumed with the mindless name-calling). But it remains true that you can't obligate me to call a man a woman just because I don't know what they're feeling or experiencing. Just like your not knowing what other people are feeling or experiencing, doesn't automatically invalidate your arguments.
"You start with race and now a dc superhero. Then what a tree, a n animal. What the heck. Lol."
Indeed! That's the point of my comparisons, to show that transgenderism is not only incoherent but inconsistent in its application. I'm supposedly obligated to call a man a woman solely on the basis that they identify as such (and my observations and science itself can take a hike), but we are not similarly obligated to call a white man black if he so identifies. Or to call someone Superman, etc.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@abbytrilights4692 "But for you personally. Why are you asking for a obejective definition on gender?"
Because it demonstrates how incoherent transgenderism is. And the importance is three-fold. For one, people are sometimes pressured to call men women or to treat them as such when we don't subscribe to your worldview. This even extends into telling people how they should run their own business. Second, I think truth has inherent value. And third, admittedly a distant third, trans people are more likely to be suicidal and I'm not convinced it's because they're all bullied.
"here is a facts, trans people had existed since history."
Again, this doesn't do anything to validate their worldview, just saying it's always existed.
"Now about your gender obejective definition. Things don't actually need a obejective definition to exist."
What an odd way to word it. Well the things themselves don't have to be defined with words to exist, that's a given. But if you're going to claim that a proposition (e.g., "I'm a woman") is correct or accurate, that requires an objective definition. Otherwise, you are indeed just trying to push your own subjective beliefs onto others.
"Tell me something ,if someday it happens that you met accident and you had to remove your genital for you survive and apply estrogen to you to prevent complications."
Then I would still be a man, because the genitalia and even hormones are brought about naturally from the fact that you are a certain gender.
But of course, this answer doesn't matter either way. If someone experienced that, and we both agreed that this would make them a woman, transgenderism holds that we should flip-flop on that the second that person stands up and says "But I still identify as a man".
"As fake and unreal it can be. Just believe it. You we remove your genialia and you start to look like a woman, will you change gender. Will Your consciousness switch in some way that you stop connecting with your man gender and starts to connect with a woman entity."
Not mine, no. But you're missing the point. Another man might go through the exact same thing and come out thinking it was all a sign he was "born into the wrong body" and is "really a woman". On your worldview, you have to wait to hear what each of us "identifies as", to know what to think.
"If you consider a man attracted to a transwoman as gay. Soooo. Okay. You are living in ur own world. Lol."
How so? If a man is sexually attracted to another man, that's pretty much the definition of gay.
"do a research on reimer twins."
I won't go on a wild goose chase trying to prove your arguments correct. If you have a point to make, you can make it here.
"Maybe you can found how gender is real."
On the contrary, I accept that gender (biological sex) is real. But on your worldview, it's a subjective notion.
And you're still dodging most of my questions and arguments. Why?
2
-
2