Comments by "Aaron Rosenberg" (@aaronrosenberg6633) on "University of Central Florida" channel.

  1. 21
  2. 10
  3.  @Vic2point0  "What makes their identities valid? Can you provide an objective definition for "man" or "woman"? " Regarding gender, no, I cannot. Can you? Our identities are shaped in our brains. That's what makes them valid. It's my observation that while gender is mostly a social construct, there may be some biological contributor. If someone tells me they don't identify as a he or a she, or that they identify as a gender that does not match their birth-assigned gender, I am in no position to refute them. Neither are you. Deciding to label them as something with which they do not identify would paint me as someone who's insecure, apathetic. I may not understand what it feels like to be them, but that doesn't matter, and if I know what's good for me, I'll reach for empathy. "Well, it's not about anyone's personal expectations or comfort level;" Your post does seem to indicate a level of discomfort. "your worldview should be coherent before you expect anyone to buy into it." That's a loaded assertion, and it reeks of a certain inhumane callousness and selfishness, though ironically, it's logically incoherent. What it seems like you're saying is, "I refuse to validate your gender identity because gender identity is not yet fully understood." Historically, try applying your assertion to any population of people with differences from the norm: left-handedness, homosexuality, red hair, autism, bipolarity, ADHD, albinism. I group these together because they are all states of being which were at some point (or still are) subject to derision and hostility. You get to learn from history if you want to ! "As for people's brains being wired to identify as another gender, even if we grant that as an explanation for their beliefs, that doesn't make their beliefs true." Is your gender identity a "belief?" Or is it just who you are? I imagine it's convenient to label someone else's gender identity a b"belief" in order to invalidate it, the same way people label homosexuality a "lifestyle" just to invalidate it. No. "Empathy does not entail agreement. Don't you have empathy for people with schizophrenia? I'd imagine you do, but still don't agree with their beliefs. Agreement isn't even a talking point. Schizophrenia is not a "belief." There is nothing to "agree" with. But imagine responding to people with schizophrenia with, "Gotta love how even the 'experts' can't come up with an objective definition for 'schizophrenia', yet they insist we follow them anyway." The Mayo Clinic says, "It's not known what causes schizophrenia, but researchers believe that a combination of genetics, brain chemistry and environment contributes to development of the disorder." Yeah? Well tough! The experts' conclusions aren't coherent enough, and I refuse to acknowledge that schizophrenia is valid. ← That's what you're saying.
    8
  4. 1
  5. 1
  6. 1