Circular logic is never invalid. It's just unreliable.
Anti Trans Laws
- Thread starter The Thriller
- Start date
There's a certain truth to the circular logic of gametes=sex, it's kinda just the core definition of sex (not really circular I suppose, more of an axiom).
But that's not what anyone is discussing when talking about trans issues (gender roles and presentation/acceptance or lack thereof in society).
But that's not what anyone is discussing when talking about trans issues (gender roles and presentation/acceptance or lack thereof in society).
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
You saying a thing does not make it so. There is no circular logic in the difference between biological males and biological females being in the organic structures that produce gametes. You are simply unable to work your way around that truth and are throwing anything at the wall to distract from it.
I agree. The circularity of the logic in your definition makes it so, regardless of what I say.
The circular logic is that the "structures that produce male gametes occur in males", therefore, "we define males by the structures that could theoretically produce male gametes", even when they physiologically can not produce gametes.
I agree there is no way to undercut circular logic, much as there is no way to convince a bigot to drop the bigotry. You just identify them and move on.
Believe me, if I were not limited by my desire to stick to verifiable notions in a skeptical mind-frame, I could be throwing a LOT more at the wall.
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
Not "kinda". It is the core definition of sex. It is beyond me why people want to debate or obfuscate what a biological male is.
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
Citation please.
It's one definition of sex, and not the one most people use.
You are including people that have typically female genitals, typically female endocrine levels, typically female brain structures, typically female bone structure, etc., to the point where any person seeing them walking down the street would, as well as the person themself, would identify them as female, and calling them "biologically male", as if the only important thing about biological sex is potential gamete production.
You mean, based on a scientific scale of who receives the most bullying?
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
It is the definition of biological sex. It doesn't bother me if a politician or media personality uses a different definition because all of biology backs me up on what constitutes biological sex, and it is no more circular than saying a quadruped has four feet or invertebrates don't have a backbone. It is literally what defines the category.
Sex
Definition noun, plural: sexes (1) The assemblage of characters or qualities of being a male or a female in animals and plants. (2) The genitals; the physical distinction between male and female. (3) Coitus; sexual
www.biologyonline.com
They don't even mention the definition you are using.
The Lancet -- The misuses of “biological sex”
I can keep going.
Circular logic is circular.
You used circular logic to create a definition that met your needs. You certainly didn't use biology.
For you.
You didn't mention a standard, but really, the evidence is all around.
For starters, no US state has passed a bill about any specific race, religion, nationality, or sexual orientation regarding bathroom use in this century. No state has passed a law forbidding the mention of of any specific race, gender, religion, or nationality from being mentioned in kindergarten. Only trans people get mentioned for both.
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
Yes they did. You didn't understand it. What they wrote was "the physical distinction between male and female." That physical distinction would be in the organic structures that produce gametes. They also added the act of sex, as in 'having sex' or "the means by which gametes may be introduced to combine and mix the genes with the genes of the partner."
They went further to point out the three methods of determining sex: chromosomal sex, nuclear sex, and gonadal sex. All three of those are connected to identifying the organic structures that produce gametes. Did you notice that asking about feelings, examining the clothing they want to wear, or checking government forms wasn't among the methods? Being that you are the same person who argued strenuously that biological males who took a pill that suppressed testosterone were no longer biologically male, I'm not surprised you are having a hard time with this middle school level biology.
Last edited:
I have trouble believing that you are serious here. go the effort of listing several ways to determine sex, none of which agree with you, and your response is to read specific support into generic text? Are you truly that deluded?
However, none of them are identical to these structures, and in some individuals, they disagree. If a person identifies sex with chromosomes only, they will identify some people differently than you. If a person identifies sex with cellular nuclei behavior only, they will identify some people differently than you. If a person identifies sex with gonads only, they will identify some people differently than you.
That would be gender, not sex, and we were discussing how your naive, uninformed, circular definition of sex was inadequate to reality. Changing the subject won't correct your deficiencies.
If you endocrinology is no longer male, you have changed your biology. That's pretty simple. You should understand it.
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
What I understand is that you don't know what you are talking about. Changing biology is not the same as being no longer biologically male. Biological males have a typical hormonal profile, but if a specific individual's profile doesn't fall within the typical range either because of injury, surgery, medication, genetic defect, or other reason, that doesn't mean the organism isn't male because being male is about the organic structures that produce gametes. You are simply wrong.
That's why why I present the understandings of actual biologists, rather than spew out whatever makes me feel comfortable.
Yes, human biology is very complex and varied, which is why categories like "male" and "female" ultimately fail as descriptions, and only exist for our mental ease.
Your complete lack of sources supporting this (an abstract of a study that isn't about identifying sex is not support) is noted.
I'm just listening to the science and reality. No wonder you think I'm wrong.
gandalfe
Well-Known Member
My youngest child just came out as non-binary to us. This is going to take some adjustment, mostly in terms of vocabulary. Like, my initial thought was to say "my son came out as non-binary" but that's just wrong on the face of it.
Luckily, they went out of town for the weekend right afterwards, so my wife and I have been trying to get our screwups out of the way as much as we can NOW while they're gone.
Luckily, they went out of town for the weekend right afterwards, so my wife and I have been trying to get our screwups out of the way as much as we can NOW while they're gone.
gandalfe
Well-Known Member
AFAIK, they're not changing their name - possibly because it is a fairly non-gendered name, like Chris or Sam.
That would be nice.
gandalfe
Well-Known Member
You know, we'll do what we can. They're an adult (but still living with us...), so all we can do really is support them. I don't know yet if there's going to be anything medical going on or not.