The contemporary social narrative is that it's right to accept transgender as a fundamental truth but not transracial. Is the reasoning used good or bad? Explain.
04-13-2016 02:25 PM
#1
| |
|
Make your case: transgender, transracialThe contemporary social narrative is that it's right to accept transgender as a fundamental truth but not transracial. Is the reasoning used good or bad? Explain. |
04-13-2016 02:32 PM
#2
| |
This is a topic that's already been decided scientifically, and any other discussion is asinine. | |
Last edited by spoonitnow; 04-13-2016 at 02:38 PM. | |
04-13-2016 02:46 PM
#3
| |
|
Isn't that an argument for the scientifically verified nature of transexuality instead of transgender-ness? |
04-13-2016 02:50 PM
#4
| |
To clarify, transexual (not to be confused with transsexed) is a subset of transgender. All transexuals are transgender, but not all transgender are transexuals, etc. Feel free to look up precise definitions if you'd like. | |
Last edited by spoonitnow; 04-13-2016 at 02:54 PM. | |
04-13-2016 03:07 PM
#5
| |
|
What is the reasoning used? |
Last edited by Savy; 04-13-2016 at 03:15 PM. | |
04-13-2016 03:32 PM
#6
| |
@wuf: How do you define race? | |
04-13-2016 06:01 PM
#7
| |
| |
04-13-2016 06:03 PM
#8
| |
| |
04-13-2016 06:04 PM
#9
| |
| |
04-13-2016 06:09 PM
#10
| |
|
Let's say you were born a male (you got the sex parts and the chromosomes) yet you have elements of a female brain. Even if you want to identify as a female, you're still not exactly a female. |
04-13-2016 06:09 PM
#11
| |
| |
04-13-2016 09:08 PM
#12
| |
If it's all arbitrary lines in the sand, anyway, then doesn't that imply that if you even care, you're just being pretentious? | |
04-13-2016 09:26 PM
#13
| |
|
Do this: the next time you think I've done something wrong, assume instead that you've misread the situation. |
04-13-2016 10:19 PM
#14
| |
I haven't assumed you've done anything wrong. I'm trying to understand what your question is. You said 2 words which appear in popular topics, but those words have many definitions and uses, depending on who is using them and in what context. | |
04-13-2016 10:42 PM
#15
| |
| |
04-13-2016 11:02 PM
#16
| |
/thread | |
04-13-2016 11:19 PM
#17
| |
| |
04-14-2016 12:32 AM
#18
| |
04-14-2016 09:10 AM
#19
| |
Let me break this down in as simple and easy to understand terms as I can for anyone who wants to know the facts of the situation and why it's a difficult scenario to work with. | |
| |
04-14-2016 12:10 PM
#20
| |
| |
04-14-2016 12:28 PM
#21
| |
| |
04-14-2016 02:11 PM
#22
| |
I want to use this section of my explanation above to pivot to the issue of bathroom usage. | |
| |
04-14-2016 02:24 PM
#23
| |
I'll save wuf. | |
| |
04-14-2016 02:25 PM
#24
| |
inb4 /thread | |
| |
04-14-2016 02:26 PM
#25
| |
Oh right spoon says race isn't cultural, it's genetic. | |
| |
04-14-2016 05:18 PM
#26
| |
| |
04-14-2016 06:27 PM
#27
| |
Race has a genetic basis in that the classic races are separated by apparent phenotypes. These differences, as well as those unseen, amount to quirky adaptations to the environment - sickle cell to resist malaria or lactose-tolerance to maximize the boon of domesticating cattle. But these differences don't amount to much. Remember, a child can be born tomorrow with malaria-resistance and lactose-tolerance. | |
Last edited by a500lbgorilla; 04-14-2016 at 06:41 PM. | |
04-14-2016 06:39 PM
#28
| |
| |
04-14-2016 07:47 PM
#29
| |
| |
04-14-2016 08:11 PM
#30
| |
|
Seems the logical thing really. |
04-14-2016 11:45 PM
#31
| |
I think you're wrong sometimes, and sometimes I think your posting style is worthy of mockery. | |
04-15-2016 10:27 AM
#32
| |
And I said I'd tool the thread up. | |
| |
04-15-2016 12:59 PM
#33
| |
I rarely, if ever, get pms. | |
| |
04-15-2016 01:04 PM
#34
| |
How do you mean, charbrian? | |
| |
04-15-2016 02:06 PM
#35
| |
|
He asked, I answered. He didn't like the answer and misunderstood the OP. I'll repeat for the third time that my definition of race is irrelevant and this is clearly the case in the OP. |
04-15-2016 02:35 PM
#36
| |
/circlejerk | |
| |
04-15-2016 07:07 PM
#37
| |
Idk of wuf believes what he's been saying for the past year, or if he's just committed to a "debate style" of posting where you deny and obfuscate bad points and put all the good ones in the best frame...without consideration for truth | |
04-15-2016 09:53 PM
#38
| |
This question got lost in the hoopla, but it affects other people because it affects government policy and emerging industries as well as changes to current industries. It probably affects society in general in a number of other ways as well, but you get the point. | |
Last edited by spoonitnow; 04-15-2016 at 09:56 PM. | |
04-16-2016 03:12 PM
#39
| |
|
Examples? |
Last edited by wufwugy; 04-16-2016 at 03:16 PM. | |
04-16-2016 06:56 PM
#40
| |
Far too many potentially productive conversations never pay off because people refuse to humour their peers attempts to lay a foundation. Essentially you are saying that you know it to be the case that the framework being set up by MMM could not possibly in any way bare fruit. If this is not the case, I'm open to hearing how that's not what was meant to be inferred from your end of the exchange and further how it is reasonable that that wouldn't be the takeaway. | |
Last edited by boost; 04-16-2016 at 06:58 PM. | |
04-16-2016 07:01 PM
#41
| |
If you feel that you use tactics which are frustrating to the people you are having a discussion with, don't you think you're leaving a ton of truth value on the table? | |
04-16-2016 07:59 PM
#42
| |
|
I think what I mean to say is that when something moves from discussion to debate, I more or less charge forward. I really enjoy argumentation, but I acknowledge that others may not enjoy it as much and can find it frustrating. I'll acknowledge that I probably turn things into debates more often than they should. I probably do that because to me everything is just a debate waiting to happen. Also, I deeply value debate because it has been one of the most important knowledge and character developers of my life. For example, back when I was still pseudo-Christian, I had some epic debates with some atheists, which I consider them having won and I subsequently incorporated their views into my life. |
04-16-2016 08:11 PM
#43
| |
|
I think this has all been a misunderstanding. The OP references "transracial" as it fits in the social narrative, which means things like Rachel Dolezal being a white woman who calls herself black. MMM then asked me for my definition. I wasn't sure why he did, but I provided it because I figured he wanted to go somewhere with it. Then he said the OP was unanswerable based on my definition. I pointed out that the OP question has nothing to do with my definition. |
04-16-2016 09:05 PM
#44
| |
This post is awesome. Your understanding of the unfolding of events is very clearly laid out, and as you see it, I can fully understand where your posts came from. I do think that with a little more benefit of doubt this could have all been avoided, but once things deteriorate in this way, it's posts like this one you've just made that help us get out of the weeds. | |
04-16-2016 10:05 PM
#45
| |
My problem with debate is that its geared towards winning. Not truth. Since I'm not representing someone in these discussions, it doesn't benefit me to take such a stance. | |
04-16-2016 10:33 PM
#46
| |
|
Do you have an idea of a better way to do it? |
04-16-2016 11:02 PM
#47
| |
Yeah, this idea of our forum personas is a pretty cool space to look around in. Most of my interactions on this forum have been out in the open, but recently I've started to feel inclined to ask myself if something may be better handled privately, and proceed to send pm's accordingly. One thing is for sure, there's no real reason to puff up your chest when it's not a public exchange, and after reading your post, wuf, and looking back on some of these private exchanges, in them I feel like I've been talking to the persons, when I have been mostly interacting with the personas for all these years. | |