But you couldn’t find one to site?
What are the traditional responses? Seriously. How do you define what a man is to distinguish it from other sexes?
If you’re arguing that there are persons that don’t fit neatly into the physical category of “man” or “woman,” we agree. Of course there are.
If you’re arguing against the idea of categorizing persons based on physical criteria at all, you may be doing this because you don’t think it’s moral or you don’t think it’s useful, or both. It would help in our discussion if you simply pointed out which it was so we can discuss it. Otherwise, I fear that you’re simply asking me to define a “table,” only so you can say “ha, but I’ve seen tables that don’t fit neatly into your definition!”
As far as a definition for a male human, I suppose I’d start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man.
pucksr: if you are genuinely using this appropriate moment to dovetail off into a rally for the rights of people with BIID, I am on the bus with you. It would be more strategic, however, not to spend a dozen comments manifesting your will against people’s rights to self-identify. And if you are just being a jerk, stop.
1 Like
What I’m doing is starting off a discussion asking you how you determine what a man is. As you appear unprepared to answer, I’ll hint that most people (consciously or unconsciously) subscribe to one of the following rules of thumb:
- the genitals at birth. Fun fact: since so many babies don’t have clearly distinguishable genitals, hospitals may employ the phall-o-meter to decide what to put on a birth certificate.
- the chromosomes. But, shit, I don’t know what mine are, and yet they gave me a sex on my birth certificate.
- the gametes. But, should sterile people be denied a sex, then?
- just, sort of, you know, how they are, man. This one is either the most or least problematic. I don’t know.
So, as for the Wikipedia article- do you think someone must be all the things it says, or most? Which ones are negotiable? Back when I graduated from college, I was taught that there was no single accepted definition for the word sex to use as a parameter for experiments, so researchers had to decide who to include and how to categorize the sexes, but, interestingly enough, self-reporting was the most common method because it’s the most pragmatic.
My point is ultimately that we get very worked up about who is a what and the importance of accuracy in reporting the what that they are, but if all the scientists of the world can’t even agree on how to test for whether Manning ever was a female or a male, the pragmatic route might just be the best one to take.
1 Like
You seem to be arguing that since we cannot place items (in this case persons) into discrete categories with absolute precision then there’s simply no use in doing so. (You don’t seem to be making a moral argument at this point).
If categorizing humans into binary sexes was as difficult as you portray it to be, the world would be a lot less populated than it is. QED
Your points made me think of something I saw on the news the other day:
1 Like
I did. In fact, I challenge you to find any news article about his criminal activity that doesn’t contain his real name. My point about Whitey Bulger is even more valid. The name seems to be chosen either to be legally correct or because it allows the audience to recognize the individual. I can’t thing of a single case where the media altered the name they were using for a criminal because the criminal requested the use of a different name.
6 of one, half dozen of another. What I am trying to do is bring this into context. I think that trans people are perfectly viable members of our society who should be treated with an appropriate level of respect and dignity. I don’t believe that they deserve any more respect or dignity, nor do I believe they deserve any less. If people with GID want to perceive certain things as “highly disrespectful and tantamount to bigotry” then I will take issue. The same can be said for anyone who is manufacturing new definitions for bigotry. I was trying to provide context for another mental state which is similar. Perhaps a better example for the discussion at hand would have been more germane. If a criminal gets married in a religious(but non-legally binding) ceremony, would we expect the media to start addressing her as Mrs instead of Ms.? Or to start using her husband’s last name? No, of course we wouldn’t.
I hate to destroy your point, but I feel the need to take this to its ridiculous conclusion.
There is no definition for life. Look it up, scientists have not been able to pin one down for years. Ergo, if we can’t even define “alive”, then who is to really judge the ending or taking of life? We can’t define it and we can’t even say where it begins or ends. Therefore, I argue that we stop persecuting murders and put everyone in prison to death(since we can’t really define death this is without consequences).
Q.E.D
So you’re saying (most) people are either male or female depending on how they reproduce? So, take someone who’s never had offspring, and is therefore unsure of whether or not the plumbing works. Which sex would you assign that person? HINT: if you say the sex they look like they will reproduce as, we loop back around to the beginning.
I’m saying that the ability to reproduce sexually requires the sexes to be able to distinguish one another with a high degree of probability. I’ve got about 6.5 billion data points that suggest we’re pretty good at it.
You seem to be requiring absolute certainties and I’m sorry, but I’ve none to offer. Natural entities are inherently troublesome to classify (duck-billed platypus?). However, sex is one distinction where, most of the time, nature provides pretty good signals to the particular organisms that need to know. Can we intentionally, or sometimes unintentionally, have persons that blur these lines? Of course. And there’s nothing wrong with that. Diversity and tolerance make the world a great place and all persons deserve to be treated fairly.
This is simply the way things are naturally. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean this is the way they should be. I’m completely open to humans shaping a better moral world than the one nature has dealt us.
No absolute certainties required; quite to the contrary. The point is that in the vast majority of all scientific studies where subjects are classified as male or female, self reporting of those subjects sex is deemed the most parsimonious method for determining said sex.
So, rather than trying (and likely failing as so many researchers and theoreticians have failed) to find a sex litmus test to determine whether or not Chelsea Manning is, ahem, ‘for reals female’ to test your assumption that she is not, I propose that self reporting be the methodology we stick to.
1 Like
You’re moving the target and equivocating. Pick a position and stick to it.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
