- Joined
- Jan 22, 2019
- Messages
- 10,146
- Reaction score
- 3,827
Great claim. Now describe how binary accounts for people who produce semen, people who produce ova, people who produce none and people who produce both. Do you know what binary means?
Great claim. Now describe how binary accounts for people who produce semen, people who produce ova, people who produce none and people who produce both. Do you know what binary means?Sex is binary
Binary precludes variation. It means two. That's it. Bimodal is where you get variation between the two poles.
Intersex males and females depending on which of the poles they are closer to.
Did you bother to read the thing you just posted? It agrees with me.Yes, and there are two sexes, hence binary. Of course there is variation within the sexes.
Intersex isn't a sex. It is a non-medical term that covers a range of sexual development conditions.
A man with Klinefelter Syndrome has an 'intersex' condition, but is male.
- Sex is often described as a binary system, with male and female as the two main categories.
- However, some research suggests that certain sex-related traits, like hormone levels or physical characteristics, may follow a bimodal distribution, meaning they cluster around two averages, one for males and one for females.
- This bimodal distribution within sex traits doesn't mean there are more than two sexes, but rather that those traits vary within the two sex categories.
Did you bother to read the thing you just posted? It agrees with me.
If sex traits are bimodal then how is sex binary? How are you defining sex? And I don't need to keep addressing your strawman. I did so once already. Why do you keep presenting it like it will stop being a strawman?Well obviously sex-traits are bimodal, no one is suggesting otherwise, but sex is binary because there are just two sexes. If you disagree, then what is the third sex?
Perfect.Great claim. Now describe how binary accounts for people who produce semen, people who produce ova, people who produce none and people who produce both. Do you know what binary means?
Exception to whos ruling? I think that phrasing reveals the intentionality in classification.Perfect.
Then only those who produce neither or both get exemption from this ruling.
That's, what, about.....
.000000009001% of the population?
Your only explanation is that "objective" means what you want it to mean. I have already explained my rationale and you cannot accept it, so you're sealioning.I can explain that and am happy to if someone is confused by it. Why can't you explain the rationale behind any of your arguments? Why are you only capable of claims?
Why? What do the feelings of society have to do with objectivity?
Then why do you argue that Semenya's feelings trump her physical biology?No I'm not. I'm not talking about rules or exceptions at all, you are. I'm talking about describing things accurately. Like I said in the other thread, if there are exceptions to your rules on gravity then your theory or understanding of gravity is incomplete. You're talking about rules made by people and I'm talking about describing nature and the natural world and how it actually works.
And your attempt to conflate jargon with the demotic use of words remains fallacious.And still the things they use to communicate are called words.
You claimed that the question is how. How does one thing become more objective than another. What the **** does that even mean. From my understanding of objectivity that sentence makes absolutely no sense. The moon isn't more objective than the sun. For something to be objective it just means it exists in reality without influence of your feelings. Laws exist but they are subjective in that they come from the sentiments of people. They exist subjectively. The moon exists but it doesn't matter how you feel about it or whether people are here to feel any way about it at all. Is existence isn't tied to human sentiment. It exists objectively. So how does one thing that exists objectively exist more objectively than any other?
Your bs argument remains massively flawed, as I've shown above.Why? What's the explanation guy? I just explained the difference between the objective and subjective to you. You just say shit and make a claim but never the thing that's supposed to support your claims.
The insurance companies were not the source of the objective observations. Patients who claimed that their pain was alleviated by acupuncture would have been the logical source for the companies' decision to grant limited validation of the pain-relief technique. The companies didn't validate the technique out of the goodness of their hearts or out of scientific curiosity; they overruled the earlier paradigm from materialistic science-- nothing is going on with acupuncture because we can't show the process-- because patients kept stumping for it and insurance companies wanted to attract more customers.Your explanation doesn't help your argument. Insurance companies are a poor bellwether of objectivity.
Nope. That's not what I said. I've given my explanation for what objective means to me and I'll give it again if you need me to, you havent, nor have you attempted to explain what it means in regards to your argument. I have no idea what objective means to you given your description of it so I'm asking for it. I recognize that people may have different definitions of things, maybe we're just using the word differently, that's entirely possible.Your only explanation is that "objective" means what you want it to mean. I have already explained my rationale and you cannot accept it, so you're sealioning.
What? Any significance to society, sounds to me like a reflection of societies feelings. This begs the question what you mean by significance.I didn't say society had feelings. It's assessing whether or not Semenya's feelings have any special significance to the way society determines such social matters as "fairness in sports."
I don't know what trump is in reference to. I said no such thing and argued no such thing. Her doctor isnt unaware of her biology and still classified her as a female when she was born. The point there is that objective biology doesn't make for objective classification.Then why do you argue that Semenya's feelings trump her physical biology?
What jargon are you accusing me of conflating specifically?And your attempt to conflate jargon with the demotic use of words remains fallacious.
That doesn't mean they aren't subjective. Not everyone wants every society to survive. I'm not interested in the survival of slaver societies for instance.No, laws are not purely subjective because without them societies cannot survive.
What's objective is that socities have rules. Objectivity doesn't make any judgements about the rules themselves. It's basically a type of tautological statement because a society is itself an group of people organized around a particular set of values and/or goals. You can't have organization without rules. That doesn't make any societies particular rules objective. The rules each society lives by are still a reflection of the sentiments of the people in that society.A theoretical independent observer of all human societies would see that as being as objective as the composition of the moon.
So what? Who was arguing that rules themselves aren't a necessary compenent to organization and society? I wasn't.You may not like the laws of this or that society, but your personal feelings do not overrule the objective fact that societies need laws to survive.
Yep, that's what my argument regarding subjectivity is all about.Champions of trans ideology are not just randomly throwing out their feelings any more than anti-trans; both parties want to make the agendas based on their feelings part of established law.
The need for a law that determines whether or not trans competition in sports is lawful is something both sides agree on, and they both present reasons for their agendas based on both subjective and objective arguments.
What b.s.? The argument that objective biological facts do not make for objective laws or classifications is my argument. Are you confused?Your bs argument remains massively flawed, as I've shown above.
What? Do you think there hasn't been some scientific confirmation of the benefits of acupuncture since then? I don't understand your insurance company argument.The insurance companies were not the source of the objective observations. Patients who claimed that their pain was alleviated by acupuncture would have been the logical source for the companies' decision to grant limited validation of the pain-relief technique. The companies didn't validate the technique out of the goodness of their hearts or out of scientific curiosity; they overruled the earlier paradigm from materialistic science-- nothing is going on with acupuncture because we can't show the process-- because patients kept stumping for it and insurance companies wanted to attract more customers.
Nope. That's not what I said. I've given my explanation for what objective means to me and I'll give it again if you need me to, you havent, nor have you attempted to explain what it means in regards to your argument. I have no idea what objective means to you given your description of it so I'm asking for it. I recognize that people may have different definitions of things, maybe we're just using the word differently, that's entirely possible.
Nope, society as a whole does not have feelings. Issues such as "sports fairness" are decided by whichever side, whether for or against the issue, makes the better case. Long-term significance is then determined by the society's acceptance of the reigning view.What? Any significance to society, sounds to me like a reflection of societies feelings. This begs the question what you mean by significance.
Then are you stating this time that the doctor's classification is as subjectively flawed as another doctor's classification that Semenya is biologically male?I don't know what trump is in reference to. I said no such thing and argued no such thing. Her doctor isnt unaware of her biology and still classified her as a female when she was born. The point there is that objective biology doesn't make for objective classification.
What jargon are you accusing me of conflating specifically?
The opinions of an outsider to a society are not germane to what the society believes is necessary. For instance, when Islamic societies of the seventh century began codifying laws, they had some of the same laws as other societies, such as penalties for stealing. Those laws would be objective because they are necessary for the survival of organized society. Now, was Islam's expansion of the business of buying and selling slaves objectively necessary to their societies? It certainly can be questioned as to whether this exploitation was strictly necessary. But even if the conclusion is, "No, those pro-slavery laws and practices were not necessary," that does not prove that Islamic societies did not need to have laws against stealing. Once again, you assert that if some laws may be founded in pure subjective interest. then all laws are equally subjective, once again proving the accuracy of my interpretation of your false arguments.That doesn't mean they aren't subjective. Not everyone wants every society to survive. I'm not interested in the survival of slaver societies for instance.
The rules that transcend particular societies are objective in nature. I have not argued that particular sets of rules are objective. That's just your skewed distortion of my position.What's objective is that socities have rules. Objectivity doesn't make any judgements about the rules themselves. It's basically a type of tautological statement because a society is itself an group of people organized around a particular set of values and/or goals. You can't have organization without rules. That doesn't make any societies particular rules objective. The rules each society lives by are still a reflection of the sentiments of the people in that society.
You have said repeatedly that all laws are subjective and that therefore that they are not necessary components.So what? Who was arguing that rules themselves aren't a necessary compenent to organization and society? I wasn't.
No, you have not argued that any objectivity inheres in the position you oppose. I assert that both sides marshal objective as well as subjective arguments but that those in favor of intersex persons competing in women's sports are the less logical of the two.Yep, that's what my argument regarding subjectivity is all about.
And I call BS on the statement that biological "observations" are independent of the classifications that are based on them. If the intersex population is infinitesimal in contrast to the binary sex configurations, then that alone is an "observation" that indicates that the intersex population does not merit special legal consideration in respect to the fairness in women's sports.What b.s.? The argument that objective biological facts do not make for objective laws or classifications is my argument. Are you confused?
Doctors saying "this seems to work even though we can't explain why" is less likely to have had as much impact on the change in companies' policies than the input of customers who say the same thing but are also free to take their business to companies that extend coverage.What? Do you think there hasn't been some scientific confirmation of the benefits of acupuncture since then? I don't understand your insurance company argument.
That's a lot words about me and nothing to do with an actual argument. Definitions are inherently limiting. That's what they do, they define the limits of what you're talking about. When I define what a tree is I'm limiting it to a certain criteria that excludes everything else in the world that doesn't fit my defintion of what a tree is. So yes, I have a definition objective that is inherently limiting. If you gave a defintion for what objective means to you then I genuinely missed it and am requesting it again.PART 1--
You have a conveniently limited definition of what "objective" means, which substantiates my accusation that you hew to rules when it suits you, and other times you consider rules void because you can think of exceptions when they were not observed. I have in fact explained my wider definition and you simply ignore it and to counter with fallacious exceptions.
You were the one referencing social significance my guy. If that's not a reference to the feelings of society what is it?Nope, society as a whole does not have feelings.
Is the better case an objective thing or subjective thing? Meaning isn't that just consensus? At one point this society saw fit to support slavery. Did slavers make an objectively better case or a subjectively better one?Issues such as "sports fairness" are decided by whichever side, whether for or against the issue, makes the better case.
What society does or does not accept is just a reflection of the sentiments of the people who are running that society.Long-term significance is then determined by the society's acceptance of the reigning view.
I'm saying subjectivity isn't flawed. Flaws implies there's a right and wrong way to be. Her doctors classification is just different than what @CLAX1911's would be. It's @CLAX1911 who wants to try to make the case that her doctors classification is flawed or wrong but intellectual is unable to get there. What beyond their opinion would be the determining factor that her doctors opinion is wrong?Then are you stating this time that the doctor's classification is as subjectively flawed as another doctor's classification that Semenya is biologically male?
Quote it.The scientific jargon of physicians, which you conflated to the demotic use of ordinary speech.
What does that matter to me though? I dont understand why I'm supposed to care about how some society feels about anything beyond its ability to force itself and its views on me. Also weren't you saying above that societies don't have feelings? Now they have beliefs? Can you please make your mind up on how you want to approach your own argument?The opinions of an outsider to a society are not germane to what the society believes is necessary.
But what does that mean when you say those laws are objectively necessary for the survival of society? Laws themselves are a necessary compenent of organization and thus society. You can't have organized society without a set of rules organizing it but laws change all the time. I think what you're recognizing is that typically people are organizing to protect their own interests that doesn't mean you have to be objectively anti theft to have a functioning society. This slaver society engaged in unimaginable amounts of theft and thrived.For instance, when Islamic societies of the seventh century began codifying laws, they had some of the same laws as other societies, such as penalties for stealing. Those laws would be objective because they are necessary for the survival of organized society.
What the ****?Now, was Islam's expansion of the business of buying and selling slaves objectively necessary to their societies? It certainly can be questioned as to whether this exploitation was strictly necessary. But even if the conclusion is, "No, those pro-slavery laws and practices were not necessary," that does not prove that Islamic societies did not need to have laws against stealing.
All laws are equally subjective (based on someone or some groups interests), what makes this false? If laws aren't a reflection of people's interests then what are you claiming them to be? I didn't see that answer presented above.Once again, you assert that if some laws may be founded in pure subjective interest. then all laws are equally subjective, once again proving the accuracy of my interpretation of your false arguments.
You are claiming that there are rules that transcend particular societies and that they are objective in nature you're just not confident enough to define these rules or make any real argument supporting them so all we get are your frail claims.The rules that transcend particular societies are objective in nature. I have not argued that particular sets of rules are objective. That's just your skewed distortion of my position.
That's not me arguing that rules aren't necessary to organization. That's me arguing no way of organizing is objectively right or wrong. Organize however you want but it is a reflection of your wants and interests.You have said repeatedly that all laws are subjective and that therefore that they are not necessary components.
Based on what? What is my argument less logical in regards trans people in sports and why exactly makes it less logical? What does that even mean? What is less logical? Isn't either logical or illogical?PART 2--
No, you have not argued that any objectivity inheres in the position you oppose. I assert that both sides marshal objective as well as subjective arguments but that those in favor of intersex persons competing in women's sports are the less logical of the two.
Who you think merits what or what you think is fair is not an observation but a subjective feeling. You're not observing merit or fairness. You observe that intersex people are less frequent in nature than binary sex configurations. That's it. Everything else is your sentiment.And I call BS on the statement that biological "observations" are independent of the classifications that are based on them. If the intersex population is infinitesimal in contrast to the binary sex configurations, then that alone is an "observation" that indicates that the intersex population does not merit special legal consideration in respect to the fairness in women's sports.
What's this argument about? There's lots of natural phenomenon we observed and didn't have an explanation or understanding about until we studied it more. And?Doctors saying "this seems to work even though we can't explain why" is less likely to have had as much impact on the change in companies' policies than the input of customers who say the same thing but are also free to take their business to companies that extend coverage.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?