Replying to myself: Which is not to say that I don't have faith in the scientific method. It's the best way to get to most truths, in the end. But we are far, far, FAR from "the end" on many topics.
I had something typed out but I deleted it. I'll just sum it up this way. There are a lot of things I don't like about my body, and often times I think that with the mentality and desires (not sexual) I have, that I should have been born in a different more athletic body, but I don't place a label on myself according to that. I think it is important that if your thoughts give you problems it is important for you to talk to someone who can give you support and help you through things, but I don't like the idea of creating labels because I don't think it does anything but help to segregate people, which is counterproductive to what the purpose of being accept is.
Good point. They may be ethnically Irish, but their nationality is that of the U.S. We must distinguish the two. However, my point with culture still stands. Being culturally Irish still doesn't denote anything. A person who identifies as part of Irish culture isn't guaranteed to celebrate St Patrick's Day, and a person who isn't part of Irish culture isn't guaranteed to not celebrate St Patrick's Day. The Irish don't have a monopoly on this holiday.
Science changes it's mind because it progresses, that's a good thing, it's makes science the most realistic system of reality analysis, it admit's our human failing, is based around compensating for them, and moves beyond it's mistakes rather than deny them. I don't rely on science for everything at all, and I know that some scientists are wrong about things, sometimes the majority, but you can't know you're wrong until you know, that' a problem with knowledge, not science. And what post did i ignore?
You still seem to be fixed on the idea that concepts are either (1) extremely rigid or (2) meaningless. And I still don't accept that.
Hmm. I owe you an apology on that point--I replied to Bayview in that post, because she triggered the idea, and I only referred to you. So you didn't ignore a post replying to you, because it wasn't replying to you. My apologies for that particular piece of snark. This is the post: https://www.writingforums.org/threads/gender-fluidity-and-identity.144268/page-5#post-1414659
If you accept science, why did you say what you did? What else am I supposed to learn from? Tea leaves?
Again, the purpose of language is to communicate thought. Deliberate vagueness defeats that purpose. For example : What would you do with furniture that requires self-assembly if the directions were as vague as the idea of cultural labels? "1. Put the thing on the thing and perform an action. 2. Take the thing and attach it to the other thing. 3. Assemble the thing." If a label can mean anything, it means nothing.
It's a placeholder for a more complex and unique set of characteristics that describe a person. The word "thing" does the same thing.
For the record, I was actually born in 1998, I'm a few months from eighteen. And I wasn't denying the cultural conceptions of gender. I was talking about the idea of a biologically influenced self-image that is innate and unchangeable.
Science isn't finished. Science is very, very frequently wrong. It corrects its errors, or makes a fresh set of errors, but that doesn't change the fact that there are long periods where science is wrong about large topics. The idea that you would let science tell you whether you're gay is simply horrifying. The idea that you wouldn't grant people the right to choose their own identity until science blesses that identity is also horrifying.
Of course it's a placeholder. It's a label. It categorizes. The whole point is to express multiple grouping characteristics with one group name. That's what labels do.
Haha I can't believe I'm agreeing with @ChickenFreak . If this can happen, then who knows what's next.
It's not about removing rights. They're allowed to think that, and I don't mind accepting it on default, but if they have been tested, I think the results should be considered as a weighty argument at least on repeat tests which is the example I gave earlier. I don't think people, as highly fallible creatures, should be able to silence everyone else just because "it's their identity." Would you not disagree if I said I was Melkor the Dark Lord?
Who talked about anyone silencing anyone else? If you say that you're gay, who are you silencing by saying so?
So the cultural conceptions of gender that can change or be rejected are a solid decider of what gender you are? The I'm probably mixed-gender because I have some very feminine elements amongst the mix.
You're silencing people if they have clear conclusive evidence that your self-conception is wrong and you refuse to let them present your true identity. If I claimed to be straight, wanted to think I was straight, but you saw my phone history and all my gay porn, wouldn't you think that my self-conception was self-deceptive? That's all I'm arguing for. That we respect people's identities but draw the line when there are clear problems.
They may be a reflection of the gender or gender traits that you choose to express. If you choose to express femininity, dandy.
You're absolutely correct about the purpose of the label, but what characteristics are expressed by a cultural label? What multiple grouping characteristics are expressed through a label like "culturally American"? The state of being flexible or definitive is not binary. It's a spectrum with a negative correlation between being flexible and being definitive. An infinitely flexible label is infinitely meaningless. However, a meaningless word like "thing" still has a purpose as a placeholder. It's like variable "x" in algebra.
Why do you feel such a need to label yourself as anything? If the idea that you don't want to be pigeon holed into man or woman, then what is the purpose of creating a third hole to put yourself in? I also have to agree with @ChickenFreak that you don't necessarily understand the idea of science. Just because you can take one or two scientific opinions and then use them to back your argument, doesn't make it fact. As I said before, I can scour the internet and find articles that say that there is no scientific evidence that emphatically suggests that there is evidence that having agender thoughts is a physical, non-decision, factor. Your argument stating otherwise is flawed, because for one, you are phrasing it the wrong way. If you really want to use it as evidence, you should say that there has been scientific research that states a person who views themselves as "agender" may have physical qualities that prove they are born that way and are not just making a decision to identify as such. Instead you are saying that it is true because science says so... well no, science as a collective body doesn't say so.
