I find this a little funny because the wording seems to be very biased and angry - there is no "agenda", it's just people wanting to be what they think is their true selves; it's not "depravity", it's at worst people thinking they're another gender and being wrong (being wrong is not something to be too angry over, of course) and at best people becoming who they want to be; you ignore any answer inbetween a "yes" and a "no" as a "meaningless half-answer", as if the world is purely black and white and nuance is a nonexistent idea; and you justify this whole thing with God's teachings, written down by people thousands of years ago who definitely couldn't have consciously or unconsciously slipped in their own biased and/or factually incorrect ideas, and most definitely couldn't have made the whole thing up, oh dear Lord no! Even then, didn't God say to love your neighbors and the people around you? What makes people who think they were another gender exempt from that love, whether they're right or wrong?

Unusually strong hatred in some of the wording aside, let's get back to the question. I answered:

4-3-2(? what specifically does chemical transition mean)-3-3-1.

Notably, the Ontology one not only ignores nuance by ignoring "half-answers", it also ignores nuance by assuming that gender and sex are the exact same, and using "man" or "woman" as if the male gender and the male sex are one and the same. Not necessarily. I found this particular video very interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpGqFUStcxc

Please do take a look, even if you don't agree with all of it.

Although I'm not really hard-set on any of my choices above. I'm not trans, so it really isn't my business to think too hard about these issues. I generally go with the policy of "let them be what they want to be, as long as it makes them happy and doesn't hurt others." But the line is blurry, and black and white blend, so deciding what's the line between "making themselves happy" and "hurting others" is a difficult question.

Let’s All Get Past This Confusion About Trans People

There has been a lot of talk about trans people lately, with controversy surroundings comedians, sports, as well as the usual back and forth between liberals...

@Gameknight

I find this a little funny because the wording seems to be very biased and angry

Which part of it, on the numbered criteria of the poll, if you could mention? I didn't add any mentions of, say, forcing kids to trans even though that is definitely something that does happen because from the worldview of a pro-trans liberal they would vehemently deny it to be common.

Everything not related to accurate self-assessment, well, I get to call the degeneracy as I see it.

you ignore any answer inbetween a "yes" and a "no" as a "meaningless half-answer", as if the world is purely black and white and nuance is a nonexistent idea

Nope. There's this false nuance of believing everything is nuanced. Some things are nuanced. Some things are also very simple. The gender ideology movement is very simple. So I will explain it in simple terms.

I will assume you accept that all "cisgendered" men are men and all "cisgendered" women are women, or that it is a sufficient condition being "cisgendered" is a sufficient condition to be within the "gender" you identify as.

Either "transgendered men" for instance are necessarily men or are not necessarily men. Truth tables, ok. I'm not saying are necessarily men or are necessarily women. I'm saying "necessarily men" or not-"necessarily men". Exclusive disjunction, don't get mad now. If they are necessarily men then you have to accept the ultimate transgender ontological claim that "trans men are men and trans women are women".

If they are not necessarily men, they cannot partake in manhood. Simply put, you could think of a "transgender man" Casey and a "cisgendered" woman Alice, and assign whatever bodily features or mental states Casey has onto Alice, and if at any point Casey becomes a man, it necessarily means Alice is both a man and a woman.

"But you've only shown that if I believe some trans men are men but not all that self ID is a necessary but not suffici-" WRONG. Suppose self-ID is a necessary condition to being a certain gender, but not sufficient. Then the transgenders that we would agree are not their "identified" gender are genderless. This is an absurd conclusion.

you justify this whole thing with God's teachings, written down by people thousands of years ago who definitely couldn't have consciously or unconsciously slipped in their own biased and/or factually incorrect ideas, and most definitely couldn't have made the whole thing up, oh dear Lord no!

For one, impossibility of the contrary. Your foundationalist system of reasoning is at its root incoherent, and as is any that does not admit the verity of Orthodoxy. You can google Jay Dyer if you want to find out more. But I'm not here to have that argument. The whole point of the ontological argument is, look at what I've written above. At no point did I bring up God.

Even then, didn't God say to love your neighbors and the people around you? What makes people who think they were another gender exempt from that love, whether they're right or wrong?

This is relevant. If someone you love is a drug addict, is love to continue letting this person rot in ruin? Or is it taking away the drugs and getting him/her the help he/she needs, even if it hurts. It is better for the souls of "transgenders" to turn away from their spiritual affliction and towards the light of the LORD.

what specifically does chemical transition mean

Cross-sex hormones.

it also ignores nuance by assuming that gender and sex are the exact same, and using "man" or "woman" as if the male gender and the male sex are one and the same.

Nope! We agree that "men" and "women" are very commonly used and mean certain things. The question is essentially what they should mean. Someone like me will answer that "trans men" are women and "trans women" are men because such a thing is determined by the LORD before one is born, before one is conceived, and that any resulting psychological states are near-meaningless in the wake of the LORD's judgement.

A liberal, such as the 8 poor souls who definitely selected "2" on the Ontology portion (and probably a nonzero number of the 16-19s), would likely not deny the existence of the male and female sex, but would render them subservient to their twisted idea of "gender identity," such that what is properly "man" or what is properly "woman" in the greatest sense is only defined by "gender identity" with no bearing on biological or spiritual realities. You see a reification of this with terms such as "cisgendered" "assigned [something] at birth" or "birthing person".

What I mean by this is that we can play whatever language games we want. I could say "for the sake of this market, a 'triangle' is something edible made of bread with a cheesy interior" and you could probably, with fair accuracy, pinpoint that whenever I say "triangle". But if you are asked "is that really a triangle", well, no. And it wouldn't be even if 99% of the world disagreed with you (on the concept, not just "we want to use a different word"). The Christian thesis is that what a man or woman is, in its nature, is given by God who does not err. The liberal thesis is that it is given by one's psychological state.

Professor Dave video

I'm afraid "throw soyence at it" won't solve anything. This is a philosophical issue, not a scientific issue. I'm sure I agree with Dave on most of the factual matters -- biological sex exists, there are certain people with a mental issue that makes them want to become/exhibit characteristics of the other sex, there are social aspects tied to sex that we may call "gender" which go above and beyond the necessary implications of sex (otherwise phrases such as "men should be masculine" would reduce to tautology), and there are some studies with shoddy methodology and low sample size that indicate that chemical or surgical "transition" may reduce suicide rates.

All of that is ultimately irrelevant to the factual basis of the matter.

If I really really want to be superman and it would make me feel a lot better if everyone treated me like Clark Kent... that does not make me Clark Kent. Society should not have to pretend that I am.

If I really want to steal from my neighbor and it would make me feel a lot better if I did, society should not tolerate such behavior. It is wrong regardless of my desires.

@stardust

Nope! We agree that "men" and "women" are very commonly used and mean certain things. The question is essentially what they should mean.

Does it necessarily have to be one or the other? Just like how the word "vegetable" includes different foods depending on whether you speak in a culinary context or a scientific context, so can the words "man" and "woman" change whether you talk about gender identity or biological sex.

If someone you love is a drug addict, is love to continue letting this person rot in ruin? Or is it taking away the drugs and getting him/her the help he/she needs, even if it hurts.

Okay, that's a very valid point, assuming that transgenderism is a sickness (which it is not neccessarily a sickness, mind you). However, accusing transgender people as being part of an "agenda" is neither helpful nor accurate, and if you're really trying to convince people that transgenderism is fake, shoving a cross down their throat and saying "god made you this way so shut the f*ck up and accept it" is also not helpful. Again, this is all on the assumption that you ARE right and that transgenderism is fake/an illness/etc. Whether it is real or not is still up for debate, unless you can factually prove that a vast majority of transgender people are in on whatever conspiracy or agenda you assume them to be.

I'm afraid "throw soyence at it" won't solve anything. This is a philosophical issue, not a scientific issue

Ah, but it is indeed a scientific issue! You have turned it into a philosophy issue through your faith - I am aware of it as a scientific issue because that's exactly what it is: a discussion on whether transgenderism is some sort of hallucination/sickness, or whether it is a real and genuine phenomenon that deserves proper attention.

If I really really want to be superman and it would make me feel a lot better if everyone treated me like Clark Kent... that does not make me Clark Kent. Society should not have to pretend that I am.

If I really want to steal from my neighbor and it would make me feel a lot better if I did, society should not tolerate such behavior. It is wrong regardless of my desires.

These are two false equivalences. Treating you like you are Superman is something that would require a large effort on the part of everyone around you, and is indeed unnecessary. Calling you by what you want to be called does not require a large effort on the part of everyone around you. Name changes are allowed in almost every civilized nation, because we as a society have agreed that it is the polite thing to do to call people by the name they want to be called so long as the name is not extremely frivolous or tedious. Similarly, we as a society have agreed that it is not a big deal to call people by the pronouns they want to be called. That's it. That's all. Whether trans people get surgery or chemical transition is up to them, and needs not be paid for by the state - but at the bare minimum, we can take the minimal effort to call them by what they want to be called and treat them like a normal person.

Similarly, stealing from a neighbor is directly harmful - transgenderism is not. What has a transgender person done to hurt you? Nothing. Transgender people are not asking for society to bend to their whim and will - they are just asking for a little basic human decency.

2.5+2+2+0+3+1=10.5, I rounded down to 10. I'll go with a 2 in the first one if I have to pick, I'd perhaps allow it for minors in some cases but the status quo is too much I think.

Right in the middle!

0 - "Trans women" are men and "trans men" are women. Essentially: transgenderism is a lie.
1 - Some meaningless half-answer. Examples include "does it really matter?" "it depends on who you ask" or "that's a meaningless question without an answer".

Of the two, I firmly pick 0, however my view is that (sufficiently medicated) trans men and women are separate categories. Neither men nor women.

@skibidist Why do you believe this?

I will note that I disagree because it does not align with what the Church and Holy Scripture teaches, but I see why it might be appealing to those who want to straddle a middle ground between trans ideology and what is right. However, the same as with trans ideology, it is ultimately not in concord with the Church and thus ultimately self-refuting at some level.

@stardust There exist intersex people with ambiguous genitals. There is no objective basis for classifying them as one sex or the other. Let's say they are medically transitioned to exhibit mostly male characteristics. They will become a trans-man.

I find it plausible that one could have female genitals and most of the body, but ambiguous (or male) brain structure. They too could then be transitioned to become a trans-man. In fact, a regular 100% cis-female could be transitioned to become a trans-man as well. They would never become a man, because biological differences would remain. However I think it's merely a technical difference. If the technology was good enough to make the trans-man physically indistinguishable from a regular man, they would become a man.

What I reject is the concept of purely psychologically gender identity without a physical basis.

I think you once wrote that the alternative to embracing God and the church doctrine is chaos. I completely agree with that. I am a nihilist, because I don't think there is an objective reason to accept God, except to self-servingly make the world make sense.

The question is misleading. It should be "how pro-trans are you?" People will think they are talking about the manifold userbase as a whole when they answer

@asmith Yes, I agree. I changed the title.

Weird flex bro

I am a monarchist.

@stardust Are there any current monarchies (excluding those where the monarch mostly just has ceremonial power) that you support? If so, which ones?

@Nightsquared No, but Russia is pretty close.

@stardust How do you believe the monarch should even be chosen? Most historical monarchies originated with either someone just seizing political power through brutal violence (e.g. William the Conqueror), or existing nobles arbitrarily choosing someone to be given power after a dynasty collapsed (e.g. the Romanovs)

19.

Can you guess where I lost a point?

@OP Oh wow tbh from my standpoint transgenderism is ridiculous enough that it's a really hard guess... but if I had to make a bet

I think my full-points options on all of them were sufficiently ridiculous that it's not an ideological break. Maybe the trans sports stuff, but I think if you're OK with trans kids it's not a huge jump.

I'm going to go with the ontology section. I'll never bet against Manifold users wanting to do sophism.

@stardust heyo, you’re pretty good. That’s the one.

I could go either way on the ontology side of things, but I’m generally in favour of enabling people to live how they want to live. I guess more of a transhumanist than a transgenderist?

@OP Here's my question then, and I don't mean to turn this into a debate unless you want to. I am always open to, but some people flee when they hear that I'm a Christian.

I'll do some assumption. The line a lot of people go with is "language is complicated, blah blah blah".

My question is if "language is complicated", would you apply the same language to actual men/women, or you would call them "cisgendered" maybe. If someone said "cisgendered women are women, yes, no, it's complicated" would you pick the "it's complicated" option?

If so, then I suppose you're consistent, although I find that to be a head-hurting position. If not, then on the trans issue clearly you have something to grapple with. I would argue this pushes most "it's complicated"ers alone to the "trans women aren't women. trans men aren't men" side even if they don't want to say it. Sure, a "trans man" may be able to partake in manhood from your world view... up to but excluding definitely being a man. There is no "maybe" answer in this equation.

@stardust For cis-men/cis-women it’s less complicated, as they want to be men/women, and are men/women. Whereas with trans, it’s something they need to work to achieve, but it’s achievable.

We’ve all seen the trans-men/trans-women who pass incredibly well. Very few people would look at a passing trans-man, for instance, and say ‘that’s a woman’.

So within the category of (for instance) trans-men, there are both people who are men, and people who are aspiring to be men. The extent to which one’s prepared to accept aspirants really depends on context. (How closely do they align with the ideal of ‘man’, what are the privileges being sought in that instance, and how accommodating are you feeling?)

So you could say: ‘Cis-men are men. Some trans-men are men. And some trans-men sit in a liminal space in between’.

To put it a different way, there’s a platonic ideal of a man. One can say of a man that he is ‘manly’ or ‘unmanly’. However, for most cis-men, if they make some effort at being men, then they will be accepted as men. For trans-men, they start at a different point, but with sufficient effort, can get close enough to that ideal to also be accepted as men.

It’s similar to religion in a way. You can be born orthodox, raised orthodox, and baptised. You can be non-practising. You can be a late convert. You can blaspheme. You can claim to be orthodox, or not. But there’s a combination of factors that may mean that, in any given set of circumstances, you sit inside and outside of that category. Your personal stated identification plays some role, but isn’t necessarily wholly determinative.

So, like I said, 19/20.

@OP I appreciate that you reject Self-ID nonsense but believe your definition to be inconsistent. It seems, I'm inferring from your comment, that you believe what a man/woman is to be something dependent on your appearance. You would front the opinion, say, "all cis women are women. Some trans women are women." But again, I find this objectionable and believe that it implies the ontological reality that no trans women are women and no trans men are men.

We’ve all seen the trans-men/trans-women who pass incredibly well. Very few people would look at a passing trans-man, for instance, and say ‘that’s a woman’.

I also find this example faulty. If you told them that she was born a woman then those numbers would probably change, mostly along partisan lines, but probably >50 saying that she's really a woman.

If someone who's on the older side takes very good care of their skin and whatnot and is an expert at that stuff, you may assume she's 35, but that doesn't change the fact that she's 50. And if you let people know she's 50 then no one will continue to insist she's 35.

But I will cut to the point and get to the important part. Again, you have agreed and so do I that "cisgendered" men are men and "cisgendered" women are women. I would ask, if a "cisgendered" woman appears to be masculine such as Imane Khalif or that one basketball player who was detained in Russia for drugs, Britney Griner or something I believe, would that make her not a woman? Of course not. Or, maybe you think so.

My point is this: if you believe the following propositions:
P1. All "cisgendered" men are men and all "cisgendered" women are women
P2. Not all trans-men are men and not all trans-women are women
P3. Some trans-men are men and some trans-women are women
You must drop one. Not all 3 can be held at the same time.

If you believe P2 and P3, as you do, that implies there is some quality not related to "self-ID" that makes one a man or a woman. That puts you into either two boxes. A: it is a quality not inherent to being "cisgendered," which means P1 is out. B: it is a quality inherent to being "cisgendered," which means P3 is out -- "trans men" can never share in manhood qua manhood in the same way that real men can.

Combinations 1+3 and 1+2 exclusively eliminate the last one from a similar line of argument. You believe that real men/women have some unique unifying property such that they could never be the other way, and transgenders either do partake or do not partake in this property, and whether they do or not thus reflectively renders the statement true or false. Or you could believe that not all "cisgendered" men are men and defend that point but I find it quite wacky.

On the topic of Orthodoxy since you brought it up, this is incorrect. There are only those who are saved and those who are not. That I cannot know, you cannot know, only God can know. That said:
- There is no salvation outside of the Church.
- Whether you partake in Communion and the Holy Sacraments is not a "grey" thing. The requirements for Communion are very cut and clear, and by the way, cradle Christians may lose them. The Sacraments are necessary for Salvation.
- Your "personal identification" plays no role, at least not causally. If you are Christian, God has told you to spread the faith, so you will say you are Christian. But you are saying you are Christian because you are Christian, not the other way around.

@stardust I square the circle by defining the qualities for men as being closely aligned with those of cis-men, but not inherent.

If it helps, you can think of it as a points system, where 50 is a passing grade:

• Self-ID: 20 points

• Secondary sex characteristics: 30 points

• Primary sex characteristics: 20 points

• Misc performance: 30 points

So if you have the primary+secondary sex characteristics, and ID as such, you’re automatically over the line. A cis-person is dealt a starting hand such that they get across the line from birth. But if someone lacks some of those characteristics, they can acquire them, and in any case may be able to make up for it with a sufficiently gendered performance.

Age is similar and dissimilar. On one hand, it’s also performed. There are expectations that one act one’s age. We can talk of experiences aging people. Some people are developmentally stunted and have a functional mental age far lower than their real age, and get treated accordingly. But on the other hand it’s an immutable measurement, like a meter or a kilogram, so even if we accept someone as fitting into a different social conception of age (eg ‘the brain of a five year old’), we don’t say they ‘are’ that age.

We conceivably could have gone the same way for gender. To an extent, we did. We can conceive of women being masculine, or men being feminine. But there’s also a space beyond just those 30 odd points of performance, where it starts to make sense to conceive of it as a full transformation into a man, rather than just being man-like.

Re religion, I’ll step back from Orthodox and just talk about the classic Prot/Cath/Ang/etc Christians, since I know them better. There’s enough grey area that, at least socially, there are a number of factors that go into whether you’re considered religious. (With self-ID featuring prominently, but not necessarily being determinative.)

@OP But I still think this is inconsistent. I insist under your criteria you must still reject one of the three. Let's look at your point chart.

• Self-ID: 20 points

• Secondary sex characteristics: 30 points

• Primary sex characteristics: 20 points

• Misc performance: 30 points

I will not inquire into the exact amounts too much because I understand this is an example (although -- thank the LORD that your example would render "trans kids" impossible. It is sane in that regard). However, I must object to your argument. You agree that of course "cisgendered" men are men and "cisgendered" women are women, but this very point system leads you to the absurd conclusion that this is not the case.

For one, within the set of real men, it is trivial to think of at least a few examples for which this chart does not hold. Let's say he identifies as a man, has some genital deformity due to a birth or after-birth accident, and it's sufficiently bad that he cannot enter a typical male puberty. As for his presentation, it's just casual-normal. You get 20+0+let's say 10+15.

Or for instance, let's say that you have a boy who is forcibly transed into a "transgendered girl" against his will. Now, you don't have to agree with my example, but you acknowledge that it is possible and in a world with 8 billion people, not unlikely that it's happened at least a few times. In this case, he would be a cisgendered male that you would reject as being a man.

Age is similar and dissimilar. On one hand, it’s also performed. There are expectations that one act one’s age. We can talk of experiences aging people. Some people are developmentally stunted and have a functional mental age far lower than their real age, and get treated accordingly. But on the other hand it’s an immutable measurement, like a meter or a kilogram, so even if we accept someone as fitting into a different social conception of age (eg ‘the brain of a five year old’), we don’t say they ‘are’ that age.

Yes, there are certain things that are expected of age. That are typical of age. But none of what you mention are necessities of age. I might say that a 40 year old ought not to engage in frivolous activities, but if you asked me necessarily, is it within the nature of a 40 year old not to engage in frivolous activities I would say of course not. The question is what is pertinent to the nature of man and woman, and you're right. When it comes to the reality of the situation, the nature of one's soul, there is only male and female -- and no amount of transgendering can change that.

We conceivably could have gone the same way for gender. To an extent, we did. We can conceive of women being masculine, or men being feminine.

1/2. We can conceive of women acting in ways that are currently masculine and vice versa, but not of women being masculine. Masculine and feminine are defined derivative of the male and female nature. What is masculine is defined by what men do. And here's another one. When we're defining masculine as what men do: who is men.

There is only one sane answer, and it too refutes transgenderism.

Re religion, I’ll step back from Orthodox and just talk about the classic Prot/Cath/Ang/etc Christians, since I know them better. There’s enough grey area that, at least socially, there are a number of factors that go into whether you’re considered religious. (With self-ID featuring prominently, but not necessarily being determinative.)

Well, Protestantism is atheism lite. I can speak for Rom Caths to some extent because before converting I was an RC.

This is incorrect, or at least not wholly correct. Sure, you could say you're a Catholic, you could even have people believe you're a Catholic. You could think you're a Catholic. But if you ask any RC theologian, if they aren't too far gone yet, they will tell you that there are the saved and those who are not saved, that Holy Communion is necessary for salvation, a lot of what I told you. Just that RCs are a lot more ecumenist and willing to extend the "invisible Church" far beyond what we as Christians do. For instance, they believe we're saved. We don't believe they're saved.

"Whether you're considered religious" is fundamentally, you're ascribing a secular aspect to this. Which you can do, but understand that it's not something which we from inside do. There is whether you are in communion with the Body of Christ or not. Your salvation first, all else second. Everyone except maybe the Protestants (atheist lite, again) would agree. Probably only the more liberal Protestants at that.

Does anyone know how to boost a poll?

I might make more of this type of poll around, e.g., abortion once my bet on whether 3 Trump picks get rejected resolves NO.

@stardust boosts were removed, I believe