CouchPotato

But can they? Is it valid for anyone with any combination of any characteristics to claim they belong to any gender? Is it valid for two completely similar people with all the same characteristics to identify themselves one with "woman" and the other with "man"? All yes or no questions.

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/112896042195717073

Trump Reveals He ‘Agreed’ to Debate Harris with ‘Full Arena Audience’ https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/08/02/trump-agreed-debate-kamala-harris-full-arena-audience/

If you say so.

If everyone can make up there own definition from any possible combination of characteristics, then yes, it would be meaningless. Would you say all definitions of fatherliness are equally valid?

You're welcome. 😊

It is 2:39 am here. If you want to continue cortorting yourself into absurdity for the rest of your life be my guest. Your definiton of gender does not even have a vague meaning. It has absolutely none whatsoever. Gender was originally synonymous with sex. If you want add Black Dog's definition then it has a vague meaning. But if anyone with any characteristics can identify as "man" or "woman" or anything else there is no meaning. It is absolutely absurd. It is useless as a term.

Fatherhood is the state of being a father. A father is a male parent (biological or adoptive) of a child.

Fatherhood has a more solid and tangible definition than the one you have proposed for gender, unless of course you start to mingle it with gender ideology. Gender ideology is not just vague. If anyone with any set of characteristics can define themselves as anything, then it is not simply a question of hazy, grey areas. It is beyond vague. It has no meaning at all. As I pointed out, based on what you have told me, there is no difference (not even vague or hazy) between what defines a man and a woman when it comes to gender. It is absolutely anything.

Good for him. Biologists say sex is real. It has defining characteristics. Intersex people are proof of the binary nature of sex because they are not a third completely different sex, but a combination of the two. If your idea of gender is that it has no meaning and it is defined purely subjectively, then the only reality is sex. So unless you are intersex, you are either male or female.

Yes, well it's because people don't realize the logical implications of what they are saying. To restate it, if someone with very exaggerated manly characteristics (whatever those are in any given culture in any given time period) can define themselves as a woman, and someone with very exaggerated feminine characteristics (whatever those are in any given culture at any given time period) can identify as a man, then there is no definable difference between "man" and "woman" with respect to gender. You just pick one of two completely meaningless terms and identify as one. I am a male. I don't have to think about it.

In that case the only defining feature of gender is that it is what one defines oneself as. If it is some nebulous social construct which anyone can define in their own way, it doesn't exist. And therefore the only thing you are left with which is real and tangible is biological sex.

So on the one hand you agree that gender is a collection of traditional traits we have ascribed to women. On the other hand you say that a person with absolutely none of those traits can belong to that gender. That is not a very consistent definition of gender. At this point the only option you have is to say that gender actually has two definitions. One where gender refers to some idea we have about women and how they are supposed to be. And another definition of gender which is this looser concept people with all sorts of qualities can identify with. The problem you are left with is that this second definition of gender has no meaning at all. Two people with completely similar characteristics could identify as completely different genders. Likewise, a person who is ridiculously manly (like yours truly here) could identify as a woman while a very feminine woman could identify as a man. This definition of gender has no defining features at all. It is meaningless. Anything goes. Woman (as a gender you can identify with) embraces people of all characteristics. Man (as a gender you can identify with) embraces people of all characteristics. There is literally no difference between "woman" and "man" in this sense. Therefore, they do not exist. There is no gender here to identify with.

If there is no definition of what a gender is, what does it mean to identify as one? How is it any different to identify as a woman (with respect to gender) than to identify as a man (with respect to gender)? Could two people with completely the same personalities and characteristics define as two different genders?

Ok so, I take it you do not agree with Black Dog's definition of woman as a gender? It's a yes or no question. Either you agree or disagree. And for the purposes of this question, 'disagree' would include the circumstance that his definition is not broad enough. Black Dog (and I assume you as well) says that there is a difference between sex and gender. Am I right in assuming that when biological man identifies as a woman that is a question of gender (as opposed to biological sex)?

I understand that. Those cultural traits were what he gave to me as a response to the question of "How would you define woman as a gender?" Do you agree with his answer? In order to belong to the gender of woman (not the biological sex) do you have to possess those cultural traits which are associated with femininity? Or is the definition really much broader than what Black Dog posted?

Were Democrats lying when they said Joe was fine for years or just stupid, herbie? Which is it?

No, what I am doing is challenging Black Dog's definition of woman (or female) as a gender. He said that the term woman can refer to either a sex or a gender. So, I asked him to give me some defining features of woman as a gender. Do you agree with his answer? He said...

The thread itself had veered in that direction because of the little tangents we tend to go off on in these threads. You participated in this tangent yourself. As for lies, I think over the past few years we have witnessed one of the most surreal lies I have ever seen. It was plainly obvious for a few years that Joe Biden was suffering some type of dementia. People have been calling it out, but media outlets like CNN, MSNBC, CBC, etc ignored the big elephant in the room. The people around Biden all denied it. Here is a video from 3 years ago.

OK, then let's change out the hat. I just assumed it would go well with the left's stereotypical image of someone with a beer belly who belches in your face.

As WestCanMan and CdnFox have pointed out one of their founders openly claimed they were Marxists. Also.... https://en.panampost.com/panam-staff/2020/06/23/the-links-between-black-lives-matter-and-nicolas-maduro-revealed/ Black Lives Matter is a radical organization. There is more to BLM than a nice name which is designed to make you feel obligated to agree with them.

That was a snippet from an article. Not me. I should have put it in quotes.

Not sure if this belongs here or in the sports sub-forum. Musk Vs. Maduro? Billionaire Accepts Bizarre Fight Challenge From Venezuela’s President https://www.forbes.com/sites/maryroeloffs/2024/07/31/musk-vs-maduro-billionaire-accepts-bizarre-fight-challenge-from-venezuelas-president/

FOS LIES is his name for FOX News. The FOS is an acronym for "full of sh-t". He thinks this is so clever that almost every time he types "FOS Lies" it is immediately followed by LMAO.

Yeah we know it's not an official term. It's just a slang way of saying Biden gave her a certain task. She sucked at it. Even if you try to argue that she was merely tasked with finding out the root causes of immigration, the Biden regime as a whole sucked on this. When she was being asked about the border in that interview and why she hadn't been to the border, she didn't say "What are you talking about? I have nothing to do with the border." Polls show Americans do not support illegal immigration. It's an important issue. Everyone knows where Kamala stands. She even attempted to draw a comparison between ICE and the KKK.