AmadeusD

1. That's exactly how it comes across *shrug* I like you; it seemed worth mentioning. Still feels that way. Defensive, and rhetorical more than explor...

A pre-SRY structure which is altered during the proceeding hormonal cascade into either a phallus, or not (there is more to "not' but this suffices he...

Around where? Czechnia? Then from what is it exceptional? You literally just told us a story about your interactions with, and conception of Trans.......

You are an especially bad reader, reasoner and commenter. (having had to go back, we're at least fully aligned on gender per se :ok: )

I now think you may be trolling me. You are talking, directly and obviously, about a theory which holds that gamete production is the determining fact...

Physical, inarguable ones. It's quite fun watching them dance around this. Luke is making some inroads, though, positing that 'direct' relates to perc...

I don't want anythhing from you. But you continually discuss a position i don't hold in respect of my comments. Your discomfort with recognizing both ...

It just seems you have a problem with your internal struggle with gametes. I didn't posit that, and have disowned it (to the degree that someone who d...

Just to outright answer your question, you're asking me to prove a negative here. You did not provide anything which supports the assertion of those f...

This assumes genetic make up as-is, determines sex - where is does not. So, "harm" is probably not apt, but it is flatly incorrect to assign a status ...

I am going to be insistent. There are two sexes. Genetics do not determine sex. Genetics are variable within sex. If your problem is the linguistic us...

Fair enough! The thing that shook me off the track was that the underlined appears to be the unpinning of the system (otherwise, I see no connection w...

Could you maybe outline what you mean by this? I don't think this is a coherent concept. The 'expression' of one's sex is the functional output of one...

I have felt that was the case - but then, I don't quite understand the resistance to settling the question on one side or the other. It seems clear th...

Suffice to say, no, and i direct you to my previous post. The question contain therein is crucial to my understanding how you could possible think tha...

Thanks very much, that's very helpful - It seems to be counter to a general conception of moral naturalism, so that's really cool to me. Not at all co...

Not so, to my mind. Perceptions need not be accompanied by conscious experience of them, in emotional terms. This seems patent, as we talk about senti...

Almost certainly; I've not read much Witty, but my understanding is that his 'objects' covers all objects that other theories, respectively, exclude -...

Ah, ok, interesting. And is it hte case that you apply that similar boundedness to Morality, but perhaps with different parameters? Again, I don't rea...

But a perception is nothing to a human, unless we have an experience. So, the question actually probably isn't apt to that delineation. Whether a chim...

Hehehe. Equally, "hehehe" at @"Count Timothy von Icarus" Toad Venom comment.

Could you throw any out? I'm only pushing, as it seems that your initial outline there ("in the aggregate") is aptly applied to individuals too. But, ...

morality. I'm not a dentist...

Yes, this is the clarity that Indirect Realists seem to see, that Direct Realists don't. It's not that it puts paid to either position, but an Indirec...

Hmm, Ok I see the problem you're trying to solve now. I don't find it a problem though, as will become clear. Not quite. They have the potential to. T...

Perhaps, but I'm also joking. In anycase, I understand moral naturalism to entail that it is empirically discoverable, as an aspect of the universe. I...

What do you conceive these dilemmas consisting in?

Hmmm. Does the acknowledgement of variance within sexes not do that job a bit better? Male and female are, in fact, absolute categories in humans. The...

Ignores relational facts, as best I can tell. A fact can obtain between objects, but not be either. A distance is a fact, but is not an object. It's n...

is not Yet here you are, a moral Naturalist. And apparently a grumpy one. :)

The above few comments in turn are about sex? However, I'm nearly with you on this. I don't entirely agree that its a 'mental status' but it certainly...

Neither is Morality, but here you are - a moral Naturalist ;)

You would both immensely enjoy Supernatural by Graham Hancock. Ignore his conclusions - his work is astoundingly good in terms of synthesising the his...

As usual, your pretensions fail you. You are describing gender and then attributing your description to the word sex. Nothing to do with me that you'r...

hehe... and in the face of such a response, I must say - likewise :)

The irony physically hurts.

Haha. Errm... In reverse, I don't, because it isn't a view, it's a word which is used to refer to aberrations in sexual development (more commonly ref...

It is, though, and you've accepted as much with the statement: Variance within the two sexes doesn't constitute a third, or non- sex.

Thank you for clarifying what you're trying to say, and in that sense, I agree, and think this is why Gender is actually apt at all - we need not invo...

To a physicalist ;)

What are these exceptions?

What are you basing that on?

I agree. But the reality is they do and get vilified. Holly Lawford-Smith is a great example, as is Kathleen Stock; Judith Butler. Plenty of examples ...

I think you're either being incredibly disingenuous (my preference) or do not understand what journalism, common sense, and "society" are.

I would agree, if it didn't leave open the doors I brushed past in the ending of my previous comment (which you quoted there, I see from the comment b...

Agreed. That's very much an extra portion of the set-up though. If the person isn't aware of the nature of the teletransporter, the deliberation never...

That's illegal. Not common sense-related. Again, illegal. These are regulated standards. Common sense doesn't inform these decisions. is not common se...

Funnily enough, I was going to post a couple of further readings, to ensure there's some rigour in the thread. One being this, as an example of femini...

It really, really isn't. But it will get there very quickly, i'm sure.

I'm unsure whether you misspoke here, or are conflating the two ideas you're trying to prise apart. If we are to understand that gender is, in fact, a...