You're conflating sex and gender. They're not the same thing.
|
|
Trying to teach English to the English is sooooooo hard.
bcnu, Mikem It's mourning in America again. |
|
(sigh)
Real-world biology isn't binary. E.g. https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/klinefelter-syndrome https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/xyy-syndrome/ HTH. Cheers, Scott. |
|
What are you trying to tell me? That disease states are "normal" states? <sigh right back>
bcnu, Mikem It's mourning in America again. |
|
Thought it was pretty clear. Real-world biology isn't binary.
Someone who has extra (or missing) chromosomes isn't less human and doesn't deserve to be treated as such. Or someone whose brain is put together a little differently even if they don't have an easily visible genetic difference. Was Einstein "abnormal"? Was Turning? Was Meitner? Insisting on putting people in bins is stupid. Your personal feelings about "the purpose of marriage" and the "definition of a family" should have little or no impact on whether two others want to get married or not. Or whether they get the benefits of marriage and family that other couples get, or not. But, as you say, we've been through all of this before. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott. |
|
We're at a dead end, but I have to say a couple of things.
1) "Family" doesn't (and never did) have anything to do with marriage imo. 2) As things are now, the best thing to do is to eliminate the requirement of a license of any kind for marriage. Eliminating marriage licenses would bring reason to the widely popular misconception that a marriage is between two people. I think (2) is as close as we're ever going to get to consensus, but we still would have disagreements. The elimination of (2) would, of necessity, eliminate any State benefits to the condition of being married. I'd be okay with that. I suspect you wouldn't. But I've lost what little faith I had in our people so I don't really care much either way at this point. bcnu, Mikem It's mourning in America again. |
|
Oh, the dictionary. That's where I, too, go to understand complex issues of sexuality and gender.
The real world is, as usual, considerably more complex than a reductivist such as yourself would like it to be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_gender_distinction The distinction between sex and gender differentiates sex (the anatomy of an individual's reproductive system, and secondary sex characteristics) from gender, which can refer to either social roles based on the sex of the person (gender role) or personal identification of one's own gender based on an internal awareness (gender identity).[1][2] In some circumstances, an individual's assigned sex and gender do not align, and the person may be transgender,[1] non-binary, or gender-nonconforming. In some cases, an individual may have biological sex characteristics that complicate sex assignment, and the person may be intersex. Now, if your takeaway from that is "well sex and gender are the same thing, innit" then you're probably a bit of an idiot. Just because people use "sex" and "gender" interchangeably doesn't mean that it's accurate. In the same way that most people talk about wheel nuts on their car, when 90% of the time they really mean wheel bolts. In casual conversation people know what you mean, but if you buy wheel nuts when you needed wheel bolts, well. You're going to have a bad time when it comes to wheel-fitting. |
|
Oh, Wikipedia. What better source of information could there be? And I'm the idiot.
bcnu, Mikem It's mourning in America again. |
|
Keep digging. ;-)
|
|
Many times you post I think of this comic
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe Please read it. Back to this thread: Sure, you should consider the source. But not discount it totally. It is simply a starting point. And usually points to great original sources. |
|
what, you never dated a hermaphrodite? are you sure?
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman |