71–80 of 85 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably so. Do most people on Tinder abide by the ToS? If he looks 49, who is going to report him for a violation? If someone does report him, how hard is it to make a new account?
It's also a violation of Facebook's ToS
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Gender" is a social construct but while "old" or "young" is a social construct "69 years old" isn't really.
Although, if you show me a random person, I can easily tell you their sex (and in most cases gender). However I can't precisely determine their age. To track somebody's age is quite elaborate, you need a calendar and have to count days and years, and you can't do that yourself or trust the person to do it, but you need a certain social system... Birth certificates etc. or at least your fellow villagers have to celebr…
No, you think you can easily tell their sex, because people who have successfully transitioned are the ones you can't pick out. It's confirmation bias.
This made me laugh, but unless I'm mistaken, he's quite serious. Luckily, however, > An Arnhem court ruled in favor of the fourth dimension.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's simply wrong. Age has a definition. You cannot 'feel' yourself into a different age. Sex != gender.
> That's simply wrong. > Age has a definition. Relativity explains that this definition is subjective, experimentally. Astronauts experience time differentials and it will only get more obvious as we go farther. Again, the concept of granularity (how much of what matters from what perspective) applies in both cases - age and gender. This isn't a justification. Resolve this philosophically however you like with one an…
That's happened zero times thus far, so I stand by my original argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Gender" is a social construct but while "old" or "young" is a social construct "69 years old" isn't really.
Although, if you show me a random person, I can easily tell you their sex (and in most cases gender). However I can't precisely determine their age. To track somebody's age is quite elaborate, you need a calendar and have to count days and years, and you can't do that yourself or trust the person to do it, but you need a certain social system... Birth certificates etc. or at least your fellow villagers have to celebr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Gender" is a social construct but while "old" or "young" is a social construct "69 years old" isn't really.
Although, if you show me a random person, I can easily tell you their sex (and in most cases gender). However I can't precisely determine their age. To track somebody's age is quite elaborate, you need a calendar and have to count days and years, and you can't do that yourself or trust the person to do it, but you need a certain social system... Birth certificates etc. or at least your fellow villagers have to celebr…
Edit: TL;DR by my understanding your definition of societally determined is so broad as to not really be very meaningful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's simply wrong. > Age has a definition. Relativity explains that this definition is subjective, experimentally. Astronauts experience time differentials and it will only get more obvious as we go farther. Again, the concept of granularity (how much of what matters from what perspective) applies in both cases - age and gender. This isn't a justification. Resolve this philosophically however you like with one an…
Quite the stretch. Ok, I give up: if it is demonstrable that a given person has traveled near the speed of light and thus aged significantly differently than the rest of us, that person should be allowed to legally change their age. That's happened zero times thus far, so I stand by my original argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People are male or female by genetics and have a personal perception of themselves as something other than that gender. I can totally see how someone might be 69, but still running triathlons, and want to identify with an effective age that is 49. I fail to see how these two cases are different.
> People are male or female by genetics Some (most) people. As with most things, the whole truth is not that simple. Regardless, "sex" and "gender" are also not the same (though they're usually closely related). There's nothing about having a Y chromosome that makes one have short fingernails, short hair, unable to wear dresses or high heels or paint one's fingernails.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think "sex" is in the government database, not gender.
I just checked my UT driver's license and saw "Sex:" "M"
It also unjustly classifies me as having "BRN" hair. I don't have brown hair, I have dark brown hair, and a particular shade of brown hair that isn't captured by the government's arbitrarily chosen tetradecimal categorization scheme. Hair color is a spectrum, and they should recognize that by ending the practice of falsely categorizing people into inaccurate groups.
Similarly, they commit the same act of violence against me by classifying my eyes as "BRN", when I am sure my eyes' unique hue is not precisely #A52A2A.
[1] http://www.vsp.state.va.us/afis/livescan/files/VAEye&HairCol... (Yes, this is Virginia, I couldn't find one for California.)