Chelsea Manning barred from entering Canada • Hacker News Board

Re: Chelsea Manning barred from entering Canada

#41

Post by zmoreira » Wed, Sep 27, 2017, 9:01 AM UTC

EliRivers wrote: post #37

zmoreira wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would your body produce eggs if it was working flawlessly? Then you are a female; if not, male.

What about people with both testes and ovaries? If those were working flawlessly, they would produce eggs and sperm. Your definition labels them female. If you're happy with that, good for you, but it seems misleading to simply label such a person "female" based on egg production. If you'd like to exclude such people from your definition, and restrict it to people who are (for want of a better term) "stereotypical" m…

My definition in wrong in the same sense that Newtonian physics are wrong. How many people have lived with working ovaries and testes? These extreme conditions do not create a different sex. My definition is good enough.

Re: Chelsea Manning barred from entering Canada

#42

Post by EliRivers » Wed, Sep 27, 2017, 9:13 AM UTC

zmoreira wrote: post #41

EliRivers wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about people with both testes and ovaries? If those were working flawlessly, they would produce eggs and sperm. Your definition labels them female. If you're happy with that, good for you, but it seems misleading to simply label such a person "female" based on egg production. If you'd like to exclude such people from your definition, and restrict it to people who are (for want of a better term) "stereotypical" m…

My definition in wrong in the same sense that Newtonian physics are wrong. How many people have lived with working ovaries and testes? These extreme conditions do not create a different sex. My definition is good enough.

It certainly is good enough for you, if you say it is. It's not good enough for me (and not good enough for people who don't neatly fall into it; luckily for them your simple personal definition isn't the legal definition in many societies), but fortunately I (and you, I assume) are happy existing in a world in which other people have different ideas (many of course are not, and would happily burn people who don't fit neatly into this definition).

Given the problems we see in society, this definition is clearly not good enough for everyone and not good enough to satisfactorily deal with the problems arising; I might wonder what use a definition is if it doesn't actually guide us in solving problems. Perhaps this definition must be compromised when encountering reality in these situations.

Re: Chelsea Manning barred from entering Canada

#43

Post by zmoreira » Wed, Sep 27, 2017, 1:55 PM UTC

EliRivers wrote: post #42

zmoreira wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My definition in wrong in the same sense that Newtonian physics are wrong. How many people have lived with working ovaries and testes? These extreme conditions do not create a different sex. My definition is good enough.

It certainly is good enough for you, if you say it is. It's not good enough for me (and not good enough for people who don't neatly fall into it; luckily for them your simple personal definition isn't the legal definition in many societies), but fortunately I (and you, I assume) are happy existing in a world in which other people have different ideas (many of course are not, and would happily burn people who don't fi…

I am ready to accept a better definition, but I have not seen one. I understand that many people will not be happy with my definition, but I don't have to respect their wishes; some will be reasonable, some will be madness.

In the case in point my definition works well. Manning is a great hero of mankind and I thank him for is sacrifice. However, when he says he is a woman now no one has to accept that because a) he is obviouly a man and b) he is obviously mentally unwell (just read his tweets). For me it would be cruel reinforce the delusions of a troubled mind.

I don't see any problems in our society that require pretending that man are women. What are you talking about?

Re: Chelsea Manning barred from entering Canada

#44

Post by EliRivers » Thu, Sep 28, 2017, 9:45 AM UTC

zmoreira wrote: post #43

EliRivers wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It certainly is good enough for you, if you say it is. It's not good enough for me (and not good enough for people who don't neatly fall into it; luckily for them your simple personal definition isn't the legal definition in many societies), but fortunately I (and you, I assume) are happy existing in a world in which other people have different ideas (many of course are not, and would happily burn people who don't fi…

I am ready to accept a better definition, but I have not seen one. I understand that many people will not be happy with my definition, but I don't have to respect their wishes; some will be reasonable, some will be madness. In the case in point my definition works well. Manning is a great hero of mankind and I thank him for is sacrifice. However, when he says he is a woman now no one has to accept that because a) he…

I am ready to accept a better definition, but I have not seen one.

Why do you need one? Why not just accept reality as it is - that reality simply doesn't match the simple, "everyone is a man or a woman" model? Sure, sometimes reality is just too complex to work with and we need to create a simplified model of it to work with, but this really isn't a complicated concept.

What are you talking about?

I'm talking about the wider problems caused by refusing to accept reality; gender segregated facilities, for example, that cater only to those who fit neatly into a binary definition. Problems caused by legislating, for example, that the only acceptable genders of record are "male" and "female", and in doing so excluding people who don't fit. Those kinds of problems.