What is it that really defines a man or woman, the question seems to be. Sex alone doesn’t seem to cut it, particularly in less liberal perspectives. — praxis

I say sex is all that is necessary. But lets entertain your idea that sex is not the only thing that defines what a man and woman are. Is sex is a necessary part - meaning that ones physiology is a necessary part of being a man or a woman along with whatever other characteristics you wish to add. Can one be a man or woman without the proper physiology?

For instance, if a man were to act too feminine in a very macho culture they may not be considered a man and it wouldn’t be at all unusual for them to be told directly that they’re “not a man.” — praxis

This what is called a figure of speech.

Figure of speech: a word or phrase used in a non-literal sense for rhetorical or vivid effect.

Also, this is implying that what makes one a man or a woman is society or others' view of you, not yourself based on your personal feelings.

One question about intuition is whether or not it is based on experience or reason. My strong opinion, based on introspection, is that it is mostly, maybe completely, based on experience.

My preference would be that we focus on the general question of what can we know without empirical knowledge — T Clark

Nothing. Knowledge takes the form of sensory data.

How do you know that you are reasoning if not by experience? Separating empiricism and rationalism into two separate camps is one of the failures of philosophy.

No. You are interpreting a trans-person's self-image as a delusion. But, if so, your own self-image would also be a delusion. — Gnomon

Then a schizophrenics self-image is not a delusion or a hallucination either?

No. That's irrelevant to what I said. Instead, the implication is that a fertilized egg is not predetermined as male or female. Instead, it is transformed into one gender or another during development. So, copying errors of DNA, or delays in adding certain hormones can result in a fetus with features of both genders. — Gnomon

Your use of the term, "error" is telling in that being born with features of both "genders" (don't you mean sex? The fact that you keep using gender to mean sex is quite telling as well) would be an error. The fact that 99.9% of humans don't have errors must mean something.

what's important for us to understand is that gender anomalies are fairly common. — Gnomon

<1% is not common.

Unfortunately, political laws do try to define gender. — Gnomon

Then gender is not an objective feature of the world as in the structure of brains, but an arbitrary, subjective characteristic of societies that varies over time and space.

Science transcends the differences which in other fields of endeavor make one period incommensurate with another, or one cultural expression untranslatable in another context. Science knows no contextual limitations. It merely seeks the truth.

It's you having the delusion of grandeur. You can't stand it not being able to explain me. The thought of being able to explain me is exactly your illusion of grandeur! The gods laugh about you! :lol: — Haglund

Asking questions are not the symptoms of delusions of grandeur. Asserting that you know more than others while at the same time giving no evidence is a symptom of delusions of grandeur. I can point to observations and reason as evidence for our existence. You cannot. When you can I am willing to change my mind. I have in the past, as I said I was a believer, but now I am not - based on observable evidence and logic. I am the one here that has made a complete 180 on my beliefs based on the evidence. I am the one with an open-mind and having an open mind means that you are willing to accept that you are wrong and willing to listen to others, but also having the right to ask questions when what is being said isn't clear or reasonable.

My point is that being comforted by some idea is not evidence that the idea is true, just as being offended by someone's claim does not mean that your claim is true or their claim is false. Our personal feelings have no bearing on what is true or false.

I'm not interested in Haglund's feelings. I'm interested in the truth.

Science has explained the reason and meaning of life. As I said, reasons and meanings are just particular types of causes. The problem is that you simply don't like the reasons or meanings they provide. Your delusions of grandeur prompt you to believe that you are more important than you really are in that you believe that gods find you and your life interesting enough to watch. Watching you take a shit on the toilet or sitting in a doctor's waiting room for an hour must be very interesting to watch. :rofl:

There are two responses I’ve heard to this. The first one is an appeal to neuropsychology, which argues that trans brains are more “similar” to the gender they are transitioning to. To me, this is unconvincing because neuropsychology is very poorly understood, so defining this “similarity” feels (to me) like cherry picking. At the end of the day, the brain is also a biological system, so once again if someone’s “brain biology” doesn’t match their “genital/chromosomal biology,” which is to win out in our definition of gender? — Paulm12

Exactly. Show me the part of the brain of a man that claims to have the brain of a woman that controls the menstrual cycle.

Not only that, but what about the "what it's like" to be a bat or anything else that you are not? The whole point of Nagel's argument is that we can't know what it is like to be something that we are not. So how exactly does a man know what it's like to be a woman when they are not? The same people on this forum that have used Nagel's argument are the same ones claiming that men can know what it's like to be a woman. The hypocrisy is everywhere on this topic. They are also the same people that have no quarrels in questioning the claims of other people, and advocate for the right to do it, but when it comes to transgenders claims, they are given a pass. None of the atheists (myself included) here are concerned about the feelings of theists when they question their claims. I'm the one being consistent because I insist on questioning all outlandish claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Another way of approaching this is to argue that gender expression itself has a neuropsychological basis. However, if gender is a social construct (as many feminists argue), why would there be a biological or neurobiological basis for gender expression? And if there is, wouldn’t this imply that there is a biological basis for gender (and gender stereotypes) different than how we define sex? — Paulm12

Yes, I've made this point before. Social constructions are agreements between two or more people about the expectations we have of each other. Transgenders are rejecting the social construction by not agreeing on the expectations we have of each other based on our sex. So is gender a social construction or a personal feeling? If gender is a social construction then gender fluidity is social fluidity meaning that for gender to change, society has to change. If it is a personal feeling then it is personal image fluidity and comes and goes at the whim of the individual. They simply can't agree on what it is so why are they so confused that others are so confused about what it is they are claiming?

The second response is that there are trans people in many societies throughout history. “Transgender people are known to have existed since ancient times…However…the modern concept of being transgender, and gender in general, did not develop until the mid-1900s.” This is more convincing to differentiate it from people who claim they are trans racial or trans species. However this does not address the question of whether or not transgender-ism should be pathologized. One could also argue that people born without a limb have existed since ancient societies and even in animals. However this is still pathologized as abnormal. — Paulm12

Since different cultures have different expectations of the sexes then transgenderism in different cultures means different things. In Scotland where some men wear skirts, is wearing pants in Scotland indicative that you identify as a woman? In cultures where men sport long hair and wear jewelry, is having your hair short and avoiding decorating yourself with gems indicative of your identity as a woman? If it depends on the culture you find yourself in then the differences aren't in the brains of men and women, but in the expectations of the various societies that exist and have existed.

It means possessing characteristics associated with women, like the qualities mentioned earlier, but are not exclusive to women, and that is the point, that we can make a natural distinction between gender/sex. — praxis

In other words, these characteristics are not really associated with women, but with humans in general. The fluidity of gender is being confused wth the fluidity of human behaviors and roles. The behaviors associated with sex is very narrow. In this sense, gender doesn't exist except as sexual stereotypes in one's mind. Sex is what is real.

It's the reason for existence. They had good reason to let universal life continue their mad plays in heaven.

This knowledge gives me more comfort than the story atheists like Dawkins and Harris throw around, hitting themselves on the chest. All scientific knowledge, and as a physicist I can play the game along, is just a description from a distance. Knowing the gods made the universe evolving gets you actually involved in life without anyone being scientifically able to explain me. — Haglund

We use reasons as the causes of our behaviors. Reasons, intentions and motives are just particular types of causes. "God created the universe" is also a description from a distance - just a different type of description - one that has no evidence. It's really no different, and has no more evidence for, the description that extra-dimensional aliens genetically engineered humans and are watching them.

"Knowing" gods created the universe does nothing to comfort someone when you don't know the motives behind them creating the universe.

The meaning, the reason, for all life, in my humble opinion, is that the universe, or at least the particles making it up, were created by gods, so, for whatever reasons they had for it, so we and all creatures developed as a copy of heaven, so they can watch us. — Haglund

Sounds like scientists performing an experiment.

I am sorry, but I asked a straight question, — god must be atheist

good luck in getting a straight answer. :smile:

There never was nothing. The gods are eternal. But they created the universe outa nothing. It wasn't there and the next moment it was there. — Haglund

What is the medium in which this god existed and that divides the god from what it creates. If god and universe are not the same things (as it is in some other religions), then what is the medium that divides them. That must also exist, no?

If you are talking about trans-sexual people, those opposed to non-traditional non-binary gender roles, might say they are "claiming to be something they are not". But the trans- person might retort that society is trying to "force them to be something they are not". Yet, where does the truth lie, in objective observations from outside, or subjective feelings from within? — Gnomon

Do the feelings of a delusional person (specifically, somatic delusions) harbor truth? This explanation seems to eradicate delusional states and render them non-existent. Are you saying that there are no such thing as delusional disorders?

In the movie, The Crying Game, the protagonist found someone who behaved & appeared to be an attractive woman, but who turned-out, upon closer inspection -- and much to his disgust -- to have an unexpected appendage, that at first seemed to be a deal-breaker. But, he eventually falls in love with him/her, despite his/her congenital deformity. So, was his love the result of false advertising, or of his own realization that it's what's in the heart that matters in a love relationship? — Gnomon

So are you saying that there is a little homosexuality in all of us - that we are capable of having an intimate relationship with the same sex if we just give it a chance, or be fooled into it as in your example. Would you say this to a gay person - that if a male homosexual man met a a woman dressed as a man and began to fall in love but found out suddenly they have a vagina instead of a penis, then they shouldn't be offended at being misled? I don't know about you, but the moment someone shows that they've been lying to me all along, I am no longer attracted to them. It seems that you'd be okay with being lied to.

Unfortunately, the sex/gender game is full of false advertising, from boob-jobs to macho-posturing. So, who is the best judge of a person's sex/gender, the person his/herself, or society & scriptures? Due to the rarity (10%-15% ??) of non-binary examples (out of the closet), most social systems have judged non-conformance to natural/cultural norms to be abnormal & unnatural. But modern science & technologies have demonstrated that mental gender is a continuum, not as clear-cut as the normal physical duality. Since, some citizens feel & believe that their gender does not match their sex, who's to say they are wrong? — Gnomon

Where is your source? Transgenderism is extremely rare (<1%). Words like "woman" and "man" are useful because a vast majority of humans fall neatly into two groups. Using genitals and gonads alone, more than 99.9% of people fall into two non-overlapping classes and the other traits (chromosomes, hormones, etc.) almost always occur with these. If there was no over-lapping then the terms would not be useful because there would be no distinction to make. By claiming to be a man or a woman, transgenders are making the terms useless in one way and being sexist in another way because they are claiming that behaving a particular way and wearing particular clothes is what makes you a woman or man. Think about if I said that blacks only act and dress a certain way. That would be racist. The hypocrisy is nauseating. Science isn't science when it's been hijacked by governments and used against scientists to make them conform to the current direction the wind is blowing in society. On one hand scientists say delusional disorders exist (like somatic delusions) and on the other they give sexual somatic delusions a pass. Why is that?

Hitler's worldview was neatly black & white, so you were defined as either Aryan or Jew, even if you had one parent of both races. And either Male or Female, even if your body is masculine, but your brain is feminine. Therefore, the question comes down to the old Social versus Individual political views. Who rules in such cases? Would you agree to have political laws define your gender against your personal wishes? I can't say, from personal experience, but that seems to be what the LGBTQ...xyz non-conformists are claiming. — Gnomon

Exactly. You're using a single person that had a lot of power, Hitler, imposing his own worldview on everyone else. This is actually a great comparison to what the extremists on the left are doing. If it really were not enforced then we wouldn't have a certain group of people dictating to the majority how words are used based on their feelings. Political laws do not define gender. Science does.

What's so special about sex/gender is that it's only partly physical (body), and partly metaphysical (mind). Binary gender is clearly the norm, but Nature sometimes makes mistakes : allowing exceptions to the rule of Reproduction as the Reason for being. For all I know, some animals may be homo-trans-sexuals, but they can't speak for themselves, so they just do do as they feel. As long as humans don't interfere in their private affairs. :smile: — Gnomon

You'll have to do better than this. The same can be said of someone that identifies as being a chicken. It's partly physical and partly mental.

That's strange. It's the complete opposite for me. Science has shown me that I create my own meanings and reasons for doing what I want. Freedom!

It makes me happy when we agree. :smile:

When it’s not an act, obviously.

The point that I was trying to make is how we naturally distinguish gender/sex, contrary to what NOS seemed to be suggesting. — praxis

Are the behaviors and claims of a schizophrenic person an act? There seems to be clear cases where someone does not believe that their ideas are false yet we still don't believe them. I'm sure you have no quarrels about telling others on this forum that their firmly held beliefs are wrong.

Anything.

As I notems to me that if you want to know yhe meaning of somet me that hingd, I just wanted to keep things simple. I think there are issues with non-physical causes that would muddy the waters of a discussion. — T Clark

But that is what I'm saying, there is no such thing as a "physical" cause. Your title doesnt make that distinction either. Do you want to know the meaning of "cause", which does exist or the meaming of something that does not exis? It seems to me that if you want to know the meaning of something then you need to include all instances of that something, and not cherry-pick your examples or else you would be muddying the waters instead acquiring a clearer picture of what it is youre talking about any explanation you come up with would never hope to explain what cause really means.

:roll: Not useful.

Gods can create a universe out of nothing. They are like magicians pulling things out of a hat. For real, that is. There is no material cause preceding it (the universe). They could have done this an infinite time in the past. — Haglund

But there wasn't ever nothing. There was a god, if you claim that one of these properties of god is being eternal, but if not then how did god come from nothing? How does something come from nothing? You see, this is what happens every time I engage with the religious. Nothing but mental gymnastics that end up collapsing in on themselves without having said anything constructive, reasonable or understandable.

An effect of their thoughts, efforts, and creation power. — Haglund

But not in the scientific cause and effect sense. It's a teleological cause. A "theleo"logical cause. — Haglund

What I'm looking for is how exactly does a teleological cause (god) form a relationship with a scientific effect (universe)? What would that relationship look like? How does something form a relationship with something else that does not share something in common? And please don't use "god" as the answer as that would just prove my assumptions about your intellectual capacity and honesty.

Yes. Though I wouldn't call it grandeur. More a sense of reality. — Haglund

I'm sorry to be the one to inform you of this, but your "reality" is a bubble of your own making.

Yes. But not in the scientific cause and effect sense. It's a teleological cause. A "theleo"logical cause. — Haglund

How is it different?

My reasons are the reasons. — Haglund

Then you are claiming to know the mind of god? You seem to be afflicted by delusions of grandeur.

The existence of the universe is the evidence. — Haglund

Is the universe a teleological effect or a scientific effect of this teleological cause?

The funny thing is, if a man behaved like a women, for instance, wouldn't you tend to think of them as being feminine rather than masculine, despite what you see on the outside? — praxis

There seems to be distinction between being a man or a woman and acting like one. If you see a person wearing pants do you automatically refer to them as "he" or "sir"? If you have to ask before using those terms then it appears that the way that people act or dress is not a clear indication of what they are. When an white person tries to act like a black person they are ostracized for culture appropriation. How is it not sexual appropriation when a man acts like a woman? Again, we are giving special, undue credit to claims of sex/gender when someone identifies as something that they are not, as opposed to other types of behaviors that copy the likeness of other types of people.

The ambiguity of some male/female physical features is not so surprising if you consider that the embryo -- formed from male sperm & female egg -- begins its development with basic female forms, and only at a later stage -- after certain hormones are pumped in -- begin to differentiate, with the fundamental human/female organs continuing on, and male organs beginning to specialize in drone functions : to service the queen, so to speak. — Gnomon

There is not just ambiguity in the sex but in the species as well. Because we evolved from pre-existing species our embryonic development is similar to other species.

Does this mean that I can identify as a chicken or a rabbit? If I did would I receive the same respect that others are advocating showing someone that identifies as the opposite sex? Why or why not?

I'm willing to bet that you when you read the last part you smirked, if not laughed out loud, at what what said. Identifying as a chicken is funny. Asserting that you are offended if you are not referenced properly as a chicken is even funnier. That is clear evidence that you don't take such claims seriously. Why then would we accept, without question, the claims of someone claiming to be something that they are not when it's about sex? What is so special about sex in this regard?

There is some interesting confusion about the distinctions between sex and gender, between states of affairs and states of fantasy. — NOS4A2

Yes, there seems to be a difference between being a trans-woman and being a woman. I wonder what that difference is if not biology.

The problem at hand is the confusing of the wide range of human behaviors with the narrow behaviors of the sexes. There are behaviors that all humans can participate in, regardless of one's sex - like wearing dresses or pants - as opposed to behaviors that only a particular sex can engage in - like giving birth.

What causal relation? — Haglund

Gods are the entities that, for whatever reason, created the universe in which life develops. — Haglund

Gods would be the cause of a universe in which life develops.

I just said you were believing for the wrong reasons. — Haglund

Sorry, I didn't mean to say you were wrong, but the reasons you gave are just not my reasons. I just don't think science alone offers meaning or reason for life. — Haglund

You didn't make a distinction between your reasons and the reasons. Now that you have you are basically admitting that the reasons are subjective, therefore no one can ever be wrong about the reason for which they believe.

You call the universe insufficient proof? — Haglund

The observation of the universe is simply evidence that the universe exists, not what caused it to exist. What caused it to exist and where would we find the evidence of its cause? What would the evidence look like?

Use your own judgment I really don’t care what you think — I like sushi

Excellent. Then you agree that trans people really shouldn't care what others think - especially when they are not around when others are using language to refer to them.

Gender and sex were always contrived. It’s just that now it is not enforced. — Banno

I'm talking about characteristics like being aggressive or submissive, competitive or cooperative, etc — praxis

These are some of the contrived, social characteristics (stereotypes) of what some society means to be a man or a woman. If you've watched women's sports, you will see that they can be just as aggressive and competitive as men. It's not a lack of aggressiveness or competitiveness that are the reasons we separate women's and men's sports. Biology is the reason we separate them.

"President" and "Senator" are also contrived labels. Does this mean that I can be a president or senator if I so choose? Why are the contrived terms of "man" and "woman" not enforced but "President" and "Senator" are? What makes sex/gender so special in this regard?

It seems to me that when two women are attracted to the same man, then aggressive and competitive are fully apt terms to refer to their behavior and they can be just as aggressive and competitive as two men that are attracted to the same woman it's just that they display it in different ways.

If gender is fluid then why can't others hold differing ideas of what it means to be a man or a woman without forcing their own idea of what it means to be a man or a woman on others? It seems to me that trans-people think that gender is only fluid for themselves (a feeling) and not for the society at large (a social construction). This mass delusion is such that they can advocate for politeness and fluidity, but only for themselves and don't feel the need to be polite to others concerning others' ideas of sex/gender or the fluidity of such on the collective scale, as opposed to their own individual scale.

It's not really all that complicated to distinguish between a man and a woman when you cease using these contrived stereotypes of behavior that all humans participate in regardless of sex/gender and focus strictly on biology as the characteristics that define a man or a woman.

Again - For this thread I’d like to focus just on the meaning of the words “cause” or “causalty,” not on any other philosophical issues. Also, as I noted, I’d like the focus to be on physical causes. — T Clark

Would the input and output of a computer be considered a physical cause and effect? If so, then is the processing of information a causal event? What about you typing your posts (the effect) as being caused by your beliefs and your intent to communicate them? It seems to me that forcing the term "physical" into the discussion of causal events is what creates many of the problems that you are trying to solve.

What if the effect of cause is unpredictable? Can we still call it a cause? Or the effect the effect? I think for cause and effect to exist, there has to be a logical relation between them. — Haglund

Good observation, but the whole question of whether such relations can be described as 'logical' is what is at issue in this thread. — Wayfarer

In asserting that an effect is unpredictable given some cause, are we talking about causation or our knowledge of some causal event? "Random" events only seem random when you don't have all the information about the causes that preceded some effect.

If you are out to describe some causal relation as logical or not I guess you'd need to define "logical" and "causal" as a starting point.

In describing something are you not engaged in both a causal and logical process? The description would be a causal relation with what it is that you are describing and a logical use of language in that you are using words to refer to something that is not necessarily another use of words, or even that the rules of some language cause you to use them in a particular way (the effect), just as your beliefs/knowledge cause you to behave in certain ways (If A then B).

In other words, there is a causal relation, therefore there should be evidence of your claim. Where is the evidence for your claim?

Telling me that I am wrong doesn't answer the questions I have posed. Unless you have something with more substance then I'm done here.

I didn’t say you said anything about sacrificing truth, but you are willing to knowingly utter a falsity to preserve someone’s feelings, with little consideration to the feelings of others who identify as the opposite. I just think that behavior is less than ethical, more of a ploy to avoid confrontation than anything else. — NOS4A2

The same people on this forum advocating for politeness are the same ones that repeatedly engage in character assassination and ad hominem arguments when you simply question their assumptions.

It has nothing to do with your ‘definition’. No one calls me ‘man’ they refer to me by name or with he/him. If someone prefers to be called he/him and dresses like a man I’m down with that. — I like sushi

But that's the thing though: Why would you be concerned how someone refers to you in the third person? It would be strange to be referring to you in the third person when you are present. Third person pronouns are used when the person is not present. So how is someone that isn't present to the conversation offended if we use pronouns that they can't hear?

If a guy is wearing make up and a dress, and appears to be conveying the general outward aspect of ‘woman’ I would refer to them as she/her because that is CLEARLY what they are conveying. I know they are NOT a WOMAN because I can see they are a TRANS WOMAN but I need not be a dick about it and refer to them as he/him. — I like sushi

It is not clear. A man can wear a dress and still want to be called a man.

And again you engage in these sexist assumptions that what you wear makes you a man or a woman.

Being outside the secular domain by definition means a domain with no causal contact, unless they can influence the chances of quantum mechanics. That's the only acausal way to interfere. — Haglund

It is claimed that god created the universe and that our actions influence his final judgement. Those are causal relationships. As such, there should be evidence that was left for use to be able to show that god exists and created the universe. Where is that evidence?

You think an afterlife is the reason for believing? Then you don't understand the reason at all. — Haglund

You asked if I understand why people believe. I told you that I once was a believer and that I have spoken to other believers and what they have said. Are you then saying that none of us are, or were, actually believers - as in only you have true sight into what god wants us to believe?

I'm still waiting on you to define "god".

God(s) exist outside of this domain, so their existence can't be proved. — Haglund

Outside what domain, and "outside" in what way? It certainly can't be outside causality because events outside this domain affect what is in this domain and vice versa, so we should be able to prove their existence just like we can prove the identity of a criminal given the effects they leave at the crime scene (fingerprints, DNA, etc). It doesn't make any sense to say that it is outside this domain while at the same time asserting that there is a causal relationship between the outside and inside yet the outside can't be proven.

What could be the use, apart from moral or closing gaps? Do you understand why people believe? — Haglund

Sure. I was once a believer. When I question my former fellow believers most ask, "well what happens after we die?", so it seems like believing is more of a delusion to aleviate the suffering of knowing you will die and that your friends and family no longer exist for you to meet after death.

It is just a case of common sense and politeness. Most people who see someone dressed as a woman will call them a woman. Maybe there are a few scarce situations where it is not clear but that can be overcome quite easily with a simple exchange. — I like sushi

The problem is that in acknowledging someone's definition of "man" or "woman" that contradicts my own, would be discrediting my own identity as a man. Why should I relegate my own notions of what it means to be a man for the sake of not offending someone that is only happy when dictating what others can think or what words that they can use?

It is sexist to say that someone dresses like a woman - as if women can only dress a certain way. Trans people are no different in being sexist when they claim that being a man or a woman is dressing a certain way, nor are they non-binary when they still assert that they are a man or a woman. If they were really non-binary then they would be neither a man or a woman. As such, they should have their own category in sports and not participate in the binary categories of men and women's sports.

A woman is an adult female of the human species. — NOS4A2

Yes, just as a doe is an adult female of the deer species. Nothing political to see here.

There need be no necessary and sufficient conditions in place for us to be able to use a word; indeed, there rarely are. This is what is meant by the term family resemblance. — Banno

The only necessary condition for using a word is that you are referring to some state-of-affairs that is not necessarily just another use of words. If not, then you aren't actually using words. You're just drawing scribbles and making noises. But it nice to see you finally admit that when you use words, you aren't actually ever saying anything, Banno.

Stipulating a criteria, one way or the other, is a political act. — Banno

No. Categorization is an act of reason. Finding common ground with others' categorization is an act of communication. But it is nice to see you finally admit that you see everything through the prism of politics, Banno.

The fact that you have not found evidence of the supernatural isn't conclusive proof that it does not exist. — Elric

We could make this argument for any imagined thing, including elves, leprechauns, and dragons.

It is incumbent upon the claimant to both define and show evidence for (based upon the definition) the state-of-affairs that is being asserted. If you want to assert that "supernatural" or "gods" exists, then it is incumbent upon you to define "supernatural" or "god" and then provide some evidence that it exists. Until you do that, then what am I suppose to do with your claim? How would it be useful to me to believe it?

Because I haven't found any use in believing that the supernatural or gods exist, then I don't.

Sure. You see what you want to see. Words are flexible like that. You can misrepresent my words and convince yourself that was specifically what I was trying to say. Go for it. :up: — apokrisis

:lol: How can I misrepresent your words if your use of words is not specific? It seems like that can only happen if you are specific with your use if words.

Words, as arbitrary symbols, have the potential to be flexible, but are not flexible when used properly because you mean something specific when you use them that I can misrepresent. If you didn't mean anything specific, then what would I be misrepresenting?

You’re not doing your intelligence any favours here. — Possibility

Another example. If someone would point out that your concept of men and women doesn't do your intelligence any favors, well that would be bigotry/disrespectful, right? I haven't seen stoicHoneyBadger identify as an idiot yet, have you?