I am not going to comment on this, but you may understand my posts as you like. I am not a sexist and I dont have to prove that to you, nor do I care what your ressentiment thoughts are about me

If you don't consider Agustino's horridly sexist posts as sexist, then you are sexist too. But feel free to denounce them as sexist any time. And sorry if I sound rude, but if you agree with those sexist beliefs and discuss philosophy as you've been doing defending them, then you shouldn't do philosophy...and other activities involving women.

I cannot for the life of me understand the controversy surrounding this line. It's basically just reiterating the age-old adage that people say one thing and do another, i.e. people are hypocrites

No, it's not basically that at all. It was specifically saying that women on TV actually wanted to be groped by Trump and were also lying hypocrites too. That is both a degrading depiction of a large group of women, saying they're all just out there wanting old man Trump to grope them. If you don't see that as sexist and wrong, then you're sexist too with a disgusting notion of how women are. So, you and I are done here. I won't be reading any more of your repellent posts.

Yeah, I'll definitely give you credit for that. You expressed an important point really well, there.

I got ya. Thanks for the clarification.

praxis Yes that is in fact a point. And as he claims to be a Christian, trying to repent and Change himself should be his Only concern and something he knows a lot about.

Except by failing to admit his sexist post was sexist and wrong and failing to apologize to Mongrel, and actually slandering her for rightly accusing him, he clearly has no intent on repenting and changing himself. People defending his sexist posts sure aren't helping him.

John Harris I apologize if you feel that I used this thread to 'attack'(a bit strong word) you, it was not my intention. What I would want is for all of you to shut up and leave this. I dont support agustino, nor you. Now you say what my personal opinion is, while not understanding that your understanding of agustino's posts are also personal opinions. Anyway. I apologize, I dont intend to make enemies here.

I didn't say you "attacked" me, so that own strong word was of your dishonest making. I said you took an erroneous swipe at me and you did. And don't tell me to shut up when you didn't shut up and opened your mouth to wrongly tell me I handled things poorly. So start the shutting up on your own end. And my understanding of Agustino's posts is a correct personal understanding. If you don't think saying women on TV secretly want to be groped by Trump and are a bunch of lying hypocrites isn't sexist, you are sexist yourself and have real problems.

But thanks for your apology. I don't see you as an enemy.

↪John Harris and he has the opportunity to learn and change, rather than trying change the forum.

Sure, but he hasn't admitted he was wrong or even admitted his posts were sexist. So, he's made it clear he has no interest in learning or changing and will probably make more sexist posts.

Guidelines won't help, Agustino, you've already been successfully branded.

No, he successfully branded himself with his sexist posts.

↪John Harris Sure I dont need to justify anything, nor prove a point, nor being concerned. I leave it. I have already said where I stand; I think this is all based on prejudices and misunderstandings combined with a tendency to get excited when one gets the oppurtunity to be part of a conflict that isnt dangerous.

That's your personal opinion, one with which Mongrel and I clearly don't agree. The only prejudices shown was Agustino's sexist posts, post with which you are unfortunately fine with. So, stop going around trying to impose your opinion on me or we will continue to debate the issue.

And if Mongrel was offended it was good she addressed it, but she didnt have to make such a gigantic scene out of it, unless agustino refused to apologize and instead continued to make sexist comments.

She didn't make a gigantic scene out of it;' Agustino did, freaking out and saying she was slandering him and demanding she back up her accusations, which she did. And now Agustino is continuing to throw a fit and having the gall to start his "anti-slander" thread by going on a slanderous rant against Mongrel. So, he was being very childish as were you by using this thread to take an erroneous swipe at me when I had said none of my disapproving feelings about how you had handled yourself.

John Harris Supported? You all attacked him and accused him of being a sexist. That is something far different than making a sexist comment, something which he appeared to have apologized for in that very thread.

Pipe down, Beebert; you're not making your wrong stance right by getting hysterical. We didn't attack him. He wrote some horridly sexist posts and we rightly called them sexist. So, relax and save us the drama. It's not my fault you supported him in his sexist posts.

And he never apologized for those posts since he never admitted they were sexist, and they were.

↪John Harris It took quite a while though. Neither you nor Mongrel handled the situation well.

Oh, no, we handled It very well, and you haven't shown otherwise. However, you handled it very poorly by supporting Agustino in his sexist posts.

And it's ironic and disgusting that you slandered Mongrel on your own "slander" thread:

I don't want Mongrel to be punished by the moderators in any way shape or form. I am absolutely fine with forgiving Mongrel for her rudeness and quite frankly for blatantly lying about me - with the condition that she apologises for it, or otherwise presents evidence to back up those outrageous claims. But to prevent such future instances, I think we must have guidelines against it. Thank you for your time reading this.

I'd be on board with slander guidelines, as I think they'd help this forum be more amiable and friendly.

I don't think it's constructive for one member to accuse another of being this or that without properly defending their assertion. There's been a lot of, "you're a sexist", and not a lot of, "here's why."

Actually, when Mongrel was asked to show one of Agustino's racist posts, she did just that, and I provided another, and Baden thought both were sexist. So, that was not the case in her and Agustino's situation. ]

No, I addressed the topic (as I always have) as I was addressing Buddha's post. Stop being hysterical.

I'd be on board with slander guidelines, as I think they'd help this forum be more amiable and friendly.

I don't think it's constructive for one member to accuse another of being this or that without properly defending their assertion. There's been a lot of, "you're a sexist", and not a lot of, "here's why."

Actually, when Mongrel was asked to show one of Agustino's racist posts, she did just that, and I provided another, and Baden thought both were sexist. So, that was not the case in her and Agustino's situation.

Sorry, you, yourself, made if very clear it's about Mongrel and what she said in your massive passage below:
— John Harris
Yes, and I now clarify that it's not about Mongrel.

Sorry, until you take down what you said about Mongrel, it still is about her. So, take down what you said about her and I will stop talking about her.

Sorry, the OP doesn't get to censor or boss around other posters on the thread, and that includes you. Show me one place in the rules where it says you can do that. You can't.
— John Harris
As the OP I can decide what is and isn't the topic of the thread. At the moment you're disrespecting my thread, and it's the third time I've asked you to stop.

You can decide the topic of the thread, but you can't stop people from addressing what you yourself brought up, and you brought up Mongrel and accused her of slander. Sorry, you opened that door yourself.

↪John Harris Okay, I clarify once again - for the THIRD time - that this isn't about Mongrel. Please accept it.

Sorry, you, yourself, made if very clear it's about Mongrel and what she said in your massive passage below:

The second time has been just recently with @Mongrel's sudden, vicious, calumnious and violent accusations towards myself, which came out of nowhere. These were very hateful remarks, and incredibly false. Let's see a bunch:

Historically his sexist comments have been over the top, so I doubt that will be an issue.
— Mongrel
I had it all up on twitter at one point. I took it down. His sexism is principled. He would like to see changes (I suppose throughout the world) wherein women lose everything they've gained in last century or so. He associates these views with religion.
— Mongrel
This is an example of how it works, actually. Agustino is sexist. If he had his way, people like me would be disenfranchised and peripheralized. The people who moderate this forum know that, but they don't care. Every time I see his posts, it just sinks in deeper and deeper with me: the moderators of this forum are just as sexist as he is. They have to be. Why else would they leave his nasty comments up?
— Mongrel

Now Mongrel said I am a sexist. She also said everyone thinks I am a sexist in a PM. She said my sexist comments have been over the top. She said I want to see changes where women lose everything they've gained in the last century! So presumably, I want to see changes where women lose things like the right to vote in many countries. I would like to see some evidence to back up this extraordinary claim. She also said if I had my way, people like her would be disenfranchised and peripheralized - again, where the hell is this crap even coming from?! How does she know this? And if she doesn't, how come she dares to accuse someone of it?!]

You can't write all that and then say it's not about Mongrel. That's dishonest.

↪John Harris This thread isn't for accusing Mongrel, sorry. It's for discussing the introduction of slander guidelines.

Sorry, you made it about Mongrel and sexism by bringing her up and wrongly using her as your main example.

I will warn you that if you don't respect the OP you risk getting a warning from the moderators. This is the second time that I, as the starter of the OP, have to ask you this. Please take note.

Sorry, the OP doesn't get to censor or boss around other posters on the thread, and that includes you. Show me one place in the rules where it says you can do that. You can't.

Yes they were. Baden and one other moderator considered them sexist. Go ask him.
— John Harris
I'm pretty sure that when Mongrel linked about five of my statements, Baden said he considered it sexist only "towards the end". But this is besides the point.

No, it's not beside the point; it backs up my point Baden did find your statements to be sexist. And I'm going anywhere. If you accuse Mongrel of slander, I'm going to rightly defend her by referring to your sexist statements because that's what her statements--you erroneously call slander--were about.

Second of all, even if they were sexist, these statements are disgusting, slandarous and absolutely false:
He would like to see changes (I suppose throughout the world) wherein women lose everything they've gained in last century or so.
— Mongrel
If he had his way, people like me would be disenfranchised and peripheralized.
— Mongrel

No, based on your sexist statements, Mongrel's statements were very legitimate presumptions, not slanderous at all.

So, you can't accuse Mongrel of being slanderous, since she was right to call you sexist.
— John Harris
First most of the statements she cited weren't deemed sexist, even by the moderators. There were only 2 that were under discussion.

Yes they were. Baden and one other moderator considered them sexist. Go ask him.

Sorry, we can't discuss slander without discussing your horridly sexist posts, that even the moderators thought were sexist. So, you can't accuse Mongrel of being slanderous, since she was right to call you sexist.

Of course you are, and you just did it again by saying one could make a case transgered people are misusing gender terms, when that isn't a valid case at all.
— John Harris

It's valid if the conclusion follows from the premises, which it does. Of course it isn't sound because one of the premises is false. Which is exactly what I've said.

No, the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises, since they aren't misusing gender terms and you haven't shown they have. But thanks for proving what I said about your (not-so-latent) transphobia.

A false non sequitur ad hominem.

Sorry, you can't start crying about ad hominems when you started the slinging of them, yourself. And it was neither false nor a non-sequitur, as your post above proves. And since I don't engage transphobes, I won't be reading any more of your posts, period

Ciao.

The fact you're trying to help a transphobe best phrase his transphobia isn't encouraging in a moderator.

No I'm not. I'm pointing out that his accusation of a mental disorder is mistaken and that the only case you can make against a transgender person (rightly or wrongly) is that they're misusing gender terms.

Of course you are, and you just did it again by saying one could make a case transgered people are misusing gender terms, when that isn't a valid case at all. The fact you think it is reveals some latent--or maybe not latent--transphobia in you as well.

No, it doesn't, you asked this specific question and I answered it:
— John Harris

Your question wasn't "what does it mean to be a man" so youre just shifting the goalposts.
— John Harris

Asking what someone means when they claim to be a man is asking what it means (to them) to be a man. Coupled with your posts from before, I think you have a literacy problem.

No, it isn't. It's asking them what it means to them personally to be a man, not what it means to be a man generally; many don't know or care about that. So, I know--from this post and your past ones--you have a literacy, and a maturity, problem.

That doesn't explain what he means when he says that he's a man. That just repeats that he says that. The relevant question is "what does it mean to be a man?".

No, it doesn't, you asked this specific question and I answered it:

↪Michael
I think this is where a lot of the confusion arises. What exactly does a transgender man mean when he says that he's a man despite not having a penis?

Your question wasn't "what does it mean to be a man" so youre just shifting the goalposts. One doesn't have to have a clear idea of what it means to be a man to confidently make the claim "I am a man." Sometimes they just know they are one and that's all they need.

I'm saying that the best argument someone like Harry Hindu can make against transgenderism is that the correct definition of "man" is "having a penis" and so anyone who doesn't have a penis and who claims to be a man is either misusing the term "man" or misunderstands its true meaning.

No, he can't since that is an incorrect claim and is a terrible argument. The fact you're trying to help a transphobe best phrase his transphobia isn't encouraging in a moderator.

I think this is where a lot of the confusion arises. What exactly does a transgender man mean when he says that he's a man despite not having a penis?

He means exactly that: he's a man...regardless of having a penis or ever having one. Many men have been castrated or even had their penises removed through injury, illness, or punishment. That didn't change them into women.

I know that @Harry Hindu has claimed that such people have a mental disorder, thinking that they're something they're not.

This is ugly transphobia, goes against modern medical views of transsexuality, and doesn't deserve re-mentioning.

It must then mean that the transgender man doesn't believe that being a man means having a penis, which makes the accusation of having a mental disorder mistaken.

Not necessarily, since some transgender men actually go through the trans-op process and do feel that is necessary for their manhood. Other transgender men do not.

At best you could claim that the transgender man is either misappropriating or misunderstanding the term "man", which really does just mean "a person with a penis", in which case the dispute is a trivial one over proper language use.

As I've shown this isn't the case at all, and treating transsexuality as a mistake in perception is also transphobic as it treats their sexual selves, sexual identities, and sexualities as just a mistake. They are not misunderstanding or misappropriating anything.

↪John Harris I don't think mental states (feelings, thoughts, emotions) (psychologic) are really separate from brain states (anatomy, physiology). It just depends on which aspect you are emphasizing and which description you employ.. When I talk about psychologic states I assume there is a brain involved, don't you?. ]

You're just ranting now. I never said the brain wasn't involved or that mental states weren't tied to brain states. And since you're just lying about what I said now, I wont' be reading any more of your posts on this thread.

The term "gender identification" on the other hand is often used to indicate whether one identifies "psychologically" as a male of female

Only by ignorant people. The AMA and association of psychiatrists all recognize gender as also being physiological (tied to the body). And thanks for showing you know the difference between psychological and physiological.

I am also a little confused about why you feel the need to separate "physiologic" from "psychologic" as one seems to always accompany the other?

That's an odd question to ask. If they're not separate in some way, why are they two different words instead of one?

Again, you forget the rest of the body, which are factors in one's gender
— John Harris
I am a little confused about how you are using the word "gender" here, which parts of the body determine gender in your view? Are you separating "gender identity" from "secondary sexual characteristics"?

I gave you no reason to be confused. How do you define it?

O can't check all universes, which I've shown is infinite, for the existence of U. So, O is NOT omniscient. If U exists then O is not omniscient.

O can do anything it wants, and it doesn't have to check infinite universe, for the existence of U, as it knows everything at all times and knows there is no U.

Many (most?) people accept the idea that sexual orientation is 'assigned' rather than 'chosen'. I suspect that the affect and style, maybe the public presentation of one's sexuality may also be more assigned rather than chosen. A lot of behaviors are like fetishes -- they seem to be present (in some form) from a very early age, and they seem to be more or less unyielding to change.

This is very well said.

I think both gender identity and sexual preferences are not free conscious choices but rather have much deeper subconscious correlates (physiologic) and motivations/emotions (psychologic) if one wishes to pretend they are separate categories.

Again, you forget the rest of the body, which are factors in one's gender.

Gender is a question of desire, which can be literalized. A Transsexual is not limited by a desire.

No, gender is also a question of being, body, and self-awareness.

Since when does psychology not include the brain and mind?

I never said it didn't.

The real issue here is whether such behaviors and gender roles are a matter of choice or not.

The real issue here is you are excluding the rest of the body as factors in gender, and that is wrong.

No, I've said many times since I've made it clear that sexuality is both psychological and physiological.
— John Harris

Gender isn't a psychological "state.


But what you haven't said at all, despite many polite requests, is what you mean by 'psychological'.

Sure I have, in my bold quote below Now it's your turn to do so.:

And it is proper to include physical changes or effect-causing elements in the brain as part of physiology, since that is different than discussing psychological thought. I'm surprised you didn't know that.

But this is on the understanding that changes of brain state at a certain level of subtlety below gross trauma are called 'psychological'.

This isn't true at all. Where exactly did you learn this?
— John Harris

I learned it while at university studying psychology. Where did you learn the opposite?

No, I don't think so. But feel free to provide a link to back it up. I learned at university studying biology, and there are many levels below gross trauma that are physiological and not labeled just psychological

First off, sexual preferences (gay, straight, homosexual, lesbian) are neither a gender identification nor a physical sexual feature of the body. These individuals identify gender wise (usually) with their bodily physical sexual characteristic, there is just a sexual behavioral preference.

First of all, this is wrong, and you need to attach to a link, because it looks like you're making this up. Sexuality is not just a gender identification and, while not a "feature", it is definitely tied to the body and its genetics.

I do not wish to imply sexual preferences or gender identity are entirely a matter of conscious choice but instead they have to do with deep seated subconscious emotional drives and preferences.

Again, you're making this up. Where do you get this stuff? You exclude the body again, which goes against current scientific and medical consensus.

I used the term "psychological state" as a factor in both gender identity and sexual behavioral preference and that was attacked but I have yet to see a viable alternative.

No, it wasn't attacked; it was shown to be wrong, and the medical and scientific community considers it to be wrong. And I offered a correct alternative: sexuality is always tied to the body, so it is not just a psychological state, but always both a physiological and psychological aspect of the self.

I still use "psychological" until someone offers a better terminology

I just did.

You obviously don't know since you keep showing you can't say what you mean or why being Gay or Straight is psychological.
— John Harris

I would say that preferences are generally psychological rather than physiological, which is to say that they are states of mind. Sexual orientation is rather similar to preferences for chocolate - which you did not respond to earlier.

And that's your biased opinion with no backup for that. Firstly, that means you, if you are Straight, could turn gay at any time if someone was able to plant that thought in your mind, and nobody changes their sexuality that way. Secondly, your use of chocolate undercuts your argument since all of our sense preferences are partially physiological since our bodies particular taste buds, noses, eyes et al shape our preferences. So, you've just argued that our sexual preferences are psychological and physiological.

Similarly, some heterosexuals will make do with homosexual relationships in sexually segregated prison, whereas others will not.In both cases, a change of circumstances changes orientation, where a change of physiology is unlikely to be happening

Sorry, these prisoners don't become Gay, they just take the best sexual option they can get, just like masturbating doesn't turn one--at least most--into manosexuals. And you have no idea if a physiological change happens when people do change sexualities. It's as if you have no idea that changes in the physical brain and body can affect things without people picking up the connection

And it is proper to include physical changes or effect-causing elements in the brain as part of physiology, since that is different than discussing psychological thought. I'm surprised you didn't know that.

But this is on the understanding that changes of brain state at a certain level of subtlety below gross trauma are called 'psychological'.

This isn't true at all. Where exactly did you learn this?

But it is you who cannot (or will not) say what your question or your answer mean.

No, I've said many times since I've made it clear that sexuality is both psychological and physiological.

Yes, they're not just psychological states. As I said, they're both psychological and physiological. That's one you read poorly.
— John Harris

You didn't say that it isn't just a psychological state. You said it wasn't a psychological state. My reading was accurate. If anything, your writing was poor, as you missed out an essential word.

Oh my. When someone says something is a psychological state, they are saying it's just that. And that's what I said it wasn't. So, again you read all my posts poorly.

And it's clear you're just trolling me now because I (rightly) left our last discussion, and that's not a good thing for a moderator to do. So, again, you and I are done. Try to read my posts better next time.