bobmoore wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2020 4:30 pm
Anything that is believed in the face of evidence to the contrary is, in point of fact, the definition of delusion.
Hypothetical situation: I was born without my lower legs due to a genetic condition. However, my internal image of myself is that of a person who has lower legs, and it's so troubling that want to have an operation to get prosthetic lower legs. Am I delusional, or not?
People, who find out my lower legs are prosthetic insist on telling me that I don't have legs, because, "only people born with legs can be considered as having legs." Should I tell them to "bugger off" or not?
Hypothetical situation: I am a biologically short person. However, my internal image of myself is that of a tall person, and it's so troubling that so I get cosmetic surgery to be taller. Am I delusional or not?
People, who find out that I had cosmetic surgery to increase my height refuse to refer to me as tall, because, "only people born tall can be considered tall." Should I tell them to "bugger off" or not?
Hypothetical situation: I am infertile. However, I really want to have a daughter. So, I adopt a girl, and call her my daughter. Am I delusional?
People, who find out that my daughter is adopted refuse to call her my daughter, because she isn't my genetic daughter. Should I tell them to "bugger off" or not?
Hypothetical situation: I was born male, and forced to wear pants for my entire life up until this point, because, by definition, dresses, and skirts, are "women's wear." It's so troubling that I decide, "to hell with it," and start wearing skirts and dresses in public. I also refuse to call it "women's wear," because I recognize that societal concepts change over time as our understanding of gender expression changes. Am I delusional, or not?
People who see me wearing skirts call me a transvestite because, "only women can wear dresses and skirts." Should I tell them to "bugger off" or not?
bobmoore wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2020 4:30 pm If you are XX you are female, and if XY you are a male.
But the whole point of this that those aren't good definitions. They aren't useful--not even biologically. It isn't even accurate.
This aspect of chromosomes (strongly)
correlates with gender.
It doesn’t determine it.
Most people have 46XY or46XX, and are correspondingly, male, or female. However, there all kinds of deviations from this. There are even males with 46XX and females with 46XY. It is not a function of whether their chromosomes are 46XX or 46XY. In particular,
https://www.who.int/genomics/gender/en/index1.html says,
Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS) is an X-linked recessive disorder in which affected individuals have external female genitalia and breast development despite being genetically male (46XY). Tissues of affected individuals are unresponsive to male hormones (androgens) yet respond to estrogens.
Wisniewski et al. assessed the physical and psychosexual status of 14 women with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS) by questionnaire as well as medical examination in order to determine the participants' knowledge of their disorder as well as their opinion of medical and surgical treatment. (34) Most of the women questioned expressed satisfaction with their psychosexual development and sexual function. All of the women who participated in the study were satisfied at having been raised as females, and none of the participants desired gender reassignment. (35)
What you are advocating for is to tell these people they aren't women, because they are genetically male. Worse, you are calling them delusional.
bobmoore wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2020 4:30 pmWhat you "feel" has no bearing on genetic facts.
And genetic facts have no bearing on what you "feel." They are two separate things, which you are trying to force to be the same thing.
This is precisely what all of this hoopla is about. Some people born genetically male feel that they are female.
They know they are genetically male. They want to be outwardly female to match how they feel inside. What is delusional about that?
Furthermore, as the existence of Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome indicates, genetic facts have very little bearing on society considering a person "female." Their genes might not be female, but their outward characteristics certainly are. This does not magically change just because they get genetically tested and find they have 46XY rather than 46XX.
bobmoore wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2020 4:30 pmCurrent social philosophy disagrees and stipulates that you can be something it is impossible for you to be if only you insist loud enough.
Exactly. And skirts and dresses are women's wear, so I don't know why we're being so loud and insisting that we aren't transvestites. Some people might call us delusional.
bobmoore wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2020 4:30 pm I do not dispute that there are rare cases of genetic sex problems, but aside from those special cases the rest is delusion. You are perfectly welcome to disagree.
First, this is inconsistent, though. Your first definition was that XX means a person is female and XY means a person is male. Now you are contradicting yourself by making these provisions (and I would argue that you have made them, because you understand that, as our understanding of the world progresses, our definitions change to accommodate it. So why not be more accommodating?)
Second, if I am welcome to disagree, then you are tacitly saying that your premise is an opinion, and not a fact. Which is it? It is logically inconsistent to respect a person's opinion (by welcoming them to disagree) and then to tell them their opinion makes them delusional.
Indeed, you are, of course, entitled to your opinion--that XY==male and XX==female (with the exception of genetic abnormalities). I strongly disagree, but I can respect it. What I take issue with is that you then openly refer to anyone as disagreeing with you as being "delusional." This is, of course, also an opinion. But it is also needlessly derogatory and offensive.