I will submit to this point on the understanding then that you will submit to the notion that children should be allowed to be dinosaurs, able to speak to imaginary people or Sergio Aguero as they often feel like they are them too.
Gender Choices
- Thread starter Why Always Ste
- Start date
I will submit to this point on the understanding then that you will submit to the notion that children should be allowed to be dinosaurs, able to speak to imaginary people or Sergio Aguero as they often feel like they are them too.
che_don_john
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2011
- Messages
- 729
A child thinking he/she is a dinosaur is a different thing entirely to gender identification, as you well know. A child speaking to imaginary people is normal and parents are usually permitted to encourage it as a means of enabling a child's social development (particularly if they are an only child or have a much younger sibling).
So, no, I can't submit to that notion, because it's a false analogy, a moral equivalency, a non-sequitur and equivocation all rolled into one and therefore doesn't really make logical sense!
Gelsons Dad
Well-Known Member
No. At that age it's exactly the same. A girl, a dinosaur, a fish. At that age a child has no inclination of what it is like to be any of those things.
No it's not. Comparing two similar situations (i.e. "the thoughts of a child on their identity") is not a false analogy because it's not drawing any conclusions thus doesn't meet any criteria of falsely drawing them.
No it's not, it's a logical equivalence. The fact that it's a subject of morality doesn't make it a moral equivalence because I'm not equating them morally only logically
No it's not. The logic follows perfectly.
Child decides it is something
This something is outside the ability of the child's reason
Parent's should deny this something as irrational.
Even if you disagree with the axioms involved it's not a non-sequitor because both gender-neutrality and dinosaurs are things often stated as a children's identity and serve as perfectly able to switch between each other in the qualifier of "outside the child's reason". If you can switch the "something" between things and the sentence still makes sense then it by definition logically follows.
No it's not. In fact it's highly specific language focusing on three distinct cases of irrational childish reasoning, the first being a different species, the second being an invented person and the third being a hero. There's no semantic confusing here between "dinosaur" and "transsexual", both terms are defined fully and both terms still are able to be substituted.
I think you've confused "I don't see the logic" with "there is no logic here". Ironically, a logical fallacy.
Yes. Just in the way that a football pitch is different from chess board yet analogies give people the ability to compare like qualities between them.
quiet_riot
Well-Known Member
Hamann Pineapple
Well-Known Member
I think I love you Damo
che_don_john
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2011
- Messages
- 729
But you have drawn conclusions.
You have implied that two moral issues (e.g. a child suffering gender identification issues with the hypothesis of a child thinking he/she is a dinosaur) carry the same weight or are essentially similar. That makes it a moral equivalence.
The above make it a non-sequitur.
I concede that point and agree; I made a mistake on that one.
As with the non-sequitur, having identified what I strongly believe are logical fallacies then I have to conclude that your statement lacks logic, right?
I'm not saying you can't compare them - you can compare anything, technically, I'm saying they are not equivalent in this particular quandary.
MellowJoe
Well-Known Member
The 'is it innate?' question is the most interesting, regarding this born into the wrong body stuff. I don't think parents want to damage their offspring (well, some might) but it's not as if there is a parenting licence you have to get. The general feel is that parents who let their kids act as if they're the opposite sex are misguided.
From what I've read, it seems to be generally accepted that genes and your brain formation play more than a significant role in ones sexuality. Of course you have exposure and experiences, which will either confirm or deny or have little to no impact on what you end up defining yourself as. So the step further is gender. As a couple of people have alluded to; (and I have read instances also) Trans people do often seem to tell a similar tale. A common one for boys is that of trying on their mum's bra, and 'dressing up' when they're kids.. and yes, at the ages of 5 or 6.
I find it interesting when people say 'they clearly have psychological issues' - well? who doesn't? Some people just don't seem to fit in full stop. And, is there even a perfect holotype human? that can be pointed at as having the perfect healthy mind and physiology? Or are we simply just gonna play Darwin and say Gays and Trans are maladaptive because they're less likely to reproduce, therefore they have a problem.
Is it the case that you, as a parent ought to encourage and enforce socially acceptable (whatever you define that as) behaviour, despite the distresses, until the child is no longer a child? So till about 18?, or until they're old enough to tell you to fuck off :) When you can say, at least tentatively, that the young man or woman knows their own mind and body, and their life is their own. Generally, I guess that's the best policy.
From what I've read, it seems to be generally accepted that genes and your brain formation play more than a significant role in ones sexuality. Of course you have exposure and experiences, which will either confirm or deny or have little to no impact on what you end up defining yourself as. So the step further is gender. As a couple of people have alluded to; (and I have read instances also) Trans people do often seem to tell a similar tale. A common one for boys is that of trying on their mum's bra, and 'dressing up' when they're kids.. and yes, at the ages of 5 or 6.
I find it interesting when people say 'they clearly have psychological issues' - well? who doesn't? Some people just don't seem to fit in full stop. And, is there even a perfect holotype human? that can be pointed at as having the perfect healthy mind and physiology? Or are we simply just gonna play Darwin and say Gays and Trans are maladaptive because they're less likely to reproduce, therefore they have a problem.
Is it the case that you, as a parent ought to encourage and enforce socially acceptable (whatever you define that as) behaviour, despite the distresses, until the child is no longer a child? So till about 18?, or until they're old enough to tell you to fuck off :) When you can say, at least tentatively, that the young man or woman knows their own mind and body, and their life is their own. Generally, I guess that's the best policy.
BlueMoonRisin’
Well-Known Member
People should simply accept each others differences to live in future harmony . We're a big bag of allsorts.
I'm licorice.
I'm licorice.