The Student Room Group

Thoughts on Piers Morgan asking whether he could identify as an elephant

Scroll to see replies

Original post by _gcx
Why would "elephant" be an invalid gender identity?

Is there some sort of documentation that I should consult to ensure that my gender identity is accepted by the LGBT community?


<3

Original post by theDanIdentity
'affect me'? the ****? how the hell does it affect YOU!?
"i don't realise how stupid i sound"? the hell!??? people are walking around in dog outfits, eating, thinking and acting like they are animals beneath them on the evolutionary train, whilst attacking others for calling them out to be mentally ill patients just escaped from the asylum. and you're telling me i'm the one that's 'stupid'?

people are buying chlothes and under-going surgery in order to become/look like an actual lizard then attacking governments for not recognising their idiotic ability to find more profound ways to act like an idiot in broad day-light and you're calling me 'stupid'?


Just...preach dude...

preach....
Original post by _gcx
We're looking at two attributes, which are unambiguously biologically defined, and I see no possibility for any compromise inbetween save for mutation. So employing abstract thought that is clearly common sense™, I cannot conceive such a spectrum, as a scale has not been defined, nor has any point within the continuum. It's like being given a set of two letters that are clearly defined, let's call them A and B. Individuals claim that there are letters that fit inbetween these two characters, but people are unable to define exactly what these are, or their nature.



Damn.

I would love for someone to try and explain why this is wrong.
Original post by constantine2016
Good hosts actually listen to their guests rather than constantly interrupt and talk over them.

You are wrong. You can't go around treating people how you like.



Lol you can say I'm wrong, but they chose to go onto that show, they didn't have to.


We all know Piers Morgan frequently speaks his mind, it's not as if we haven't already had him on TV for years to know what he's like.


I'm sorry but if they wanted an easier time they should have gone on tv to be interviewed by Holly and Phil or Eamonn and Ruth.
Original post by offhegoes
No-one is forcing you to respect the thoughts of non-binary people either,


Lack of respect is the exact thing people are moaning at Piers Morgan for.

Original post by offhegoes
and what 'special privileges' exactly are they proposing to be given?


Legal recognition


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by l'etranger
If you're going to make ridiculous arguments from authority I will treat you as an object to be mocked.


An argument from authority, if the source in question is indeed a valid argument. It's when the source is not actually an authority on the subject in question that it is fallacious.
Original post by l'etranger
Just as the Bible may not be the word of God, medical professionals are not infallible.


Yeah, there's a big gap between "not infallible" and "unsubstantiated and speculative nonsense".

The fact that experts occasionally make errors or get things wrong in their field does not mean that a complete non-expert's opinion is just as valid.

For example, Stephen Hawking was proven wrong in his belief that the Higgs particle didn't exist. Does that mean my opinion on particle physics is just as valid as his?
Original post by l'etranger
Just as the Bible may not be the word of God, medical professionals are not infallible.


As always in these cases of "trust no one" *******s I have to ask...

Who exactly are you?

Why exactly should anyone listen to you? If biology and psychology research can not be used to inform gender politics why on earth am I going to listen to you? You're just some twerp on an internet forum comparing science professionals and knowledge accumulated via science and academia to fundamentalist faith.

It's just a form of "edgy" nihilistic stupidity. Nothing matters so I can think and say any old twaddle. Which would be fine, if a bit annoying, if you didn't at the same time demand to be listened to and taken seriously -__-
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Underscore__


Legal recognition


Posted from TSR Mobile


So you think legal recognition of some characteristic should be considered a priveledge not a right?

Should black people consider themselves priveledged because the State has the good grace to admit they exist? What about women? What about religious minorities?
...this thread has gotten off topic.

It's almost resorted to personal attacks instead of any actual attempts to disprove the OP...
Original post by mojojojo101
So you think legal recognition of some characteristic should be considered a priveledge not a right?

Should black people consider themselves priveledged because the State has the good grace to admit they exist? What about women? What about religious minorities?


Because of course, black people and people who want to be given a special name for their gender are the same...

Do I have the right for the law to recognise me as a god if that's how I choose to identify?


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Underscore__

Do I have the right for the law to recognise me as a god if that's how I choose to identify?


Sure, just don't expect us to worship you :smile:
Original post by Det.Hartigan
Sure, just don't expect us to worship you :smile:


That's fine, at least I'd be above the law


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by _gcx
It has yet to be defined, by anyone, what this "continuum" or spectrum looks like, quantified numerically, quantified by behaviour or psychological features, perhaps? To me, we're looking at two attributes, which are unambiguously biologically defined, and I see no possibility for any compromise inbetween save for mutation. So employing abstract thought that is clearly common sense™, I cannot conceive such a spectrum, as a scale has not been defined, nor has any point within the continuum. It's like being given a set of two letters that are clearly defined, let's call them A and B. Individuals claim that there are letters that fit inbetween these two characters, but people are unable to define exactly what these are, or their nature. Unless, you clocked me for an idiot who's argument consists exclusively of "hurr durr gender is binary". The one association I can get to grips, somewhat with, is agenderism. It's perfectly defined, and I accept that it could indeed be valid. However I see no empirical evidence to suggest the validity any gender identification that falls inbetween male and female, so I don't understand your patronising attitude, because this is certainly not "obvious". If it's something that is not yet fully understood, drop your patronising tone.


Original post by Manuster
Damn. I would love for someone to try and explain why this is wrong.


Because of the unscientific and unimaginative manner in which he chose to try and perceive gender identity, of course he presents a situation that doesn't seem to make sense. But that's mostly because his argument is riddled with so many erroneous assumptions and misconceptions that, by choosing his own definition of what the science must look like and then refuting it, he's run straight into a strawman fallacy.

Firstly, the human mind is complicated [citation needed]. If we define what must be true and untrue by what we do or don't understand about it then we've failed from the beginning. Gender identity is not the same as sex. Even if someone were to argue that gender identity was a linear scale, which for many would be a potential oversimplification, they are hardly going to define the two polar sides of the scale as 'A' and 'B'. That would be ludicrous.
Original post by offhegoes
Because of the unscientific and unimaginative manner in which he chose to try and perceive gender identity, of course he presents a situation that doesn't seem to make sense. But that's mostly because his argument is riddled with so many erroneous assumptions and misconceptions that, by choosing his own definition of what the science must look like and then refuting it, he's run straight into a strawman fallacy.

Firstly, the human mind is complicated [citation needed]. If we define what must be true and untrue by what we do or don't understand about it then we've failed from the beginning. Gender identity is not the same as sex. Even if someone were to argue that gender identity was a linear scale, which for many would be a potential oversimplification, they are hardly going to define the two polar sides of the scale as 'A' and 'B'. That would be ludicrous.


You have probably taken my post out of context, I didn't present the argument of a spectrum, nor did I define "what science must look like". I was attempting a reductio ad absurdum of sorts in the fact that individuals are completely unable to define any point, scale, or otherwise any component, within this proposed spectrum, other than male and female (A and B), yet continue to claim the existence of a spectrum, applying a patronising attitude accordingly. All that propose a spectrum do propose two polar values, female and male. No evidence has been given to support any claims.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by _gcx
You have probably taken my post out of context, I didn't present the argument of a spectrum, nor did I define "what science must look like". I was attempting a reductio ad absurdum of sorts in the fact that individuals are completely unable to define any point, scale, or otherwise any component, within this proposed spectrum, other than male and female (A and B), yet continue to claim the existence of a spectrum, applying a patronising attitude accordingly. All that propose a spectrum do propose two polar values, female and male. No evidence has been given to support any claims.


I understand what you're saying, but then why not attack their attitude rather than seemingly attempt to dispute the existence of non-binary genders?

If you wanted to use a linear scale then you wouldn't use A and B, as they imply a discrete variable as a starting point, which is basically discounting the possibility of a non-binary nature before you even begin.

Studies on this are in their infancy, and you're right that we just don't know very much at this stage. Psychological factors, especially social and cultural ones, are thought to play a huge role in gender identity, but there things we can look at of a more tangible manner.

Studies in Spain have taken scans of males and females and detected common areas of difference. Scans of trans individuals have found people of one sex presenting with brain development that indicates the opposite gender. These brain developments are certainly not binary, so that could be a potential avenue down which to demonstrate a definable existence of non-binary gender.

Like I said though, early stages.
Original post by offhegoes

Studies in Spain have taken scans of males and females and detected common areas of difference. Scans of trans individuals have found people of one sex presenting with brain development that indicates the opposite gender. These brain developments are certainly not binary, so that could be a potential avenue down which to demonstrate a definable existence of non-binary gender.

Like I said though, early stages.



Woah woah woah. Brains are not discernible by gender. There's no "female" brain and there's no "male" brain.

A difference in hormones can cause the brain to act differently, and over time that may cause some sort of variations, but those are not due to males having a completely different brain type as females.

Males produce far more testosterone than women so can tend to be more violent, this may lead to an increase in whatever part of the brain deals with violence,but it is NOT an effect of them being male.

A women who tends to be more violent than average is still a woman and although she may have a similar tendency to the average male does not mean she is not a woman.

The same way a man who tends to be more gentle than the average women is still a man.

Men have bigger, rougher, uglier hands than women. But there is no "man" hand and "woman" hand. They're still the exact same, they've just been used, treated and influenced differently. The same applies for brains,

And besides, a transgender individual takes hormone pills (a good majority at least, I believe). This will lead to their body functioning the way the opposite's gender does...their body including their brain.

There are only 2 genders, a brain scan of a woman taking testosterone pills will simply show a brain that has spent alot of time being used the by a woman transitioning into a brain used by a man. It's the same brain, a human brain. There's no gender to it.
Original post by offhegoes

Like I said though, early stages


:lolz:

So for thousands, maybe even millions of years (depending on who you believe) we had male and female and in some cases, other.

Yet these are now not good enough for us all?


Original post by offhegoes
Scans of trans individuals have found people of one sex presenting with brain development that indicates the opposite gender.


And this doesn't strike you as odd? Really this makes the DSM diagnosis for this seem like it makes perfect sense...


Original post by Manuster
...a transgender individual takes hormone pills...


Yes if they want to properly "transition" as they call it, this is the path for them to do so. Which is going to largely skew any results we have from such individuals.



Original post by Manuster

There are only 2 genders, a brain scan of a woman taking testosterone pills will simply show a brain that has spent alot of time being used by a woman transitioning into a brain used by a man. It's the same brain, a human brain. There's no gender to it.


Sounds pretty accurate.

It still brings us right back around to like Piers, why can't I just wake up some day and say I am an elephant.
(edited 6 years ago)
He would be correct if genders have not been socially constructed. You can say genetically, people cannot change.

But the reality is that the society does subscribe certain qualifies to the two genders, from colour to fashion to interests and profession and everything else.

Personally, I think we should go the other way and stop caring about genders altogether. But as it stands, identifying as a woman and as an elephant are very different. For all intents and purposes, you are a woman if you have the parts and do what the society thinks are women's stuff, but it will be very difficult for Morgan to physically resemble and elephant, let alone behave like one.

Also, if you identify as a non-human animal or an object, of course, people are not going to accommodate to your needs. If you are not human, you have no human rights. If you are not human, you have no civil rights. But of course that is neither here nor there.
Original post by Little Toy Gun
He would be correct if genders have not been socially constructed...society does subscribe certain qualifies to the two genders, from colour to fashion to interests and profession and everything else


Society has reckoned boys are blue and girls pink.

But what is to stop the opposite from happening? Absolutely nothing.

Likewise colour, fashion, profession does not change their gender.

Society may look at them and say "that guy is a bit gay" or "that chick is kinda lesbian" but that doesn't necessarily mean it is true.
Original post by Det.Hartigan
Society has reckoned boys are blue and girls pink.

But what is to stop the opposite from happening? Absolutely nothing.

Likewise colour, fashion, profession does not change their gender.

Society may look at them and say "that guy is a bit gay" or "that chick is kinda lesbian" but that doesn't necessarily mean it is true.


And transgenders are just people who think what the society thinks is indeed true. Transgenderism exists entirely because the idea that girls and boys have a certain "look" exists.

In the future, the LGBT movement will likely be a conservative one. There's currently a mismatch between liberalism and mainstream LGBT movements - liberals are supposed to want equality and so different genders should not have any inherent differences, yet trans people stress on those social constructs and package them as inherent differences; same-sex marriage prolongs the life of the institution of marriage by keeping people not disenfrancized by it: if marriage kept its old definition, ie women marrying to a man as a property and baby-making machine, very few would be marrying I reckon.

In fact, it's already happening. Look at how many conservative parties have tried to bring in same-sex marriage: the Tories in the UK, the coalition in Australia (only to be defeated by their Labor Party), the centre-right President of Mexico, the nationalist President of Taiwan, President Trump supports LGBT rights, Le Pen said she would defend the gays...

Quick Reply