(May 13, 2012 at 4:57 pm)StatCrux Wrote:

(May 13, 2012 at 4:54 pm)Gooders1002 Wrote: Well they would be physically Female but genetically Male.

Yes but how is male and female defined if people with XY chromosomes can be women, or are they still male, are you saying they are neither male or female or somehow both?

Well technically they would be Women as that body and feature and inter working would be female only in the chromosomes would say there male but other then that they are female.

---

This really fucks up your whole anti-gay marriage argument, doesn't it.

(May 13, 2012 at 5:06 pm)Gooders1002 Wrote:

(May 13, 2012 at 4:57 pm)StatCrux Wrote: Yes but how is male and female defined if people with XY chromosomes can be women, or are they still male, are you saying they are neither male or female or somehow both?

Well technically they would be Women as that body and feature and inter working would be female only in the chromosomes would say there male but other then that they are female.

---

This really fucks up your whole anti-marriage argument, doesn't it.

So what is the definition of female? Please someone step up to the plate and give a difinition of female that is universally applicable with no exceptions, otherwise it is invalid according to genkaus

---

(May 13, 2012 at 5:05 pm)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote:

(May 13, 2012 at 4:27 pm)genkaus Wrote: Why yes, it would. Which is why we don't define men as "those who have a penis", nor do we define women as "those who have a vagina". Biologically, a male-to-female transsexual who has a vagina and breasts is still a man.

I was beaten to the punch...

If personality is a part of biology... I am inclined to disagree.

And do I have to go into it again? I should make a thread. But I want to wait like 5-8 months first!

What is your definition of male and female then? Remember they must be universally applicable with no exceptions in order to be valid, according to genkaus' reasoning.

(May 13, 2012 at 4:38 pm)StatCrux Wrote: What is the biological definition of male and female?

Look it up. I don't do your homework for you.

Well here is a medical definition from MedicineNet.com

Female: The traditional definition of female was "an individual of the sex that bears young" or "that produces ova or eggs". However, things are not so simple today. Female can be defined by physical appearance, by chromosome constitution (see Female chromosome complement), or by gender identification. Female chromosome complement: The large majority of females have a 46, XX chromosome complement (46 chromosomes including two X chromosomes). A minority of females have other chromosome constitutions such as 45,X (45 chromosomes including only one X chromosome) and 47,XXX (47 chromosomes including three X chromosomes).

Male: The traditional definition of male was "an individual of the sex that produces sperm" (or some such). However, things are not so simple today. Male can be defined by physical appearance, by chromosome constitution (see Male chromosome complement), or by gender identification.
Does that answer your question?

(May 13, 2012 at 5:04 pm)StatCrux Wrote: The whole point of this is that exceptions to a rule invalidate that rule, right?

Yes, the whole point of those exceptions is pointing out the need for better rules. Unfortunately, not everyone has the mental capacity to see that.

(May 13, 2012 at 5:04 pm)StatCrux Wrote: So if some people can have XY chromosomes and be female, you cannot say that XY chromosomes indicate male? So how can we define male and female?

Which is why biological entities have more than one defining characteristic.

Apparently, even people in Vedic India understood the concept better than you do, since they classified humans in three genders - male, female and indeterminate.

In summary so far, I claimed that the union of a male and female in principle is open to procreation, same sex unions are not. Genkaus raised the issue of infertile couples saying that invalidates the argument.

In comparison, I asked for a definition of male and female, but raised the issue of AIS, so the question is does AIS invalidate the definitions of male and female?

I would say that extreme examples or exceptions do not invalidate the general rule. we couldn't function in society if we used every single extreme exception to general rules as a way of dismissing that general rule.

---

(May 13, 2012 at 5:24 pm)genkaus Wrote: Apparently, even people in Vedic India understood the concept better than you do, since they classified humans in three genders - male, female and indeterminate.

A universally applicable definition of male and female. Or is there no such thing as male and female? If there is, give a universally applicable definition.

I understand it just fine, what I'm asking you for is a definition of each category, (male and female would suffice) that, in your own terms, is "universally applicable" otherwise the definition is invalid.


"If the validity of the principle does not rely on its universal applicability then by definition that argument is invalidated" Genkaus

---

It is quite clear to anyone of sound mind that male and female do exist, but for every definition an exception can be found, it would be absurd to then say it must mean that male and female don't really exist. In the same way it can be clearly seen that male and female unions are procreative in nature, using exceptions does not invalidate the general rule.

exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis

Why do we need a general rule when it come to love and marriages, love is love, marriage is between two people. Whats your fucking problem, you just don't like the idea of gay marriage? then don't get married to a man for fucks sack. It's always the religious holding back on progress.
There were same sex marriage before xianity arrived, and fucked us over.
Grow up and stop acting like a two year old who can't have his own way.
Religion had it turn of ruling the world, you fucked it up, its over, deal with it. Time for science and sanity to lead the world. Religion give it 100-200 years will only be in the history books.

(May 13, 2012 at 5:26 pm)StatCrux Wrote: In summary so far, I claimed that the union of a male and female in principle is open to procreation, same sex unions are not.

Except, your so called "general rule", is not a general rule at all.

(May 13, 2012 at 5:26 pm)StatCrux Wrote: Genkaus raised the issue of infertile couples saying that invalidates the argument.

In comparison, I asked for a definition of male and female, but raised the issue of AIS, so the question is does AIS invalidate the definitions of male and female?

And the answer to that was, yes, it would.

(May 13, 2012 at 5:26 pm)StatCrux Wrote: I would say that extreme examples or exceptions do not invalidate the general rule. we couldn't function in society if we used every single extreme exception to general rules as a way of dismissing that general rule.

Unless we can find that the rule is not applicable, the exception would require a reconfiguration of the rule. A general rule is invalidated by an exception.

(May 13, 2012 at 5:26 pm)StatCrux Wrote: A universally applicable definition of male and female. Or is there no such thing as male and female? If there is, give a universally applicable definition.

I understand it just fine, what I'm asking you for is a definition of each category, (male and female would suffice) that, in your own terms, is "universally applicable" otherwise the definition is invalid.


"If the validity of the principle does not rely on its universal applicability then by definition that argument is invalidated" Genkaus

---

It is quite clear to anyone of sound mind that male and female do exist, but for every definition an exception can be found, it would be absurd to then say it must mean that male and female don't really exist. In the same way it can be clearly seen that male and female unions are procreative in nature, using exceptions does not invalidate the general rule.

exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis

Bullshit. Just because we don't know the exact definition does not mean that there cannot be one. Clearly, males and females do exist. Also clearly, there are beings which cannot be classified as either according to existing definitions - thereby showing the existing definitions are incorrect. Once we find the exception, we must reform the definition in order for better classification. We may continue using the outdated, invalidated "general rule", but with the full knowledge that it is incorrect and would be replaced as soon as a more suitable one is available.

With regards to marriage, since your "general rule" is obviously invalid, a new one is required and is present. Therefore, rather than clinging on to that notion, you should focus on the robustness of the new concept.

(May 13, 2012 at 5:38 pm)Gooders1002 Wrote: Why do we need a general rule when it come to love and marriages, love is love, marriage is between two people. Whats your fucking problem, you just don't like the idea of gay marriage? then don't get married to a man for fucks sack. It's always the religious holding back on progress.
There were same sex marriage before xianity arrived, and fucked us over.
Grow up and stop acting like a two year old who can't have his own way.
Religion had it turn of ruling the world, you fucked it up, its over, deal with it. Time for science and sanity to lead the world. Religion give it 100-200 years will only be in the history books.

Perfect example of solid reasoning, totally ignore the argument and hurl insults, I'm impressed, but then this does seem to impress the less intelligent people in society, good old reverting to abuse, wins every time

Abuse is all you deserve now.