Is having sex with transgender women gay?

[CLAX1911]

This thread is proof that MAGAs priorities are completely ****ed up as they watch Trump burn the country to the ground and burn the economy to the ground and defund cancer research and make it harder to get vaccines. They're still stuck on gay people and what happens in others people's bedrooms and who sticks their dick in who.

Having an opinion on something that may not be a primary topic does not mean you disregard everything else.

I've been saying this for decades but there's something seriously wrong with a lot of people's brains that they just can't let other people be who they are. They're either born messed up, trained to be messed up, repressed or just hiding something.

Yeah I agree the desire to surgically and medically alter people is ****ed. Especially when they target children.

 

[Lisa]

That's not a right anyone has nobody has the right to business

The 1964 CRA act says that we have equal rights to equal service in a public business.

This is also not a right anyone has.

Yes, we do have the right to necessary healthcare.

So you want to invent new rights. Which is fine but explain why they're necessary.

When you crawl out from under your rock maybe you'll know.

Who said that TikTok "influencers " were knowledgeable experts? They are narcissistic nitwits who are useful to stupid people.

 

[Master Debator]

If a professional and biologist tells me that there are more than two sexes I will take that as the same thing as a professional astrophysicist telling me the Earth is flat.

Why? Explain that. You can explain why the earth isn't flat or at least we all hope you could. Explain what biologists have wrong here.

Why you haven't proven a third sex. You haven't proven that it's not in binary.

I've provided work from a biologist explaining is bimodal. Its not my fault you seem to think the only options are binary or a third sex. Don't blame me for your simple mentality.

What you're doing is insisting on a wackadoodle crackpot idea and I'm laughing at you.

And all you're doing is saying mean words as a retort because you can't use your intellect so laugh all you want.

Utter crackpot nonsense.

Ooo, more mean words....

 

[Master Debator]

I'm referring to Western society where people are allowed to cross-dress and pretend as much as they want, but where you still don't get to compete on the other sex's Olympic team just by doing so. Again going back to the billionaire example: I can pretend I'm a billionaire, but I won't get a private jet by doing so.

I already dismantled this example and have shown how western socities recognize gender as a social construct. The Olympics isnt just representative of Western society. Its an international organization made up of more than just western socities so using it as your example of western society is just false.

 

[Master Debator]

It's society's established rules-- for one, the separation of males and females in sports-- that you keep kicking against, by finding exceptions to those rules that you imagine will invalidate said rules.

1. Society isnt a monolith. In some states the rules are such that trans athletes can compete as the gender they identy as.

2. My counter argument was that this is nothing more than consensus. I don't care about consensus. Its not an objective measurement of anything.

I'm not responsible for your straw man. I didn't define the objectivity of *particular* rules in terms of consensus, but in terms of practical reality.

There is no objectivity of particular rules. What youre responsble for is this shit argument.

There's no society that doesn't have the practical need to legislate against theft and rape.

Well famously there was this one that allowed lots of rapes and theft. Of slaves. I know they dont matter to you whites though so you constantly forget about that.

Your pointing out ways that particular individuals get around the rules does not invalidate those rules in the least.

I'm pointing out that there were rules that allowed men to rape and steal and so your argument about this practical need doesn't make any sense. Its a subjective want. Slaver Founders didn't want themselves to be raped or stolen from but they were fine legalizing their ability to do it to others.

When I brought up the corrupt motives for trans women convicts to seek inclusion into women's prisons, you shifted to critique the prisons for not being able to watch every convict. That was you not holding trans women accountable for their actions.

Well your concerned seemed to be centered on rape and assault so I suggested fixing that. What's wrong with that if that is your actual concern?

And your relativistic argument discounts objective differences between the motives of the person wreaking harm and the person suffering harm.

It does not. The motive to avoid harm and the motive to harm are obviously different, objectively speaking. They are still both equally subjective. Its the same thing if I said happy and sad were equally subjective. They're both emotions, but objectively different ones.

Like I said, you want to blame the system and not the people committing the acts.

Im happy to blame both. The criminals for the acts and the prison system and our society for allowing it. A prison is a controlled environment and we control it. We cant wash our hands of the conditions we subject people to by force.

I argue that rape and assault cannot be totally prevented in prisons due to the practical limits on oversight, but virtue signaling Lefties encourage bad behavior on the part of a marginalized group and then act surprised when more women get raped and assaulted.

Totally prevented is a ridiculous standard but other western socities don't have the same levels of violence as we do in our prisons and their recidivism rates are a lot better because our goal isnt rehabilitation but cruelty with incarceration.

Lib States make laws to protect the gender identity of trans convicts even when those laws obviate the state's responsibility to biologically female convicts. Nope, no strawmen there.

Your cries about responsibility to female inmates seems to begin and end with trans prisoners. What do you think the trans population in female prisons is? Do you think they're responsible for the vast majority of rapes and assaults? I bet if you looked at those numbers it would represent a fraction of the harm females are subject to in prison.

Your argument re: "the subjectivity of desire," as phrased by you, should admit of no exceptions since you won't distinguish between the rapist and the victim. But somehow the subjective desires of the trans individual merit an exception. Why?

What? Who said I won't distinguish between a rapist and their victim? Don't bring this silly strawman here just because you have no intellectual counter argument for the equally subjective nature of all emotions and desires.

 

[Master Debator]

Still pointing out that one Rachel's subjective impressions are as valid as the other Rachel's.

Who's saying they aren't? I don't care if she identifies more with black culture. I'm just using her own words to put into context what she means when she identifies with black people.

She argued that her African identity superseded the biological reality.

Is white culture a biological reality? What's this argument about? If you're white you can't prefer In Living Color over SNL? Is that a biological preset?

That was her actual meaning when she brought up "social construct," not that she was lying, but that she felt the freedom to "construct" her own ethnic reality in defiance of society's.

Funny how you can't quote that though but I did quote her talking about how she culturally identifies more with black people.

Your subjective feelings of amusement are not supported by anything objective, least of all your false interpretation of what Dolazel meant.

I quoted her while you tried to paraphrase her in your own words. Have some self awareness.

Your lie about the lack of counter arguments was invalidated by your false criteria, which come down to the same thing you always say: "agree with me or you're frail." Yet you hypocritically complain about ad hominems.

More frail paraphrasing. Quote me.

 

[Ouroboros]

Science is objective and so are the results. There is not social or ideological about interpreting the results, unless someone is trying to spin the results to an ignorant audience.

That's a very old and very tired argument. Roland Barthes in the fifties tried to argue, for example, that religion was ideological while Marxist beliefs in the rise of the proletariat was perfectly sane and logical. Try to avoid the obvious distortion of me claiming your beliefs to be the same as Barthes'. I merely want to give a little historical perspective. Everyone who promotes particular political agendas has an ideology and it's foolish to pretend otherwise. Rather than claiming you have none, you ought to take the superior position (as I do) of having more support for an ideology than does the opponent.

 

[Ouroboros]

There are no such thing as trans advocates except for those fighting for equal rights. There is no such thing as trans ideology unless you also believe there is a cancer, diabetes or depression ideology. This is purely a medical condition defined by psychological factors.

Gender Dysphoria DSM-5 302.85 (F64.9) - Therapedia

www.theravive.com

See post 432.

 

[Ouroboros]

This thread is proof that MAGAs priorities are completely ****ed up as they watch Trump burn the country to the ground and burn the economy to the ground and defund cancer research and make it harder to get vaccines. They're still stuck on gay people and what happens in others people's bedrooms and who sticks their dick in who.

I've been saying this for decades but there's something seriously wrong with a lot of people's brains that they just can't let other people be who they are. They're either born messed up, trained to be messed up, repressed or just hiding something.

"People being who they are" does not include men playing in women's sports in order to take advantage of genetic factors. It's a scam, nothing more.

 

[Ouroboros]

Who's saying they aren't? I don't care if she identifies more with black culture. I'm just using her own words to put into context what she means when she identifies with black people.

Your context is not her context.

Is white culture a biological reality? What's this argument about? If you're white you can't prefer In Living Color over SNL? Is that a biological preset?

You would have to ask Dolazel because she considered Black culture to be her culture, not just a preference.

Funny how you can't quote that though but I did quote her talking about how she culturally identifies more with black people.

I already quoted the relevant passage about Dolazel's belief but you chose to dodge in the most frail manner.

I quoted her while you tried to paraphrase her in your own words. Have some self awareness.

I am fully aware that you do not scruple against lying for perceived advantage.

More frail paraphrasing. Quote me.

I already exposed your frail paraphrasing of Dolazel. Keep digging in deeper; I'm sure the pile you're in will eventually seem to smell better as you get used to it.

 

[CaughtInThe]

"People being who they are" does not include men playing in women's sports in order to take advantage of genetic factors. It's a scam, nothing more.

I'm against ex men playing against women in sports but good try trying to change the point of my post which is...

That there's something seriously messed up in people's brains that they can't let other people have sex with whomever they want to have sex with. It's some kind of ****ed up obsession or worse. They need to see psychologists.

 

[Ouroboros]

1. Society isnt a monolith. In some states the rules are such that trans athletes can compete as the gender they identy as.

And some states used to believe in keeping slaves, so that too "proves" that society isn't a "monolith." If you want to believe that slavery was in any way morally wrong-- and your previous posts indicate that you do believe this, no matter how much you dodge-- then it's just as easy to demonstrate that states advocating trans athletes are committing moral wrongs. But neither case proves that states don't need laws or that laws are purely subjective.

2. My counter argument was that this is nothing more than consensus. I don't care about consensus. Its not an objective measurement of anything.

There's equally nothing objective about the causes you have stumped for here. You advocate a particular consensus of a segment of society rather than of society as a whole, that's all.

There is no objectivity of particular rules. What youre responsble for is this shit argument.

I'm not responsible for your misreading of my arguments, simply because you didn't understand them.

Well famously there was this one that allowed lots of rapes and theft. Of slaves. I know they dont matter to you whites though so you constantly forget about that.

And those were gamings of the system, while the system itself was about the practical reality of protecting citizens against rape and theft. But yeah, keep on defining rules by their exceptions. Next you'll say that math is racist.

I'm pointing out that there were rules that allowed men to rape and steal and so your argument about this practical need doesn't make any sense. Its a subjective want. Slaver Founders didn't want themselves to be raped or stolen from but they were fine legalizing their ability to do it to others.

It's absolutely false that every society's need to legislate against rape and theft is a "subjective want." More attempts to define by exception. And BTW you're using the same circular logic as any slave society that claimed that owners could do as they pleased to slaves because slaves were property. That was an exception, so you ought to like it.

Well your concerned seemed to be centered on rape and assault so I suggested fixing that. What's wrong with that if that is your actual concern?

I stated that the trans ideology was being used to perpetrate more rape and assault, and your response was to claim that the added assaults don't matter more than your ideology.

It does not. The motive to avoid harm and the motive to harm are obviously different, objectively speaking. They are still both equally subjective. Its the same thing if I said happy and sad were equally subjective. They're both emotions, but objectively different ones.

They are still not equally subjective just because of your false definitions.

Im happy to blame both. The criminals for the acts and the prison system and our society for allowing it. A prison is a controlled environment and we control it. We cant wash our hands of the conditions we subject people to by force.

But again you prove that your ideology is more important than additional sufferings. Good one.

 

[Ouroboros]

PART 2--

Totally prevented is a ridiculous standard but other western socities don't have the same levels of violence as we do in our prisons and their recidivism rates are a lot better because our goal isnt rehabilitation but cruelty with incarceration.

Ooh, a cross-cultural comparison that makes the US look bad. What a surprise. Tell us all about how quickly the Arab countries would have banned slavery had Europe not turned against the practice.

Your cries about responsibility to female inmates seems to begin and end with trans prisoners. What do you think the trans population in female prisons is? Do you think they're responsible for the vast majority of rapes and assaults? I bet if you looked at those numbers it would represent a fraction of the harm females are subject to in prison.

It doesn't matter if trans people are responsible for the majority of assaults. I cited three examples of assaults that were made more possible because of trans ideology. You attempted to change the subject to the problem of prison rape generally, which is irrelevant to the question of whether trans ideology gives lawbreakers a new way to commit crimes in prison.

What? Who said I won't distinguish between a rapist and their victim? Don't bring this silly strawman here just because you have no intellectual counter argument for the equally subjective nature of all emotions and desires.

You've already conflated the rapist and the victim so you've already blown the whole argument. Congratulations.

 

[Ouroboros]

I'm against ex men playing against women in sports but good try trying to change the point of my post which is...

That there's something seriously messed up in people's brains that they can't let other people have sex with whomever they want to have sex with. It's some kind of ****ed up obsession or worse. They need to see psychologists.

"Trans women in sports" is just the most extreme example of an LGBT-etc ideological stance that many find harmful to society. It's not just what people do in private, it's about what ideologues try to change about society's rules.

 

[Master Debator]

Your context is not her context.

My context came from her direct quotes. You're only paraphrasing because you can't make your argument fit with what she actually said.

You would have to ask Dolazel because she considered Black culture to be her culture, not just a preference.

We don't have to ask her, I quoted her saying how she identifies more with black culture. You again are trying to infuse your interpretation over her own words.

I already quoted the relevant passage about Dolazel's belief but you chose to dodge in the most frail manner.

I did not. I put it into context with all the other quotes from your own link which were about cultural identification. You're the one trying to dodge those quotes.

I am fully aware that you do not scruple against lying for perceived advantage.

Every argument of mine you can't assault is a lie. How frail of you.

I already exposed your frail paraphrasing of Dolazel. Keep digging in deeper; I'm sure the pile you're in will eventually seem to smell better as you get used to it.

I didn't paraphrase her, I copied her quotes. Would you like me to do it to you again?

 

[CaughtInThe]

"Trans women in sports" is just the most extreme example of an LGBT-etc ideological stance that many find harmful to society. It's not just what people do in private, it's about what ideologues try to change about society's rules.

Actually, you might be a great test subject.

Why do you care who sticks their dick in whom? Does that include straight males as well? Is that how you were born or how you were trained?

 

[Lisa]

That's a very old and very tired argument. Roland Barthes in the fifties tried to argue, for example, that religion was ideological while Marxist beliefs in the rise of the proletariat was perfectly sane and logical. Try to avoid the obvious distortion of me claiming your beliefs to be the same as Barthes'. I merely want to give a little historical perspective. Everyone who promotes particular political agendas has an ideology and it's foolish to pretend otherwise. Rather than claiming you have none, you ought to take the superior position (as I do) of having more support for an ideology than does the opponent.

Gender identity/dysphoria is apolitical. Its purely a medical condition that politics play no role in.

Gender ideology does not exist outside of TikTok.

 

[Ouroboros]

Actually, you might be a great test subject.

Why do you care who sticks their dick in whom? Does that include straight males as well? Is that how you were born or how you were trained?

Yawn, I understand you think repeating your fake screed will impress other Mad Libs here, but to others it comes off as desperate.

 

[Ouroboros]

Gender identity/dysphoria is apolitical. Its purely a medical condition that politics play no role in.

Gender ideology does not exist outside of TikTok.

Didn't incidences of gender dysphoria increase statistically once ideologues began propounding the idea that it was "cool?"

Kids got seduced by those ideologies, not by the half-baked claims to scientific support. This remains an ideological contest, not a science discussion.

 

[Lisa]

Didn't incidences of gender dysphoria increase statistically once ideologues began propounding the idea that it was "cool?"

There are no gender ideologues. Stay off of TikTok and Twittler.

Kids got seduced by those ideologies, not by the half-baked claims to scientific support. This remains an ideological contest, not a science discussion.

This isn't medically possible.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Yawn, I understand you think repeating your fake screed will impress other Mad Libs here, but to others it comes off as desperate.

No, I'm curious.

Why do you care who sticks their dick in whom, have you always been like that and do you care if the guy is straight (and where he sticks his dick)?

 

[Master Debator]

And some states used to believe in keeping slaves, so that too "proves" that society isn't a "monolith." If you want to believe that slavery was in any way morally wrong-- and your previous posts indicate that you do believe this, no matter how much you dodge-- then it's just as easy to demonstrate that states advocating trans athletes are committing moral wrongs.

I don't believe in any objective morality and I don't know which of my arguments made you think differently. Morally wrong is a silly fairy tale to me. I find slavery personally and subjectively detestable but morally wrong, no.

But neither case proves that states don't need laws or that laws are purely subjective.

I never said States don't need laws. In fact in the atheist thread I argued that laws and rules are an inherent necessity to organization. They are subjective though. The fact that laws and rules are merely a form of consensus is the proof that they are subjective. We don't discover civil laws like we do laws of nature, we are their crafters and creators.

There's equally nothing objective about the causes you have stumped for here. You advocate a particular consensus of a segment of society rather than of society as a whole, that's all.

Im not shying away from the fact that the laws I advocate for are equally subjective. That's not what my argument is about. My argument is about how there is nothing objectively inconsistent about trans identities.

I'm not responsible for your misreading of my arguments, simply because you didn't understand them.

What don't I understand about your argument that you'd like to clarify?

And those were gamings of the system, while the system itself was about the practical reality of protecting citizens against rape and theft. But yeah, keep on defining rules by their exceptions. Next you'll say that math is racist.

I'm defining things with objective reality, you're the one who's argument is reliant on subjective rules.

It's absolutely false that every society's need to legislate against rape and theft is a "subjective want." More attempts to define by exception.

Here's the thing that's wrong with your argument. Objective things don't have exceptions. Subjective things do because they are made up. You're trying to define something as objectively false while relying on something purely subjective as your measurement. How can it be objectively false to say societies need to legislate against rape and theft is a subjective want? Did the Slaver Founders legislate against the raping and robbing slaves of the product of their labor? Yes or no? This is a fact based question. No exceptions involved. See how that works? Jesus ****ing Christ.....

And BTW you're using the same circular logic as any slave society that claimed that owners could do as they pleased to slaves because slaves were property. That was an exception, so you ought to like it.

Why do I have to like it just because I recognize it for what it actually is which is subjective preference? And they did do whatever they wanted to their slaves. That happened. That was a real objective thing that occured. You're confusing how you feel about it with objective reality.

I stated that the trans ideology was being used to perpetrate more rape and assault, and your response was to claim that the added assaults don't matter more than your ideology.

No. My counter argument was that tran prisoners are just as often the victims of rape and assault as they are the perpetrators, if not more so. They have higher rates of victimization than other inmates. And that if your concern was rape and assault of prisoners that we should maybe just address that rather than simply being satisfied that rapes and assaults are mutually exclusive along biological sex lines.

They are still not equally subjective just because of your false definitions.

Do you have a better counter argument than "not uh"? What objective thing gives one desire more objective value than another?

But again you prove that your ideology is more important than additional sufferings. Good one.

How is that conveyed by me wanting no rapes or assaults on prison?

 

[Master Debator]

PART 2--


Ooh, a cross-cultural comparison that makes the US look bad. What a surprise. Tell us all about how quickly the Arab countries would have banned slavery had Europe not turned against the practice.

What do your feelings for Arabs have to do with whether or not we could improve safety in our prison and reduce recidivism rates? I'm not seeing the connection or any attempt at an actual counter argument. Did a Muslim cut you off in traffic or something?

It doesn't matter if trans people are responsible for the majority of assaults. I cited three examples of assaults that were made more possible because of trans ideology.

Is trans ideology pro rape or something? Evidence?

You attempted to change the subject to the problem of prison rape generally, which is irrelevant to the question of whether trans ideology gives lawbreakers a new way to commit crimes in prison.

Prison rape in general isnt relevant to your argument about trans rapes in prison? Why? Because that would be intellectually inconvenient for you?

You've already conflated the rapist and the victim so you've already blown the whole argument. Congratulations.

Conflated how? With the objectively correct statement that all desire is equally subjective? Have you successfully countered that argument with anything other than "not uh" yet?

 

[Master Debator]

Didn't incidences of gender dysphoria increase statistically once ideologues began propounding the idea that it was "cool?"

Kids got seduced by those ideologies, not by the half-baked claims to scientific support. This remains an ideological contest, not a science discussion.

Ironic since this seems to be a half baked claim without any science to support it. Go ahead and link to the one "scientific study" supporting the social contagion theory so we can all laugh and discuss the merits of basing your findings on phone calls to parents registered on anti trans websites.

 

[Lisa]

Ironic since this seems to be a half baked claim without any science to support it. Go ahead and link to the one "scientific study" supporting the social contagion theory so we can all laugh and discuss the merits of basing your findings on phone calls to parents registered on anti trans websites.

'Social contagion' isn’t causing more youths to be transgender, study finds

The study, published in Pediatrics, disputes the theory that more adolescents, particularly those assigned female at birth, are identifying as trans due to social influence.

www.nbcnews.com