Is having sex with transgender women gay?

[Ouroboros]

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

Already made my argument that Dolazel directly said that she believed her Blackness was essential to her. You lied and said she claimed she was just pretending. She said nothing of the kind.

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.

But you said that her identification was a pretense, and Dolazel did not say that.

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.

Still the same old garbage.

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

I'm not responsible for your distortions or your subjective evaluation of them.

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

Here's one akin to the one I quoted before, just to see if you can come up with something new.

“WHEN I TELL PEOPLE I STILL IDENTIFY AS BLACK, they want to know why. I explain that Black is the closest descriptive category that represents the essential essence of who I am. For me, Blackness is more than a set of racialized physical features.”

So she's directly saying that Blackness is not "racialized physical features," which remains your position, that any claim she makes to Blackness is pretense. When you heard her say "race is a social construct," you assumed she was agreeing with you. By all means, demonstrate how "essential essence" translates to "pretense" in your world.

 

[Lisa]

I get all my crazy ideologues here; no need to visit either of those places.

It isn't medically possible for adolescents to imagine gender dysphoria?

This is what psychologists and psychiatrists are trained tio determine.

What's the scientific test that proves whether the dysphoria is real or not?

An MRI has shown some potential to make this determination but its usually done by Drs and therapists asking the patient questions. Currently the sucess rate is more than 95%, despite what you have been told.

I didn't ask you that.

I was talking about lesbian spaces.

There are no such thing as lesbian spaces because even in lesbian bars cisgender and passing trans women are welcome became they might be bi or closeted seeking their first experience. . LGBT bars are not lesbian-only spaces. It is very obvious that you still do not understand gender identity.

Just answer the question why is that so hard

Keep your fetishes to yourself.

You are the one who was claiming in the past that trans guys were hitting on you and refused to take no for an answer.

 

[Ouroboros]

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)?

You have me confused with the OP, which is not surprising; Mad Libs are often confused, which confusion has nothing to do with curiosity. Typically they have no curiosity; they think they've solved all problems with their petty bromides.

 

[CaughtInThe]

You have me confused with the OP, which is not surprising; Mad Libs are often confused, which confusion has nothing to do with curiosity. Typically they have no curiosity; they think they've solved all problems with their petty bromides.

You could have just answered the question.

 

[Master Debator]

Already made my argument that Dolazel directly said that she believed her Blackness was essential to her.

What does that even mean for your argument? Your arguments get less defined the meeker and meeker I make you.

You lied and said she claimed she was just pretending. She said nothing of the kind.

No. You claimed she really thought she was black and I used her own quotes to put that into context of her meaning culturally, not that she believed she had the DNA of someone of African descent. Since I can absolutely quote again her talking about her cultural connection to Blackness you're here with this meek ass argument about how it's essential to her.

Also of course she was pretending to be of African descent, that's what the **** she's famous for. She didn't present herself as a white woman who loved black culture to the NAACP, she presented herself as someone who was of African descent.

But you said that her identification was a pretense, and Dolazel did not say that.

I said her presenting herself as being of African descent was a pretense. She can identify culturally with whoever she wants.

Still the same old garbage.

I'm not responsible for your distortions or your subjective evaluation of them.

Sure thing Mr. Essential. You're the one using the least clearly defined quote to try to explain where she was coming from when there are a number of them that openly talk about her cultural connection.

Here's one akin to the one I quoted before, just to see if you can come up with something new.

Why would that quote make me need to come up with something new? That quote supports me. She's saying her Blackness comes from something other than physical characteristics, i.e biology. What the **** do you think that leaves you with?

Let me help you out since I have no confidence you can get there on your own.

CULTURE

So she's directly saying that Blackness is not "racialized physical features," which remains your position, that any claim she makes to Blackness is pretense. When you heard her say "race is a social construct," you assumed she was agreeing with you. By all means, demonstrate how "essential essence" translates to "pretense" in your world.

No that isn't my position. I'm sure that's what you want my position to be now that shit all over your argument but it's not. I don't know what the **** she's means when she says it's essential to her but race is a social construct. I have no problem with her identifying as black, socially, and said so. None of that changes the fact that she pretended to be of African descent to the NAACP. Your DNA is not a social construct.

 

[Ouroboros]

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.

I only said that you clearly objected to slavery on moral grounds; I didn't speak of "objective morality" with respect to your confused beliefs. If you object to slavery on personal moral grounds, that's still a moral argument even if you claim your morals are purely subjective. The fact remains that if your personal moral system allows you to claim that the rapist's desire to rape is just as "subjective" as the victim's desire not to be raped, then the slave's desire not to be raped means no more than the slaveowner's desire to rape, and your whole argument is merely your expression of personal pique.

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.

"merely a form of consensus" is just the return of your false argument that if you find what you deem an exception to a societal law, that means that the law is merely subjective. But of course you don't come up with a real-world exception. The universal proposition "societies must codify laws against rape of citizens" is not the least bit nullified by "slaveowners can rape slaves because the slaves aren't viewed as free citizens." For your exception-based argument to work, you would have to find a society that makes no laws against rape at all, not just that some societies make exceptions under particular circumstances

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.

As I said to Lisa, the fact that you accept ideological interpretations of *some* scientific evidence does not mean that all scientific evidence on the subject has been incontrovertibly "discovered," to use your chosen word. You've merely chosen to believe certain interpretations, which are in your world subjective in nature.

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

My arguments were perfectly clear and not any more subject to your distortions now than they were before. See above for one of those distortions.

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

And right away, here's another of your distortions. Yet you're the one who has complained when you think someone has not correctly represented your confused beliefs.

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.....

It remains a fact, as I said above, that the laws made special provisions for people who were not citizens, and thus those laws do not reflect on the laws that were meant to apply to citizens. The latter is not a subjective want in the least. And the fact is that sciences like biology are replete with exceptions. "Mammals are creatures that bear their young alive, EXCEPT when they belong to the category of monotremes." But the existence of monotremes does not disprove the broad generality that mammals bear their young alive, any more than the rape of slaves proves that laws against rape are merely subjective.

 

[Ouroboros]

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.

Nope, it's your confused subjective feelings, which you've claimed to be objective, that I addressed.

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.

"Higher rates" is a bullshit argument. If there would even be three less rapes of real females by fake females, then banning fake females from female prisons is the policy rooted in objectivity, not your opinion that fake females are justified to represent themselves as females because of whatever biological argument you consider incontrovertible. Which opinion is completely subjective.

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

Logical necessity, which I've already defined with numerous examples.

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

You don't care about the greater possibility of rapes justified by trans ideology, only about stumping for that ideology. From that I conclude that you don't really care about rapes in prison as a whole either, except as a club with which to beat the authorities. Poor victimized prisoners, nothing's their fault!

 

[Ouroboros]

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?

I mentioned them because I knew you wouldn't condemn their far longer history of slavery because it doesn't offend your subjective feelings, not because of my feelings. Just your usual fabrications.

Is trans ideology pro rape or something? Evidence?

As I've said, trans ideologues are evidently ok with rape because they think the rights of trans criminals more important than those of biological women.

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

Your "in general" screed is just another excuse not to penalize the marginalized group you've chosen to champion, and that's your intellectual dishonesty.

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?

I've made the arguments and you just keep clinging to your exceptions, as if they proved anything objective. Good luck with that.

 

[Ouroboros]

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.

Given that you only credence scientific studies that tell you what you want to hear, why would I bother trying to dispel your confused belief in objective science?

 

[Ouroboros]

'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

And if some other study says the opposite, you'll do the same as MD, assume that it has no validity because it contradicts your ideology. He even jumped the gun by assuming that any such contravening study would arise from "parents making phone calls" or some such BS.

 

[Ouroboros]

It's representative of that organization which isn't even an exclusively western one and that organization does indeed recognize gender as a social construct and allows trans people to compete as the gender they identify with provided they were on hormone blockers and didn't go through male puberty. Your argument is just bad. The Olympics position isn't that trans isn't a real thing, it's that some trans athletes might have an unfair advantage in some instances.

So if other societies don't agree with American society, the first ones must be right and America must be wrong. How subjective of you.

 

[Lisa]

And if some other study says the opposite, you'll do the same as MD, assume that it has no validity because it contradicts your ideology. He even jumped the gun by assuming that any such contravening study would arise from "parents making phone calls" or some such BS.

There are no studies that contradict it.

I have no ideology.

 

[Ouroboros]

This is what psychologists and psychiatrists are trained tio determine.


An MRI has shown some potential to make this determination but its usually done by Drs and therapists asking the patient questions. Currently the sucess rate is more than 95%, despite what you have been told.




There are no such thing as lesbian spaces because even in lesbian bars cisgender and passing trans women are welcome became they might be bi or closeted seeking their first experience. . LGBT bars are not lesbian-only spaces. It is very obvious that you still do not understand gender identity.

You are the one who was claiming in the past that trans guys were hitting on you and refused to take no for an answer.

And we all know that psychiatrists and psychologists are never swayed by the societies in which they live. Like all the doctors that agreed that gayness could be cured with electroshock and injections.

 

[Ouroboros]

You could have just answered the question.

I don't answer the dull stupid questions, only the demented ones, which is why I keep talking to MD.

 

[CaughtInThe]

I don't answer the dull stupid questions, only the demented ones, which is why I keep talking to MD.

Do you care where straight dudes stick their dicks? As long as it's consensual?

 

[Ouroboros]

There are no studies that contradict it.

I have no ideology.

Say it again; it's funnier every time.

 

[Ouroboros]

Do you care where straight dudes stick their dicks? As long as it's consensual?

See post 489.

 

[CaughtInThe]

See post 489.

You could just answer a simple question.

 

[Ouroboros]

What does that even mean for your argument? Your arguments get less defined the meeker and meeker I make you.

No. You claimed she really thought she was black and I used her own quotes to put that into context of her meaning culturally, not that she believed she had the DNA of someone of African descent. Since I can absolutely quote again her talking about her cultural connection to Blackness you're here with this meek ass argument about how it's essential to her.

And you conveniently overlooked the quote I just provided, in which Dolazel said she did not accept the idea that Blackness was determined by genetics. How meek of you.

Also of course she was pretending to be of African descent, that's what the **** she's famous for. She didn't present herself as a white woman who loved black culture to the NAACP, she presented herself as someone who was of African descent.

And after that imposture was exposed, she justified it by saying that her Blackness transcended genetics.

I said her presenting herself as being of African descent was a pretense. She can identify culturally with whoever she wants.

She never said her identification was a pretense, as you did.

Sure thing Mr. Essential. You're the one using the least clearly defined quote to try to explain where she was coming from when there are a number of them that openly talk about her cultural connection.

What's this "least clearly defined quote" crap? You still haven't shown one in which she admitted her identification was a pretense.

Why would that quote make me need to come up with something new? That quote supports me. She's saying her Blackness comes from something other than physical characteristics, i.e biology. What the **** do you think that leaves you with?

She clearly considers herself Black because she identifies with the culture, the same way biological men identity with females.

Let me help you out since I have no confidence you can get there on your own.

CULTURE

It leaves me with the same thing as before: that she doesn't deem her identification a pretense.

No that isn't my position. I'm sure that's what you want my position to be now that shit all over your argument but it's not. I don't know what the **** she's means when she says it's essential to her but race is a social construct. I have no problem with her identifying as black, socially, and said so. None of that changes the fact that she pretended to be of African descent to the NAACP. Your DNA is not a social construct.

Is race a social or biological construct? I don't claim that her argument is any clearer than yours but since you're opposing her actual argument, you ought to try defining your terms better.

 

[craig]

I would use the modern word fun.

 

[Master Debator]

I only said that you clearly objected to slavery on moral grounds; I didn't speak of "objective morality" with respect to your confused beliefs.

So then why would your argument be about my feelings towards slavers? If your argument isn't about me believing slavery to be an objective wrong then its about my personal sentiments regarding slavery. Whats inconsistent about me having personal sentiments and feelings? I am a human being. We all tend to have them. Usually.

If you object to slavery on personal moral grounds, that's still a moral argument even if you claim your morals are purely subjective.

Ok but what is the moral argument you think I'm making there? Its not that slavery is wrong in any objective sense, just personally detestable. How does that make any of my other arguments inconsistent or hypocritical or whatever it was you were accusing of me being because I honestly forgot.

The fact remains that if your personal moral system allows you to claim that the rapist's desire to rape is just as "subjective" as the victim's desire not to be raped, then the slave's desire not to be raped means no more than the slaveowner's desire to rape, and your whole argument is merely your expression of personal pique.

Yes.

Again, it's almost like you don't understand what subjective means.

And it's not my personal moral system that recognizes this truth about morality or claims of right or wrong, its my intellect. How I feel about things is one thing and what I know about things is something else. I know any value you try to assign one over the other comes from your own personal pique.

"merely a form of consensus" is just the return of your false argument that if you find what you deem an exception to a societal law, that means that the law is merely subjective.

Are laws crafted by people? Then they're subjective. What do you find hard to understand about that? How are laws not a representation of the personal piques of the people who crafted them? Are you suggesting these are natural laws? That their values are discovered through observation as opposed to imposed through acts of force?

But of course you don't come up with a real-world exception.

What I came up with was a real world example of how your argument is objectively wrong. You claim laws against rape are objectively necessary to society and yet this society allowed a lot of legal raping. That's not being objectively opposed to rape. That's objectively allowing rape. You don't know what the **** these words mean.

The universal proposition "societies must codify laws against rape of citizens" is not the least bit nullified by "slaveowners can rape slaves because the slaves aren't viewed as free citizens."

So these law makers were using their personal piques to decide who gets to be protected from rape and who they get to legally rape? Sounds like subjectivity to me guy. Maybe look up the definitions.....

For your exception-based argument to work, you would have to find a society that makes no laws against rape at all, not just that some societies make exceptions under particular circumstances

You're describing subjectivity and you don't even know it....

As I said to Lisa, the fact that you accept ideological interpretations of *some* scientific evidence does not mean that all scientific evidence on the subject has been incontrovertibly "discovered," to use your chosen word. You've merely chosen to believe certain interpretations, which are in your world subjective in nature.

Their findings aren't subjective, only your feelings about them are.

My arguments were perfectly clear and not any more subject to your distortions now than they were before. See above for one of those distortions.

And right away, here's another of your distortions. Yet you're the one who has complained when you think someone has not correctly represented your confused beliefs.

It remains a fact, as I said above, that the laws made special provisions for people who were not citizens, and thus those laws do not reflect on the laws that were meant to apply to citizens.

Wives could be raped by their husbands in this country up until the 90s.

 

[Master Debator]

The latter is not a subjective want in the least. And the fact is that sciences like biology are replete with exceptions. "Mammals are creatures that bear their young alive, EXCEPT when they belong to the category of monotremes." But the existence of monotremes does not disprove the broad generality that mammals bear their young alive, any more than the rape of slaves proves that laws against rape are merely subjective.

That's because Mammals is a category created by humans and what did I say about categories again? Do you remember? You're finding exceptions to things we subjectively constructed, not nature. Nature just is. For the organisms who birth live offspring that is objectively true for them and for the ones who don't that is objectively true for them. Its us trying to fit what we see into organized groups for our own subjective purposes where we find our purposes don't neatly align with nature.

 

[butterfly]

Dear Democrats, I am aware you believe that transwomen count as women. Even if not biological women, so my question is, do people having sex with a transgender "woman" count as gay, or are they straight for having sex with a woman?

Gay, I don't know. Perhaps, jolly.

 

[Master Debator]

Nope, it's your confused subjective feelings, which you've claimed to be objective, that I addressed.

Where have I claimed my feelings to be objective?

Quote me.

"Higher rates" is a bullshit argument. If there would even be three less rapes of real females by fake females, then banning fake females from female prisons is the policy rooted in objectivity, not your opinion that fake females are justified to represent themselves as females because of whatever biological argument you consider incontrovertible. Which opinion is completely subjective.

It's not a bullshit argument. It highlights that like the slaver Founders you're not concerned with rape itself just a particular set of rapes.

Logical necessity, which I've already defined with numerous examples.

What is logical necessity? What you try to present as necessity is simply subjective desire.

You don't care about the greater possibility of rapes justified by trans ideology, only about stumping for that ideology.

Yet I'm the one actually advocating for ending the rampant violence allowed in our prisons while your main concern are a set of rapes that represent a fraction of the abuse females receive in prison compared to abuse from other females and guards.

From that I conclude that you don't really care about rapes in prison as a whole either, except as a club with which to beat the authorities. Poor victimized prisoners, nothing's their fault!

Conclude away but we can all read your arguments!

 

[Master Debator]

Given that you only credence scientific studies that tell you what you want to hear, why would I bother trying to dispel your confused belief in objective science?

There there. That's totally a reason to be frail and not present anything at all. Go ahead!