I'd be happy to go over the merits of their findings if you weren't being so frail about it. My counter argument certainly wouldnt be as meek as maybe they're wrong. Maybe other people feel differently...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.
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.
Right. And I have no problem with her cultural identification with blackness. In fact thats what cultural victory looks like. White people adopting black culture because white culture is too deplorable for them.And after that imposture was exposed, she justified it by saying that her Blackness transcended genetics.
I said she pretended to have been born in Africa or was an African queen and then presented the quotes where she said just that. Do I need to do so again?She never said her identification was a pretense, as you did.
What I said is that she would pretend to be from Africa because that's what she said but that she never actually thought she had African DNA.What's this "least clearly defined quote" crap? You still haven't shown one in which she admitted her identification was a pretense.
I would pretend to be a dark skinned princess in the Sahara Desert or one of the Bantu women living in the Congo...
Except it's not the same thing. She has no biological connection to Africa in the way trans people do to their sex identities be it genetic or epigenetic.She clearly considers herself Black because she identifies with the culture, the same way biological men identity with females.
And? What is this argument about? She also says she wouldn't call herself African American because her identification is with the culture not biology. She isnt suffering a conflict between her body and brain.It leaves me with the same thing as before: that she doesn't deem her identification a pretense.
Race is a social construct. I don't disagree with that portion of her argument. I disagree with her claims she didn't try to deceive people. She did absolutely present herself as being of African descent including trying to pass off a black acquaintance of hers as her father.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.
Then you tell me what trans ideology is? I'm bored and could use the humor.Say it again; it's funnier every time.
Feel free to define the word woman.Second Post, first ad hominem - why do I not wonder?
I condemn all slavery, including Muslim slavery, your frail fantasies not withstanding....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.
Can you quote me where I or anyone said they were OK with rape?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.
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.
Right. For clarity, you're the one with the counter argument that slave rapes are meaningless exceptions to your objective rule.I've made the arguments and you just keep clinging to your exceptions, as if they proved anything objective. Good luck with that.
So you can't answer the question I will assume that it's because you know this is homophobic.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.
Again I was talking about lesbians spaces. You are so dishonest you cannot answer this question or even frame it correctly.. LGBT bars are not lesbian-only spaces.
I don't care about gender identity.It is very obvious that you still do not understand gender identity.
I didn't claim that but have whatever fantasy you need.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.
Once again, the bottom line is that "gender identity" is not enough.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.
Who said "trans" isn't real? It's real men cross-dressing as pretend women, and sometimes the other way around. As for cases where some organizations play along with the game, it usually comes with physical requirements (as you pointed out) to cancel out real physical differences between men and women that were the reason for the segregation in the first place.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.
Everybody does fit neatly within one or the other you either produce a large gimme or a small gamete and there's nothing else.And calling sex binary would make sense if we all neatly fit into one or the other category but we dont, hence the term bimodal rather than binary.
If you're reproductive system doesn't work it's defective disorders pretty much a synonym in this case so I'm sure that'll work too.Defective is your word. Disorder is the term that biologists and health professionals use because defective implies that their bodies were made wrong rather than just different than how we normally see them ordered. These are people with biological differences than you. They exist. Try not to let that scare you.
You either produce a sperm or an egg there's nothing else.You didn't show everyone fits neatly into either category, you're just name calling the people who don't to avoid addressing the fault in your logic.
The fact that you're crying about the only evidence that would be acceptable means you understand.This third sex thing remains your silly and weak strawman.
I don't care. Sex is binary.I linked to you the paper from the biologist trying to explain to you what bimodal means.
I have no doubt at all it's that simple in your simple mind. Maybe it's your thought process that's binary....
You didn't. You amused me with your argument based in your feelings.
I think children who had their puberty stolen from them are victims of sexual abuse. And any doctor or parent that signs off on this should be arrested.Once again, the bottom line is that "gender identity" is not enough.
I heard that it's different because reasons and the reasons are not very clear.Who said "trans" isn't real? It's real men cross-dressing as pretend women, and sometimes the other way around.
I think this is part of the gaslighting that there is no difference between men and women.As for cases where some organizations play along with the game, it usually comes with physical requirements (as you pointed out) to cancel out real physical differences between men and women that were the reason for the segregation in the first place.
I don't disbelieve this claim, since I've heard others assert that trans ideologues aren't exactly tolerant of "LGB." But are you thinking of any particular examples, for the (potential) edification of others here?TQ+, not the LGB. There's a lot of demands that lesbians and gays and heterosexuals change their sexual orientation to affirm someone's identity. My objection to them is the same objection I had to conversion therapy
You invoked slavery as a supposed exception to the general rules that all societies must legislate against rape and theft, which is therefore an objective necessity and not just a "subjective want." You may claim that you define your opposition to slavery as a "subjective want" as well, but I didn't claim that you were arguing in favor of objective morality. You argued in favor of your personal subjective morality, your objections to slavery, and that's still a moral argument. But if all societal wants are subjective, then your personally-moral arguments against the abuses of slavery fail even on your own relative scale, not to mention that your exceptions don't disprove the societal rule.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.
Still didn't say you stumped for objective morality. Whale on that strawman some more.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.
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.
I find it easy to understand false statements because you keep making them. I'm still waiting for you to cite a society that makes no laws against theft and rape, as opposed to your citing exceptions as if they disproved the general rule. When you come up with a complete exception rather than a partial one, maybe you can justify your incorrect parallel between societal laws and physical laws-- which is not a parallel I've advanced. But societal laws are as observable as physical ones, though you seek to invalidate the former with a false parallel.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?
Nope, the "legal" raping of which you spoke was directed against persons who were not viewed as full citizens. It was permissible because those non-citizens fell outside the bounds of society to protect its citizens.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.
It was not a personal pique that slaves in all societies are defined as not getting the benefits of citizenship. That's baked into the definition of slavery for all societies-- that slaves have no rights until they stop being slaves-- and yet you keep wanting to believe that they should have had those rights intrinsically. That's just your personal subjectivity talking.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.....
I accept your capitulation in your not being able to cite a society that has no rape or theft laws.You're describing subjectivity and you don't even know it....
Nope, your feelings about the science have dictated your interpretation of alleged scientific fact, just as your feelings about slavery did above.Their findings aren't subjective, only your feelings about them are.,
Did women of the 19th century have the right to vote? Did they enjoy full citizenship?Wives could be raped by their husbands in this country up until the 90s.
Not in the least. Even by the tenets of materialistic evolution, mammals didn't just evolve in their dominant form-- specifically that of bearing young alive-- for no reason at all. They evolved because live birth was advantageous in some way, and the few mammals that did not so evolve simply continued in their biological niche for reasons that can only be hypothesized about. The categories of mammalian development are not "subjectively constructed" even if this or that categorization may prove incorrect for assorted reasons. That's still you defining rules by their exceptions, but by your stated reasoning, that means that if there are exceptions to any of your screeds about (say) the intersex condition, then those exceptions disprove all your supposed proofs, since you don't really believe in broad applicability.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.
If you didn't believe your feelings weren't objective, at least when supposedly validated by your "intellect"-- you would be able to make the statement "slaver societies are as good as non-slaver societies." You invoke the input of your intellect as a means of conferring conditional objectivity upon your interpretations. That's what your entire intersex argument has been based on: the justification of your subjectivity through a supposed objective modality.Where have I claimed my feelings to be objective?
Quote me.
It's hilarious that you would conflate the "slaver Founders," about whom you've expressed "personal" moral outrage, with the New Regime of Slavery, in which biological women are placed in greater danger by Trans Fanatics who have prison administrations under constant threat of legal action. The prisons may be responsible for any female-female attacks that take place on their watch. But any assaults of fake females upon real females are the responsibility of Trans Fanatics and their lawyers. Glad to see that you contradict yourself by stumping for an oligarchy (rule by a few), while supposedly opposing the oligarchy of the plantations (yet again, not the oligarchies of the Muslim regimes who were using Africa as their slavery stop-and-shop long before they had much of a market in Christian Europe).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.
Show me the society that has no theft or rape laws while you're bloviating.What is logical necessity? What you try to present as necessity is simply subjective desire.
Nope, if you cared about the assaults at all you would want to keep any of them from happening if that were possible. It may not be possible to keep all female prisoners from assaulting other female prisoners, going on your own claim that most such assaults are female-female given the smaller total number of fake women. But it's totally possible not to recognize the claims of the fake women on the grounds that their supposed rights don't trump the rights of biological women not to be imprisoned with men. You've chosen to deflect from the real-world consequences for the sake of a fake ideal.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.
Mad Libs only read screeds founded in circular arguments so keep on circling your wagons.Conclude away but we can all read your arguments!
You presented nothing but your advance determination not to be swayed by anything but screeds that reflect your established opinions. Again, you gave yourself the perfect way out by claiming that all opposition must spring from small-minded bigotry, so why do you pretend to be open to opposing viewpoints?There there. That's totally a reason to be frail and not present anything at all. Go ahead!
But those are the only arguments you've presented every time you've stumped for defining rules by any exceptions. By all means, keep on being weak and meek, it's your true "strength;" that of Orwellian doublethink. You know you've made up your mind; again, why the pretense of being open to discussion?I'd be happy to go over the merits of their findings if you weren't being so frail about it. My counter argument certainly wouldnt be as meek as maybe they're wrong. Maybe other people feel differently...
I in fact did address that. I have been consistently arguing that her claims to blackness are from cultural identification. Are you really going to try and pretend otherwise now?
Right. And I have no problem with her cultural identification with blackness. In fact thats what cultural victory looks like. White people adopting black culture because white culture is too deplorable for them.I want more whites identifying with black struggles and abandoning white trash culture, just without the pretense of them being of African descent.
Nope, you included her later identifications as pretense as well. If that's not the case, let's hear you state that after being exposed, she was as right to call herself Black as a trans female has the right to call himself female.I said she pretended to have been born in Africa or was an African queen and then presented the quotes where she said just that. Do I need to do so again?
And yes, her representing herself as someone of African descent was a pretense whether she admits to it or not.
What is this argument about anymore? Do you even know?
What I said is that she would pretend to be from Africa because that's what she said but that she never actually thought she had African DNA.
https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/rachel-dolezal-quotes#google_vignette
Except it's not the same thing. She has no biological connection to Africa in the way trans people do to their sex identities be it genetic or epigenetic.
After being exposed for not being biologically African, she shifted to claiming that her identification was valid because race was a social construct. That is entirely a conflict between her body and her brain. As twisted as her argument may be, your falsification of it is more convoluted.And? What is this argument about? She also says she wouldn't call herself African American because her identification is with the culture not biology. She isnt suffering a conflict between her body and brain.
https://www.vanityfair.com/style/20...7GCjEQkhGGoY3qu3zmn2CKKWQr1gN9U3xQVkxCKRZb2Qm
“If people feel misled or deceived, then sorry that they feel that way, but I believe that’s more due to their definition and construct of race in their own minds than it is to my integrity or honesty, because I wouldn’t say I’m African American, but I would say I’m black, and there’s a difference in those terms,” she told Vanity Fair.
Race is a social construct. I don't disagree with that portion of her argument. I disagree with her claims she didn't try to deceive people. She did absolutely present herself as being of African descent including trying to pass off a black acquaintance of hers as her father.
Not as funny as you claiming you have no ideology.Then you tell me what trans ideology is? I'm bored and could use the humor.
Yeah, you just "happen" to condemn only American slaver society while you're failing to define general rules by any exceptions you think you've found to those rules.I condemn all slavery, including Muslim slavery, your frail fantasies not withstanding....
Can you quote me where I or anyone said they were OK with rape?
I didn't say I made exceptions; I said that the societies under discussion did so. It's still YOUR argument that no society has anything but "subjective" laws against rape if any members of those societies commit rape against non-citizens.
Where have I said rapists shouldnt be penalized? You're the one arguing subjective exceptions for slaves as opposed to citizens has some objective value. You're the one arguing that having exceptions to who you're allowed to rape can still mean you're objectively opposed to rape as if those rapes don't matter. That's your argument.
I have stated that exceptions to the rules don't automatically disprove the objective nature of the rules, as a response to your false relativism. And it's the NEED for rules of some sort that's objective, not any particular rule as such.Right. For clarity, you're the one with the counter argument that slave rapes are meaningless exceptions to your objective rule.
No. It's just something I hear particularly trans women trying to pick up straight men say.I don't disbelieve this claim, since I've heard others assert that trans ideologues aren't exactly tolerant of "LGB." But are you thinking of any particular examples, for the (potential) edification of others here?
Again, what are you accusing them of pretending? It seems like you're pretending to understand brain physiology without any of the education.Once again, the bottom line is that "gender identity" is not enough.
Who said "trans" isn't real? It's real men cross-dressing as pretend women, and sometimes the other way around. As for cases where some organizations play along with the game, it usually comes with physical requirements (as you pointed out) to cancel out real physical differences between men and women that were the reason for the segregation in the first place.
No they do not. Some people produce no gametes and some people produce both.Everybody does fit neatly within one or the other you either produce a large gimme or a small gamete and there's nothing else.
It's not synonymous. One is used by Healthcare professionals and the other bigots.If you're reproductive system doesn't work it's defective disorders pretty much a synonym in this case so I'm sure that'll work too.
Or none or both. You'd think you being objectively wrong here would make you reconsider your position....You either produce a sperm or an egg there's nothing else.
You care so much you'd come here and spout objectively wrong claims because reality hurts you.The fact that you're crying about the only evidence that would be acceptable means you understand.
I don't care. Sex is binary.
You invoked slavery as a supposed exception to the general rules that all societies must legislate against rape and theft, which is therefore an objective necessity and not just a "subjective want."
So what are you arguing?You may claim that you define your opposition to slavery as a "subjective want" as well, but I didn't claim that you were arguing in favor of objective morality.
A moral argument about what? This isn't about me. You just keep trying to make it about me. This is about your argument that laws written by people are objective. Stop attacking me and defend your argument with more than a dodge, because calling it an exception and then using that as some excuse for why you don't have to address how it counter minds your claims is just that, a frail dodge.You argued in favor of your personal subjective morality, your objections to slavery, and that's still a moral argument.
Fail at what? Conveying my personal sentiments? I think they do that just fine.But if all societal wants are subjective, then your personally-moral arguments against the abuses of slavery fail even on your own relative scale,
My evidence is proof that your rule isn't objective. It's selective. It's subjective. Who can be raped and who is protected from rape is determined by who is making the law. That's what subjectivity is. Look it up.not to mention that your exceptions don't disprove the societal rule.
Then I misinterpeted your argument. There's there.Still didn't say you stumped for objective morality. Whale on that strawman some more.
So wait, are you questioning whether I believe in objective morality verses subjective wants? Why are you being frail about this?If you really believed in subjective wants,
In regards to nature and the objective world. That means neither has any more objective value than the other. They may have varying degrees of subjective value but that's not the same thing. There is no objective value to the taste of mangos for example. Some people like them, so people don't. Some people like to enslave others detest slavery. These are called feelings. They have significance to the people experiencing them but no objective value that can be discerned.then the wants of the slaver would not matter less than the wants of the slave.
No. Again, I use slavery as evidence of society being pro rape and theft. You insist these rules exist objectively and then call any question of that and evidence to the contrary, an exception to these rules whos premise we arent even allowed to question apparently. That is what I'm doing though. Anti rape and theft do not exist objectively they exist selectively based on the subjective whims of law makers, voters, dictators, monarchs or whom ever may be responsible for the crafting of your societies rules.You invoke slavery customs to disprove a general rule,
I don't invoke slavery for anything that has to do with me or my feelings. You make these things about me because you cant make your argument. I invoke slavery as evidence of society being pro rape and theft. Thats it.and you clearly do so to create a false impression of moral superiority in despising slavery, which isn't exactly a risky proposition these days.
My feelings on slavery, theft and rape have no bearing on the objective fact that Founder society engaged in it.Your intellect is entirely tied in to your own "personal pique" and it's hilarious to see you claim otherwise.
Tell me more about this trans ideology that I have never heard of? Is trans ideology similar to the Trans agenda that only crazy conservatives also have ever heard of? What TikTok influencer told you it exists?Not as funny as you claiming you have no ideology.
Why are you waiting around for some fantasy to come true rather than addressing my actual argument? I don't have to do that to prove laws are subjective. I'm not the one making claims about what all societies objectively need to do. You are. You're the one who has to prove that every society that has ever existed has been anti theft and rape. I don't have knowledge of every society that has ever existed so I would never make such a ridiculous claim. Apparently you do though.I find it easy to understand false statements because you keep making them. I'm still waiting for you to cite a society that makes no laws against theft and rape, as opposed to your citing exceptions as if they disproved the general rule.
Its evidence that counter minds your claims that laws against rape and theft are objectively necessary. Here we had laws that objectively protected rapists and thieves. That's not describing something that looks objectively necessary. That's describing something that looks selective and subjective.When you come up with a complete exception rather than a partial one, maybe you can justify your incorrect parallel between societal laws and physical laws-- which is not a parallel I've advanced.
If these were physical laws we wouldn't need law enforcement to impose them, they would impose themselves. Gravity doesn't need the assistance of law enforcement.But societal laws are as observable as physical ones, though you seek to invalidate the former with a false parallel.
1. As I said before husbands could legally rape their wives up until the 1990s.Nope, the "legal" raping of which you spoke was directed against persons who were not viewed as full citizens. It was permissible because those non-citizens fell outside the bounds of society to protect its citizens.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?