• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is having sex with transgender women gay?

No. My argument isnt about how they should have had rights intrinsically. That appears nowhere at all in anything I wrote. I don't believe in intrinsic or natural rights.

What appears in my argument is that who law makers treat as a slave and who they treat as an equal citizen is up to their personal pique. It isn't nature who made Africans slaves in this country. It wasnt the dictionary that defined them as slaves and this Founders just stumbled on to a copy of Merriam-Webster. It was people. It was the Founders. The law makers. They decided to treat some people as slaves and some people as equal citizens based on personal desire and preference.
Ouroboros said:
I accept your capitulation in your not being able to cite a society that has no rape or theft laws.
Click to expand...
Why do I need to? My argument isnt about what every society objectively needs to do. Yours is. It's on you to show how every society that ever existed had anti rape and theft laws. Are you confused about who's making what argument?
Ouroboros said:
Nope, your feelings about the science have dictated your interpretation of alleged scientific fact, just as your feelings about slavery did above.
Click to expand...
Where is the substance? Why are all your arguments about me and not the subject? What facts would you like to question?
Ouroboros said:
Did women of the 19th century have the right to vote? Did they enjoy full citizenship?
Click to expand...
They did in the 1980s. It was in the 1990s that we finally made it illegal in every State for a husband to rape their wife. But see you're revealing the subjective nature in all this. You're not objectively anti rape and theft when those laws only apply to the people you want them to.
Ouroboros said:
As for what you claim the law allowed during the 20th century. your personal piques have clearly colored every interpretation you make of the law, as they have with regard to scientific beliefs.
Click to expand...
What? What does whether or not this country allowed husbands to rape their wives up until the 1990s have to do with scientific beliefs? What the **** are you even talking about?
 
Lisa said:
Tell me more about this trans ideology that I have never heard of?
Click to expand...
You're in denial.
Lisa said:
Is trans ideology similar to the Trans agenda that only crazy conservatives also have ever heard of?
Click to expand...
No it's the insisting that gender identity is a more important thing then sex.
Lisa said:
What TikTok influencer told you it exists?
Click to expand...
You did.
Lisa said:
You and @CLAX1911 can work together to answer this question because he also listens to Tiktok nutjobs.
Click to expand...
I don't listen to you on tiktok I hear you speak here.

Your ideology is to blur the lights between sex and gender I did it that's why you use terms for sexes to describe generated when there's already terms for that.
 
Master Debator said:
No they do not. Some people produce no gametes and some people produce both.
Click to expand...
That's only two gametes that's for agreeing with me.
Master Debator said:
It's not synonymous.
Click to expand...
Opinion noted
Master Debator said:
One is used by Healthcare professionals and the other bigots.
Click to expand...
But synonyms
Master Debator said:
Or none or both.
Click to expand...
You're confirming that it's just two. Thank you for agreed with me that it's binary
Master Debator said:
You'd think you being objectively wrong here would make you reconsider your position....
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm not objectively wrong.

Impact your statements have proven me right.
Master Debator said:
You care so much you'd come here and spout objectively wrong claims because reality hurts you.
Click to expand...
Why do your posts not contradict mine
 
Ouroboros said:
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.
Click to expand...
What? My argument had nothing to do with evolution or why some organisms give birth to live offspring. It has to do with the subjective category of organisms we call mammals.
Ouroboros said:
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.
Click to expand...
And?
Ouroboros said:
The categories of mammalian development are not "subjectively constructed" even if this or that categorization may prove incorrect for assorted reasons.
Click to expand...
Sure it is. Nature didn't lump organisms together in to a category called mammals, we did. That category is our creation. To be clear I'm not saying we created the physical characteristics of the organisms we observe, I'm saying we took characteristics we observed across different organisms and lump them together in a group called mammals because it provides some subjective significance to us.
I'm pointing out that rules created by humans are subjective and have exceptions because they are not objectively real. Objectively real things just are. They exist as is. There are organisms that give birth to live offspring. Organisms that lay eggs. Organisms that self replicate. These are all objectively true. You won't find an exception to objective reality.
 
Since you and MD have claimed that science backs up your dubious ideology in every way-- even though scientists often disagree on interpretations of available data, which I knew when I said there would be, even without having looked-- here's a source that problematizes the supposed objectivity of the studies that both of you believe buttress your respective ideologies. I found it and read it in about ten minutes, which was too much trouble for both of you.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10837215/

Some quotes:

In this paper, I take into account this context of the rise of essentialisms, in which trans* bodies have become a politic-epistemological battleground, where different conceptions on sex–gender identities are in contention, and argue that the idea of two brain types, the trans brain and the cis brain, is highly problematic. Moreover, I claim that the question regarding embodied trans* identities is a complex one, which cannot be reduced to neurobiological factors, nor to neurobiological causes.

Dick Swaab’s team claims to have found this hormonally induced reversal in the volume and neuron number of two sexually dimorphic subcortical brain structures in postmortem studies. Kruijver et al. (2000) and Zhou et al. (1995) find it in the central subdivision of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BSTc), and Garcia-Falgueras and Swaab (2008) in the third interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus (INAH3). Regarding the first interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus (INAH1), Garcia-Falgueras et al. (2011) find an intermediate neuron number compared to that of the male and female brain. These brain reversals lead them to affirm the existence of “the transsexual hypothalamus” (Garcia-Falgueras & Swaab, 2008, p. 3143), “the transsexual brain” (Kruijver et al., 2000, p. 2034; Swaab & Bao, 2013, p. 2976), and “the transgender brain” and “the cisgender brain” (Swaab et al., 2021, p. 435).

In addition to the fact that none of these findings has been replicated (Eliot et al., 2021, p. 669; Jordan-Young, 2010, p. 105)3, twelve brains of trans* people in all were enough to build one of the most widespread theories on transsexuality so far.

To sum up, the search by Swaab’s team for a fundamental, essential brain difference in trans* people is embedded in a pathologising, dimorphic, and dichotomous framework, however much they assess “a great variability in all aspects of gender identity” (Swaab et al., 2021, p. 438).

It should be added that not only have the studies that shape the NCH not examined non binary people, but that they only analyse the brains of a subgroup of trans* people, i.e. those who desire hormone therapy and surgery, which implies the inapplicability of their conclusions to the entire spectrum of trans* people. This fact directly affects the typology of the four brain phenotypes and further compromises the idea of a “neuroanatomy of transgender identity” (Mueller et al., 2021). (CONTINUED)
 
Concerning the brain, this theory acknowledges context dependant epigenetic changes, namely, “depending on different activities in the genome, the environment, drug exposure, or social experience”, which regulate neurogenesis, neuronal apoptosis, and synaptic plasticity (Swaab et al., 2021, p. 432). Brain is characterised as a complex self-organising system that makes each brain unique and is involved in the variation of gender identity. Nonetheless, despite this alleged acknowledgement of brain dynamism, and contrary to the idea “that brain development after birth also has an important influence on gender identity”, the NTOGD concludes that gender identity arises in the womb (Swaab et al., 2021, p. 434). Its strong adherence to the brain hardwiring paradigm gets crystallised in their wording “programmed into the hardware of our brains for the rest of our lives” (Swaab et al., 2021, p. 438).23

The issue of causation remains open for the HSRTBP. Kilpatrick et al., (2019, pp. 3276–3277) and Manzouri and Savic (2019, pp. 2096–2097) insist on the reasons to believe that their findings reflect underlying factors rather than the effects of gender dysphoria, pointing that the neuroanatomical differences found in transgender people could be due to changes or differences in cortical development, and thus linked to its cause.34 However, given brain plasticity—including Cth and neural connectivity—the studies don’t permit the conclusion of whether this neurobiological substrate is innate or acquired (Manzouri & Savic, 2019, p. 2096; Manzouri et al., 2017, p. 1008). For Moody et al. (2021) “sociological, cultural, interpersonal, and biological factors are likely contributory” to gender incongruence. Among these interpersonal factors is the view that own body perception is shaped by a reciprocal interaction between one’s perception of physical appearance, rooted in self-observation and others’ reactions, and one’s body image in the brain (Majid et al., 2020, p. 2898; Manzouri & Savic, 2019, p. 2085). The alluded brain plasticity and multidimensionality could constitute the basis of a dynamic processual entanglement framework. Yet, as they are not central elements for the HSRTBP, this hypothesis is not able to explain how functional disconnection emerges in the brain of some trans* people.

CONCLUSION:

This neurobiological inscription and rationale of trans* identities show an attempt to cling to scientific authority in the face of social changes that have begun to blur deep and rigid social hierarchies and divisions. Paraphrasing Rippon, perhaps it is time to give up the search for this kind of brain differences
 
Ouroboros said:
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."
Click to expand...
That's just me saying they both have equal objective value, which is to say none. I'm not using good there to denote some moral stance.
Why am I not surprised to find your argument all about me and not the actual thing we are supposedly arguing about....
I advocate for safe prisons. Without all the rape and violence and Im happy to hold prison administrations accountable when they fail to do so. Now you're just throwing all your gripes at my in a incoherent mess of an argument? What do the slaver Founders have to do with whether or not we could improve safety in prison?
Ouroboros said:
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.
Click to expand...
So when its female on female you're okay with blaming the prison, just not when its a trans prisoner. Why exactly? Can you explain the discrepancy in a way that isn't purely emotional?
You see that? Where? In your frail fantasies? Quote me.
Ouroboros said:
Show me the society that has no theft or rape laws while you're bloviating.
Click to expand...
I don't know why think it's my responsibility to address your strawman.
You're not advocating for keeping assaults from happening. Trans women in male prisons get assaulted all the time. You have no interest in those assaults though. I'm advocating for making prisons safer so no one has to worry about rape.
Rights are made up. They are whatever we make them up to be.
Ouroboros said:
Mad Libs only read screeds founded in circular arguments so keep on circling your wagons.
Click to expand...
You keep making your arguments about me because I hurt you. There there.
 
Sure thing Mr. Mad Libs. That's a prefect reason to not even try.
You're the one trying to dismiss all my evidence that you can't address as some excuse exception that you don't need to. You're frail.
 
Ouroboros said:
You have been consistently falsifying Dolazel's claims as a pretense, so you would be the Great Pretender here.
Click to expand...
No, I've been providing context for what she means by her claims with her own words.
Ouroboros said:
Her claim to being "essentially" Black, though, you reject every time you falsify her argument, so none of your repetition of her flawed arguments mean anything, except to your selective sense of outrage. Nice racism, BTW.
Click to expand...
I don't reject it or falsify it. I put that into context with all her other quotes about how she identifies culturally with black people and wouldnt call herself African American. You're the one avoiding any attempt to give context to what that what it means to be essentially Black because you're afraid and frail.
Ouroboros said:
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.
Click to expand...
I have said repeatedly that she can identify however she wants. Did you miss that or are you just pretending not to see it?

Also I don't argue in terms of rights. They are made up. They arent real. I don't care about made up laws when arguing about objective reality. She has the ability to identify and present herself anyway she wants to same as we all do.
Ouroboros said:
See above.


Exposing your selective subjective values, and it's going great.


She said her connection to African society was "essential" as I quoted, and that was the actual relevance of her claim that race was socially constructed.
Click to expand...
Yes. You keep quoting that as if the word essential does all the work for you. You have to connect what essential means to your argument and so far you’ve been too frail to.
Ouroboros said:
If she believed that race was biologically constructed as you do, she would not have cited the "social construct" justification. More selective reading by you.
Click to expand...
I didn't say race was biologically constructed. In fact I said it was a social construct, clear enough for everyone to see. Genealogy is objectively real and being genetically connected to the continent of Africa is objectively real and the abuse that Africans endured in this country is objectively real and Rachel Dolazel doesn't have any objective connection to African genealogy and didn't objectively endure any of the misstatement. But race is a social construct. It's another one of those subjective categories. We didn't have to group people together based on arbitrary physical features. There is more genetic diversity among Africans than there is between Africans and Europeans, meaning a light skinned European could be more genetically similar to a dark skinned African than that African is to another African.
Ouroboros said:
After being exposed for not being biologically African, she shifted to claiming that her identification was valid because race was a social construct.
Click to expand...
She shifted because claiming to be genetically from Africa would of been objectively wrong.
Ouroboros said:
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.
Click to expand...
There is no incongruity. She flat out says she wouldn't call herself African American. She understands the difference between objective genetic facts and subjective social constructs.
 
Ouroboros said:
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.
Click to expand...
Except I don't only condemn American slaver society, I am clearly here now condemning, right now... ... again, all slaver socities. I use the example of this one because this is the society I was born into. I'm more familiar with it. And for that you decided to engage in this hilarious fantasy.
Ouroboros said:
Every time you make the claim that trans assaults don't matter because there are so few of them, that's an endorsement of letting that legally spawned oligarchy have at least one shot at committing the crime before they're (theoretically) caught.
Click to expand...
I didn't say they don't matter because they are so few of them. That's the argument you'd prefer to have to address. That's a strawman. My argument was about what matters to you and it doesnt seem to be addressing all rape in prison just trans rape. Im for addressing all rape and making prisons safer. Why is that such a hard stance for you to join me on?
Ouroboros said:
Which brings up the fact that all of the trans rapists may not get caught, just as all heteronormative rapists don't, so the criterion of "only a few rotten apples" is flawed because we don't have complete oversight of the apple barrel.
Click to expand...
My argument about how you're focused on a small portion of rapes has to do with the fact that trans people are such a small portion of the population. Maybe be concerned with all rape instead of just a small portion of it.
Ouroboros said:
I didn't say I made exceptions; I said that the societies under discussion did so.
Click to expand...
Which means they were subjective and selective with their laws.
Ouroboros said:
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.
Click to expand...
It is because laws are subjective in who they protect. Sometimes it protects people from rape sometimes it protects rapists.
Ouroboros said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes. You just state it because stating things is all you do. You can't actually defend the things you say from counter arguments that reference objective facts like how the rules protected rapists and thieves. Will you entertain questions about whether there even are objective rules or are you too frail for that? Because right now you look real frail.
Ouroboros said:
And it's the NEED for rules of some sort that's objective, not any particular rule as such.
Click to expand...
So now your argument seems to simply be that rules (whatever they may be, be they pro rape or anti rape or whatever) are necessary to organization? Because I made that point a while ago.
 
CLAX1911 said:
That's only two gametes that's for agreeing with me.
Click to expand...


Why do the frail need to pretend agreement where there is none? What's that about?

My argument was never that there were more than two gametes. Its that sex isn't binary because the choice isn't either one or the other, but one, the other, none or both making it bimodal rather than binary.
CLAX1911 said:
Opinion noted

But synonyms

You're confirming that it's just two. Thank you for agreed with me that it's binary
Click to expand...
Thank you for being frail.
CLAX1911 said:
Maybe I'm not objectively wrong.

Impact your statements have proven me right.

Why do your posts not contradict mine
Click to expand...
They do contradict yours. You left off two other options for gamete production.
 
Cosmo said:
Being the other sex.
Click to expand...
They aren't pretending anything about their biological sex. They know what their physical attributes are otherwise they wouldn't be seeking care to change it. You're the one pretending to understand how the brain works.
 


Read it. This isn't a paper about how trans identities aren't real and are made up. Its about how these areas of study are limiting and possibly pathologizing what are just differences as opposed to what @CLAX1911 likes to call them, disorders. It's conclusion is that transgenderism emerges from a more complex play of genetics, hormones and social exposure than these two specific areas of study. More from the conclusion.

Regarding the origin of trans* identities, whilst the NTOGD and the NCH situate it in the neurobiological domain, embracing mostly the O/A hypothesis, the HSRTBP keeps open the question of causation, endorsing brain plasticity, although without incorporating it as a central element. Several feminist neuroscientific, philosophical, and biological analyses highlight the relevancy of multiple dimensions entangled in a life-long dynamic process when it comes to addressing brain configuration, as well as the emergence and development of sex–gender identities, including trans* identities. The profound implications of brain plasticity for this multidimensional entanglement entail that cisheteropatriarcal norms, expectations, behaviours, and experiences shape and reshape brains, as well as embodied identities. Defying the notion of an inborn identity claimed by the NTOGD and the unmodifiable character of the experienced sex–gender identity suggested by the NCH, sex–gender identities develop in a dynamic life-long process.
 
I'm not seeing any ideology. I dont know what you think your source proves.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Only two equals binary
Click to expand...
Which might make human gametes binary but not humans since we all don't either produce one or the other. Some produce none and some produce both.
CLAX1911 said:
P
So you're claim that sex is not binary is null and void thanks for playing
Click to expand...
Thanks for being frail and unable to count.
CLAX1911 said:
Bimodal requires binary.
Click to expand...
It requires two poles and allows variation between them, thus human sex is bimodal even though our gametes only come in two versions. Binary means no variation. Just two. You're objectively wrong and you can't count.
 
Master Debator said:
Which might make human gametes binary but not humans since we all don't either produce one or the other. Some produce none and some produce both.
Click to expand...
Bimodal=binary
 

Is having sex with transgender women gay?​


If you are a woman, then yes, But who cares?
If you are a man, then no. But again, who cares?
 
The existence of slavery in any society does not prove that any society is "pro rape and theft" toward its own citizens. Slaves by definition are outside the pale of citizens' rights. Because of that status, they are exceptions to the rules that apply to citizens, but they don't disprove the objective rule that every society needs rules against rape and theft. Such rules are functionally objective in the same way as gravity. One can't directly observe gravity; one can only observe its effects based on all available physical phenomena and approximate how gravity functions via mathematical calculations. The rules of human societies are the same, but mathematical calculations don't apply as evidence because social dynamics aren't gauged in the same way as physical dynamics. Law enforcement is not "imposing" rules upon members of the society; law enforcement is embodying rules agreed upon by the consent of the governed. however implicit. Some laws may be more localized than others, but that should be viewed as expressing the taste of a local society rather than as a rule that applies across the board to all societies.

Master Debator said:
Also what's supposed about it? Did slavery not happen? Was it not legal to rape and steal from slaves?
Click to expand...
It's your use of slavery as an exception to general rules that was based in supposition.

Attacking your philosophical approach, that of finding exceptions to laws and deeming that those exceptions disprove the laws' functional objectivity, is still not attacking you. I don't accept your system any more than you accept mine, but my unwillingness to accept yours has nothing to do with "frailty" (a superficial and counter-intuitive ad hominem argument). Do you think Aristotle was frail because he didn't accept everything Plato said? I've been clear about my objections to your flawed philosophy and it's you who dodge via half-baked rationales.

Master Debator said:
Fail at what? Conveying my personal sentiments? I think they do that just fine.
Click to expand...

Your moralistic sentiments re slavery fail to have any applicability to analyze societies in general.
Master Debator said:
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.
Click to expand...
And again I say that laws made for citizens weren't meant to apply to non-citizens. Slaves' lack of non-citizenship is not "subjective;" it's the whole point of anyone having slaves in any society.
Master Debator said:
Then I misinterpeted your argument. There's there.

So wait, are you questioning whether I believe in objective morality verses subjective wants? Why are you being frail about this?
Click to expand...
When I said "really believed," I meant that you had not worked out your system thoroughly enough to account for the counter-example I then gave.
 
I think this might the first time I've seen the "varying degrees of subjective value" rationale from you. Regardless, what in your mind makes any "difference in degree" between one set of individual wants than another? I specify "individual" because the current argument evolved from your assertion that there was no objective value in an individual's desire to keep from being raped than in another individual's desire to rape.
You've framed what you call "the premise" of the rules incorrectly. I've specified that individuals can game the system to get a desire result, but that proves nothing about the system itself, which is not random but is generated by a society's need to protect itself and to flourish, as much as an individual evolves strategies to protect him/herself and to flourish.
Master Debator said:
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.
Click to expand...

And your idea of evidence is predicated on a false analogy to material phenomena.
Master Debator said:
My feelings on slavery, theft and rape have no bearing on the objective fact that Founder society engaged in it.
Click to expand...
Your subjective feelings bring about the aforementioned false analogy.
 

Here's an easy breakdown of your "personal property" screed. Find me a society where the members *advocate* the bigger fellows to take food from the mouths of smaller fellows, women and children. I'm not asking for societies that *tolerate* that specific injustice. But for there to be a meaningful renunciation of the ideal of "personal property," it would have to extend to the most personal property of all: having the ability to keep yourself alive through the consumption of life-sustaining food. Is that universal enough for you; that theft of food, potentially leading to the loss of life for one or more tribe-members, gives rise to a "will of the governed" that opposes such casual theft?
And laws about slaves had no applicability to laws pertaining to citizens.
Master Debator said:
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.
Click to expand...
As I noted earlier, law enforcement comes about as a response to the will of the governed. This can mean, "Ok, we need a strong leader for the tribe's overall protection from hostiles, so we'll let Bork the Slayer put aside rules and take any property he wants." But that would still be a response to an objective threat from outside the society, and if at some point the threat seems to be gone, then the society will have the tendency to overthrow Bork. Again, objective (in the sense of cross-cultural, if that helps you) rules spring from logical necessity.
Master Debator said:
1. As I said before husbands could legally rape their wives up until the 1990s.
Click to expand...
I tend to doubt the veracity of your standard for the act of rape.
Master Debator said:
2. If society can be selective and subjective with who is and isn't a citizen and who it is necessary to protect from rape and theft and who it allows to rape and steal, then what you are describing is subjectivity, not objectivity.
Click to expand...
No, it's an objective fact that if ten enemy tribesmen are taken to be slaves to members of another society, the only "selection" involved is that of the slaves. Either they elect to preserve their lives by accepting servitude-- whether permanently or with an eye to eventual escape-- or they reject the society's power to control their lives and sacrifice their lives in a pyrrhic victory. If only one slave among the ten agrees to abide by the condition of being a slave, then the other nine die (assuming no mitigating circumstances, like ransom) and the one that survives has submitted to the laws of his people's enemies. The society isn't being "subjective;" its members know that they want to be able to have non-citizens around whom they can boss, to a degree that they often cannot boss their societal equals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.