Is having sex with transgender women gay?

[Ouroboros]

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.

The "personal pique" argument fails again because of your false analogy between physical nature and social nature. For your "subjectivity" argument to work, it would also have to apply to all entities that keep slaves, even those that don't have subjectivity as we know it.

Slave-making ants exemplify a specialized form of social parasitism, typically targeting a single species or a group of closely related species. These parasitic ants are often closely related to their hosts, a common characteristic among social parasites. According to D’Ettorre and Heinze (2001), there are approximately 60 known species of slave-making ants, representing about 0. 5% of all ant species.

Do Ants Enslave Other Insects

Ants, like other social insects, engage in war and make collective decisions based on complex patterns of pheromones. They have super-human strength and can carry objects 50 times their own.

blog.entomologist.net

So as the article specifies, we don't currently believe that ants have self-awareness because they fail the "reflective surface" test. But though their hive-minds are even less mutable than those of Mad Liberals, the slave-taking ants-- admittedly a very small proportion among all ant species-- don't make the sort of random choices you advocate with your "subjective wants" credo. They operate on an instinct that simply says, "increase the work force for the hive's benefit," and so they raid other anthills for captives. Is "personal pique" involved? No, it's all about societal advantage, and that's the only reason a few ant species have continued the slavery practice since Thoth knows how long. Now, human beings may sometimes take slaves for pure advantage (Romans have no women= the rape of the Sabine Women). Other times the advantage may not be so obvious, and in fact some societies have learned to their sorrow that a slave class can be more trouble than it's worth. I bring up ant societies because you keep making this false opposition between nature and culture. Well, do the ants take slaves as a result of their instinctual nature, or from "subjective wants?"

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?

I'm happy to keep pointing out that your exceptions to rules still don't disprove the rules.

Where is the substance? Why are all your arguments about me and not the subject? What facts would you like to question?

Your interpretation of some facts has led you to distort other facts, as I've said before. Still attacking your philosophy, just as you are mine.

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.

Nope, it's your subjective interpretation of law that makes you view the desires of the rapist covalent with those of the victim.

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?

I wasnt correlating your separate fallacies

 

[Ouroboros]

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.

There there. I know your attachment to your false interpretation of subjectivity has impaired your ability to follow arguments. But you can get help if you try.

And?

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.

False. The significance was as objective as the facts being observed, except in cases of misidentification.

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.

Monotremes remain an exception to the physical processes by which mammals evolved. They aren't random as you describe them above, any more than what you mislabel the "subjective wants" of societies.

 

[Ouroboros]

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 didn't say the essay proved what CLAX 1911 asserted. I said that it casts doubts on the attempts of trans ideologues to characterize trans identities as stemming from biological factors alone, such as epigenetic theory. Both you and Lisa have attested that you think the science is entirely on your side and that all other views are just ignorant bigotry. As I said when I made the link, I knew even before looking that not all scientists were going to agree with one ideology just because that suited the desires of trans ideologues. This particular scientist is not anti-trans, but he pointed out that a lot of the supporting evidence for purely biological etiology of trans identities is not supportable. He favors more emphasis upon the social factors, which in your express views here are merely "subjective wants" and therefore not in the realm of the objective. But if "subjective wants" are part of the equation, then the trans identities can't be as objectively true as you and LIsa want to believe.

 

[Ouroboros]

I'm not seeing any ideology. I dont know what you think your source proves.

See post 553.

 

[Ouroboros]

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.

Then if there's no objective difference, your feelings play no part in judging anything but your own outlook, and are useless in determining anything but your outlook.

Why am I not surprised to find your argument all about me and not the actual thing we are supposedly arguing about....

Still your faulty philosophy.

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?

You're just seeking to protect a supposedly marginalized, legally-powerful oligarchy at the cost of real suffering.

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?

The emotionality is all yours in your desperate attempt to protect the rights of a small privileged class.

You see that? Where? In your frail fantasies? Quote me.

You showed your favoritism to the oligarchy in this very message, assuming that the whole burden of guilt must be assumed by prison authorities and not by assholes pretending to be women in order to rape women. Sing "Fight the Power" while you're at it!

I don't know why think it's my responsibility to address your strawman.

yes you do, even though you claim not to.

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.

See above.

Rights are made up. They are whatever we make them up to be.

Then you'd be ok with legislating that trans women criminals have no rights to be in women's prisons.

You keep making your arguments about me because I hurt you. There there.

You're about as hurtful as Norman Bates once he's been totally absorbed by his maternal imago at the end of PSYCHO.

 

[Ouroboros]

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.

Your response in 539 to the evidence against your biological determinism broke the local frail-o-meter.

 

[Ouroboros]

No, I've been providing context for what she means by her claims with her own words.

Well, you sure proved your own ability to be selective, maybe more so than Dolazel.

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.

Nothing about you scares anyone. I know you're desperate to think so but it's beginning to be pretty pathetic at this point.

I have said repeatedly that she can identify however she wants. Did you miss that or are you just pretending not to see it?

You continue to falsify her rationale and always will.

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.

But if she's not a biological Black person, why is the "social construct" argument brought up at all? You claimed you agreed with it, but it contradicts your biological determinism.

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.

Your argument remains frail and weak in not assessing the word's relevance.

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.

What scientist hurt you, so that you dismiss all their findings as soon as they form their observations into the dreaded CATEGORIES?

She shifted because claiming to be genetically from Africa would of been objectively wrong.

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.

No, she shifted because she caught a lot of societal heat. Blacks objected to her calling herself Black for any rationale.

 

[Ouroboros]

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.

Then you condemn every society in the world on which we have substantive historical information, right? Except that all you can talk about is American slavery. That's your hilarious fantasy, that you aren't engaging in rants against American slavery while blinking at those in most if not all other societies.

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?

Nope, you're still being OK with an increase in rapes and absolving the guilty for the sake of the (theoretical) innocents. Why is it such a hard stance for you to admit that fake females ought to just serve their terms with other men? Why do those criminals get special treatment? Oh, yeah, LAWYERS.

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.

You remain boring in your apologias for rapists.

Which means they were subjective and selective with their laws.

Nope, the idea of having slaves means they don't get rights. Nothing subjective about it. Sorry that's hard for you to follow.

It is because laws are subjective in who they protect. Sometimes it protects people from rape sometimes it protects rapists.

Still not subjective with respect to slaves, since they're not people with rights.

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.

I showed that your vaunted exceptions did not disprove the objectivity of the rules against rape and theft. You said "nuh-uh" and collapsed into incoherence.

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.

I have not said that all rules are necessary to organization, only those brought about through logical necessity.

 

[Master Debator]

The existence of slavery in any society does not prove that any society is "pro rape and theft" toward its own citizens.

The existence of legal martial rape sure does.

Slaves by definition are outside the pale of citizens' rights.

Who decides who gets to be a citizen and who gets to be a slave?

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.

You have to prove that objective rule is observed in every society that has ever existed if this is your claim and you cant even do it for this society because of the existence of legal martial rape.

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.

We observe the effects of gravity, we dont create them as we do laws and their effects. Gravity would still exist without us. Laws on the other hand dont exist until someone writes them and they do nothing in and of themselves and have to rely on law enforcement to make its presence felt.

The rules of human societies are the same,

Wrong for all the reasons stated above.

but mathematical calculations don't apply as evidence because social dynamics aren't gauged in the same way as physical dynamics.

Yeah, thats the difference between the subjective verse the objective. Apparently you dont even know what these words mean.

Law enforcement is not "imposing" rules upon members of the society; law enforcement is embodying rules agreed upon by the consent of the governed.

If everyone were consenting to those rules you wouldn't need law enforcement and without law enforcement those rules would have no effect. Let's say you write a law against rape and then someone rapes, without law enforcement to impose societies will on the rapist what good is that law in and of itself?

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.

Expressing the tastes of the local society is you describing subjectivity. Really, just look the words up....

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.

What is functional objectivity? Its the first I've heard of it. I don't even know what you mean by that for me to have been arguing against it.

Your moralistic sentiments re slavery fail to have any applicability to analyze societies in general.

Im not analyzing societies with my moral sentiments, I'm questioning your arguments with reason and logic and observation. You're the one who wants to talk about my feelings regarding slavery rather than my observations about how it was society who chose to treat some people as citizens and others as slaves because their rule was subjective and based on personal pique.

And again I say that laws made for citizens weren't meant to apply to non-citizens.

And you describing a situation where law makers are deciding who treat as a citizen and who to treat as a slave is you describing their subjective whims.

Slaves' lack of non-citizenship is not "subjective;" it's the whole point of anyone having slaves in any society.

Who to treat a slave and who treat a citizen is a choice, isn't it? And regardless they legal allowed the rape citizens as well.

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.

And yet you're the one ignorant of the legal martial rape of citizen wives in this country.

 

[Master Debator]

I think this might the first time I've seen the "varying degrees of subjective value" rationale from you.

That's what subjective means guy. I feel like most of this could be cleared up by you just looking up these defintions.

Things that have objective value, like the distance from the Earth to the moon at any given point in our orbits for instance, doesnt vary person to person, that's what makes it objective. If I measured the distance from the Earth to the moon and you measured the distance from the earth to the moon we should observe the same value. It is this value of distance that we are observing rather than something we are saying about our own sentiments. In contrast when make subjective evaluations there is no one observed value. Is the moon beautiful? Ugly? Calming? Frightening? These subjective evaluations vary person to person. This is what subjectivity is. Personal feelings. Were you unaware feelings vary person to person?

Regardless, what in your mind makes any "difference in degree" between one set of individual wants than another?

Nothing objective. The differences amount to subjective personal preference.

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.

What is the objective value being observed? In this scenario we observe someone who doesnt want to be raped and someone who wants to rape. You tell me what gives one want more objective, i.e observed value than the other?

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.

My argument isn't that rules of society are random but a result of the personal preferences of the people in said society and their law makers. If you would look up the defintion of subjective you'd see its defined as being based in personal feelings, tastes and opinions.

And your idea of evidence is predicated on a false analogy to material phenomena.

Material phenomena? You mean the world of matter and energy? What false analogy am I making? Do laws not come from people and their personal feelings, tastes and opinions?

Your subjective feelings bring about the aforementioned false analogy.

It's not my feelings I'm using to make counter arguments, it's intellect and rationality. If not personal feelings, sentiments and opinions where do laws come from?

 

[Master Debator]

The "personal pique" argument fails again because of your false analogy between physical nature and social nature. For your "subjectivity" argument to work, it would also have to apply to all entities that keep slaves, even those that don't have subjectivity as we know it.

What? This should be amusing....

Do Ants Enslave Other Insects

Ants, like other social insects, engage in war and make collective decisions based on complex patterns of pheromones. They have super-human strength and can carry objects 50 times their own.

blog.entomologist.net

So as the article specifies, we don't currently believe that ants have self-awareness because they fail the "reflective surface" test. But though their hive-minds are even less mutable than those of Mad Liberals, the slave-taking ants-- admittedly a very small proportion among all ant species-- don't make the sort of random choices you advocate with your "subjective wants" credo.

As I thought, amusing.


My argument isnt that choices are random. Thats the second time you've made that erroneous claim. My argument is that your feelings, your sentiments and your opinions and those of others or a collection of others represent subjective beliefs. Beliefs that vary person to person, group to group, as opposed to objective observations of the natural world around us. That means we observe that these ants and that some people and groups of people enslave. We observe that is a thing that happens. Thats all observation gives us. Slavery is a thing that we see happening. That's an observation. How you feel about it is what is subjective. Lets say you detest slavery, or rape or theft (so long as they're being committed against white people) and so if you're a slaver Founder you craft laws that say if people engage in these activities (against white people) you're going respond with some level of force. Its okay to slave and rape and steal from those other people though because as slaver Founders we don't care about them.

They operate on an instinct that simply says, "increase the work force for the hive's benefit," and so they raid other anthills for captives. Is "personal pique" involved?

Nope. But again, this has nothing to do with my argument and everything to do with you not understanding the difference between the objective and the subjective or the difference between people and ants. Can a worker ant decide to become a poet ant? Do ants appear to have free will and freedom of choice?

No, it's all about societal advantage, and that's the only reason a few ant species have continued the slavery practice since Thoth knows how long.

Ants dont appear to have the freedom of choice that we have. Taking and raping women can also be socially advantageous as the slaver Founders proved, but you don't have to like it, and we don't have to order society around protecting it.

Now, human beings may sometimes take slaves for pure advantage (Romans have no women= the rape of the Sabine Women). Other times the advantage may not be so obvious, and in fact some societies have learned to their sorrow that a slave class can be more trouble than it's worth. I bring up ant societies because you keep making this false opposition between nature and culture. Well, do the ants take slaves as a result of their instinctual nature, or from "subjective wants?"

You tell me, its your argument. Be brave enough to formulate a conclusion. Do ants appear to have freedom choice to you? Do we have to have laws that protect a slavers rights to rape or a husbands? Or can we choose to act differently? Because it seems to me we can choose differently and ants can't.

I'm happy to keep pointing out that your exceptions to rules still don't disprove the rules.

And Im happy enough pointing out we arent ants.

Your interpretation of some facts has led you to distort other facts, as I've said before. Still attacking your philosophy, just as you are mine.

Like you interpreting free will through that of ants?

Nope, it's your subjective interpretation of law that makes you view the desires of the rapist covalent with those of the victim.

The fact that I can have a difference of opinion than you on this should be evidence enough of its subjectivity.

I wasnt correlating your separate fallacies

No, you were just likening human behavior to ant colonies...

 

[Master Debator]

There there. I know your attachment to your false interpretation of subjectivity has impaired your ability to follow arguments. But you can get help if you try.

Is this supposed to be a counter argument or a diary entry about how you feel about me?

False. The significance was as objective as the facts being observed, except in cases of misidentification.

How can significance be objective? Significance is a feeling.

Monotremes remain an exception to the physical processes by which mammals evolved.

They remain exceptions to the category called mammals. A thing we created. In nature there is no group of organisms called mammals. That's not something you've observed.

They aren't random as you describe them above, any more than what you mislabel the "subjective wants" of societies.

I didn't even use the word random above.

 

[Master Debator]

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.

What do you think slavery was? You know there were child slaves right? Bigger slaver Founders, beat, whipped, raped and stole from men but also women and children as well.

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?

But its not universal. Who gets to be seen as smaller fellow worth protecting and who gets to be a smaller fellow who gets enslaved is based on personal preference.

And laws about slaves had no applicability to laws pertaining to citizens.

Why? Because that's inconvenient for your argument? And what about the citizen wives that could be raped by their citizen husbands?

As I noted earlier, law enforcement comes about as a response to the will of the governed.

And will is subjective. I dont have to share your will and wants.

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.

Just because there is some objective threat, that does not make your response to said threat objective, or not a matter choice, feeling or opinion. There are any number of ways to deal with threats.

Again, objective (in the sense of cross-cultural, if that helps you) rules spring from logical necessity.

That doesnt help me. Different cultures have different rules.

I tend to doubt the veracity of your standard for the act of rape.

I think you're just too frail to give any consideration to evidence that disputes your claims.

Marital Rape

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.

What? Whats not an objective fact is that you have to treat anyone like a slave. That's a choice. Really, how ****ing hard is this?

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.

What the hell is this argument about? How did we arrive at the place where you're arguing slavery is some social necessity?

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.

God damnit man just look up what the ****ing words mean....

Wanting slaves is a subjective choice my guy. Do you want slaves? I don't want slaves.