Is having sex with transgender women gay?

[Master Debator]

In all modesty, I can't top you.

When you state as you have that beliefs vary from person to person, that whole "every man is an island" is your endorsement of randomness, whether you acknowledge it or not.

I dont even know what you mean by randomness. What's the alternative? That we all share the same beliefs? That doesnt seem to bare out with any observation of people.

You are claiming, as you always do, that all things subjective are epiphenomenal. That's why I sought to educate you by showing you an example of slavery that is not rooted in subjectivity but in that physical nature that you deem to be completely objective.

You did so in ants. Not people. I was never suggesting ants had personal thoughts, feelings, sentiments.

Your pathetic leading question avoided that argument, but your inability to address major problems in your outdated "objective/subjective" dogma is at least fitfully amusing.

Pathetic, is an emotional argument. Make a rational one for why I shouldnt question whether you understand that ants and people are different.

Are the habits of ants objective in nature?

They don't appear to have the ability to operate on personal preference or sentiment to me so yes. How about you?

Well, they must be, according to you, because "nature just is." However, a more balanced view would be that, since slaver-ants are a very small minority within the totality of ant species, they comprise a very small evolutionary niche, like the monotremes.

Thats not a more balanced view. I'm not in disagreement with whatever their population sizes are in relation to other ants. What does this have to do with anything?

And that makes them exceptions-- which means you ought to like them better than non-slaver ants, because all of your arguments are founded on exceptions.

To category of creatures we call ants.

But if all subjectivities operate on this "every man is an island" standard you've championed, then there's no reason to revile anything anyone does, even if one does so (and as you do) pretends to do so simply out of subjective pique.

I've seen you make this argument before but not explain it rationally. Subjectivity doesnt mean you don't have feelings, it means I have my own feelings and you have your own.

Are ant societies created by non-subjective nature or not?

Yes. My argument isn't about ant societies though, its about human ones.

But you are claiming that everything physical is insuperably real, "it just is." So the biological utilization of slavery is one of those real things, not rooted in subjectivity.

That people are utilizing slavery isnt an argument disproving that they are doing so by choice. You choose to enslave people. The actions people engage in are choices. Involuntary control over your body is a medical issue not the norm.

If you are claiming that humans are AN EXCEPTION, what makes them so?

No. You can make all the arguments about exceptions that you like. My argument is have freedom of choice.

Where did I say anything about free will?

You didn't say anything about free will because pointing out that we have it and ants don't seriously calls into question purpose of this entire argument.

But as your clumsy example above shows, you don't really believe YOUR opinion to be subjective, no matter how much lip service you pay to that fiction.

No, I actually do believe people have differing beliefs. Apparently you think we all have the same ones..

In order to show you the error of your philosophy, again.

With your ant argument? Are we ants?

 

[Master Debator]

Just talking to you in your own language.

It's a feeling after the fact of making an accurate determination. It's another of those pesky places where the objective and subjective merge.

The data that you deem objective is not made subjective because it's been placed in a category. Categorizing is part of the observing process, not a separate thing.

Its not. You dont observe categories in nature. You observe physical traits and then you take physical traits you observe in multiple creatures and create a category based on those similaries.

Let's see if you can respond with your "intellect" to I.A. Richards' illustration of the phenomenon of what he called "sorting:" if an amoeba learns to classify, in its instinctive way, other subatomic denizens as either "things that will eat me" or as "things that won't eat me," are those categories inapplicable because they inconvenience your view of perfect objectivity?

Like my ants argument I'm going to do the obvious and point out that we are not amoeba and amoeba don't appear to operating on free will. There are similar objective natural process that we do, like our eyes distinguishing between color or things that are moving or standing still, but these process are happening on an objectively automatic biological level. You can't choose to tune your ears off. When the sound waves from your neighbors arguing hit your eyes your have choice about in the process that happens next. Im not saying everything we do is by choice but our actions, whether we engage in slavery, rape, violence, these are choices.

Randomness is implied in your definition of subjectivity as confined to the personal feelings of an individual.

Define randomness and then define in it in what because I'm not arguing your automatic biological process are choices just whether you're engaging in things like slavery and rape.

 

[Master Debator]

And the evil slavers also took the food from the slaves' mouths so that they would starve and not be able to work the fields any more. Wow, big swerve even for you.

I don't think you understand what slavery is. Its when you usurp other people's freedom and dictate the course of their lives including things like what and how much you can eat.

I gave you an objective example re; physical size and you made it subjective. Good one!

Size is objective. That can be measured. Using your bigger size to impose yourself one someone, either as a rapist, slaver or even law enforcer, is a choice.

My argument re the logical necessity of rules against theft and rape remains that those rules are not nullified by any of your exceptions, because you are defining them poorly.

That's not an explanation of what logical necessity is. Being objectively bigger than someone doesn't necessitate you subjugating them.

The will of the governed can be variable, as per the arguments among 19th-century White people as to whether slavery should continue in the States. So yes, I've never denied that some societal rules are made variable by subjective desires on both sides. But others are determined by logical necessity of what best promotes survival.

What is logical necessity? Is that were you pretend people have no choice in the things they do?

And some of those responses are objective, which is all that matters.

Like your hearing or your eyesight or your bodies use of oxygen for fuel, not your choice to enslave others for your own benefit.

More relativism from the alleged objectivist.


I'll be sure to read it after you come up with a valid response to the transgender citation.

You refusing not to acknowledge facts until you validate my counter arguments to you is hilarious. Do or dont it wont stop it from beinf a fact.

The objective factor is that at the genesis of human societies, the strong dominated the weak, just as in most animal societies.

Its not an objective factor that they had to. They chose to subjugate others for their own benefit.

But the weak can come up with their own objective response, by articulating laws that bind even the strong-- which also has non-intellectual parallels in animal societies. But in both situations, individual choice is not a factor.

Enslaving people and fighting enslavement arent choices? Where is the biological imperative to enslave others?

Not what I argued. See above.

You seem to be arguing the slavery is some sort of biological imperative.

God damnit man; read some Hegel!!

Will that explain why you think slavery is a biological imperative?

 

[Master Debator]

There was no "maybe" in the author's privileging of environmental and social interactions over those of biological determinism, which you championed.

I did not champion biological determinism. My claim is that biology is a factor all identities, not just trans identities, yours and mine included. The author is privileging environmental and social interactions because they are not a medical doctor. They are a feminist (her word) psychologist who's main focus is the pathologizing of trans identities. She isnt saying biology isn't playing a role or that the studies she looked at don't show some pieces of a larger puzzle. She's saying their data isn't causal.

Now THAT's where the "maybe" was.

The trans ideologues I have critiqued favor biological determinism and you've given no reason that people should not consider you one such.

What does that have to do with me? I've given you no reason to put words in mouth but that's never stopped you before.

On the other side of this argument let's remember are the people who insist trans is pretend or a mental illness without any data. The determinists might be wrong on cause but at least they have data showing biological representation.

Yep, you're a great for adequately interpreting what others write. Not.

And these are the sort of environmental and social interactions that also give rise to rules against theft and rape.

What?

But your subjective bias leads you to champion the first but find false exceptions to the second.

Make clearer arguments. I don't have any idea what you're even talking about anymore.

 

[Master Debator]

Nope, but you think yours have objective authority,

I do not and have not suggested that anywhere.

which is why you started the slavery discussion, under the false impression that it would win the argument for you. Didn't even come close.

I brought up slavery because you said laws against rape where objectively necessary and there was a lot of raping during slavery. You then tried to make your argument not about all rape but about rape of citizens so then pointed out that citizens could indeed be legally raped by pointing to laws that didn't recognize a wife's right to refuse sex to her husband and since then you've acted too frail to even acknowledge that fact.

You proved my assertion every time you argued that trans women convicts ought to be able to create their own laws with the threat of legal action.

I didn't say that anywhere. You're making things up again.

Well, I'm sure your emotions also include your egoistic conviction that you have fought the power with your illogical jeremiads.

Well now we're all sure you have fantasies about me.

Again, you refuse to criticize the way trans women convicts have gamed the system and resort to attacking the prison system. That's as frail and fragile as it gets.

I don't even know what you mean by game the system or attack it. Is asking to incarcerated with the gender they identify with gaming the system? And is suing to make that happen, attacking it?

It's fatuous for you to complain about false imputations after making so many yourself.

like I said before, you determine what subjective things are real according to your personal preferences.

I was thread-banned, Mister Critical Thinker. And it didn't even have to do with anything you posted, either, so get over yourself.

There there

 

[Master Debator]

Already done. Review previous threads.

You keep claiming you've used your intellect to correctly analyze objective nature, so every time you say something dumb, you invite the Big Yocks.

I analyzed the context of her statement, and "essential" really doesn't support your "pretense" interpretation.

It doesnt? Why? Tell me what essential means then.

That's your interpretation, but it's not Dolazel's just because you find it convenient to misrepresent her views.

It is her interpretation. I quoted her talking about her cultural connection to Blackness but how she wouldnt call herself African American.

I've talked more science here on this thread than you. I just don't gloss my definition of science with the false dichotomy, "Data is objective but categories are subjective." Say it some more; it's funny every time!

False equivalence, as usual. The mammalian determination is collective, not individual.

Are you all Black People? Just because you didn't care about her claim to be "essentially" Black, are you quite sure no one else did?

Why should I care if she calls herself essentially Black? That means absolutely nothing to me. You can't even tell me what it means to you.

Again, my interpretation is that she began saying she was Essentially Black after her imposture was exposed.

So we are both in agreement she was pretending to be African American and when she got caught dropped the act and is now claiming she has cultural and political kinship to Black culture. Correct?

But you're still wrong that she was saying that her identification was a pretense.

I'm not. I copied the quote of her saying she would pretend to be an African queen.

 

[Master Debator]

But at the same time, you're saying, right below, that you haven't researched the other societies. So how can a relativist like you condemn them?

I'm condemning slavery. I don't need to know the particulars of every society to condemn slavery because I know slavery. Why are you so bad at critical thinking?

You claimed to be applying your intellect to these weighty problems, but for some reason you don't want to take that soaring intellect into unfamiliar territory. Why is that? Maybe there are some relativisms you don't like?

Shit is all you can write; I'm just tossing your crap back at you.

That's it; defend the lawyers and the marginalized oligarchy they created.

Still baked into your claim that there's no objective difference in the sentiments of rapist and victim.

Again, there is objective difference. We've gone over this already. One is trying to rape and the other is trying not to get raped. Those goals are objectively different. What neither of them have is any objective value.

Every society that's taken slaves has its own justifications. But those are usually founded in the perception of objective gain.

Like rapists objectively gaining sexual satisfaction from their victims yet you recognize no objective value there. This what's confusing and inconsistent about your argument. Here slavery is objective because the slavers perceive some gain from enslaving but rape isn't objective even though the rapist is also perceiving some objective gain in that scenario.

There's no objective gain to be had in treating people you bought to be slaves as people with rights. Why do you keep tripping over your own doctrine of objectivity?

I'm not disputing that slavers gain from enslaving or that rapists gain from raping, I'm saying choosing to make your gains by forcing yourself on others is a subjective choice.

Even your misreading of the NIM citation shrieked "nuh uh."

False logic can't clue anyone into anything.

Its not me who can't remain consistent from one argument to the next.

 

[Master Debator]

I gave my reasons for not trusting your skewed interpretations of data.

Emotional reasons, nothing actually disputing my claims or the information in my link.

It's not purely subjective if there's objective gain, any more than it's a subjective choice for a meat-eater to eat meat.

That's a tautological statement. A meat eater eats meat. Not all humans are meat eaters however. I have rastafarian relatives who don't eat any meat. You're confusing outcomes with choices. An outcome may be objectively beneficial, like engaging in slavery or rape, but that doesnt mean you have to engage in them. You can choose to benefit yourself in some other. Maybe even through your own hard work or self satisfaction. What Im arguing is subjective are the choices you make.

I never denied that temporal power makes a difference. But you're the only one arguing a split between the power systems in nature and those in human society.

Humans are making choices. Are moons or ants?

Not surprised you didn't follow my argument that slavery may not have been a logical necessity, given that American society learned, within about two centuries, that the game had not been worth the candle.

What? Why are you contrasting George Washingtons choices with your outcomes like he was supposed to care what happens to you? Are saying logical necessity is when you can predict fall out 200 years into the future? What would ever qualify? Washington didn't give a shit about you. Slavery worked out just fine for him and his wife, that's what he cared about.

But none of your subjective rage alters the original context of my remarks, that nothing that happens to slaves alters the rule that every society creates rules, for its citizens, against rape and theft.

Except for all the raping of citizen wives. And there is no one agreement about what constitues theft. To some libertarians progessive taxation is theft. Hell to some of them all taxes are theft.

In the case of slavery, the lawmakers didn't decide who was or wasn't a slave, but rather responded to the desires of citizens who thought slavery would bring them objective gain-- which it did, in the short term.

They wrote the laws, what do you mean they didn't decide? Look who's actually trying deny slaver Founders responsibility for the country the founded and its laws.

 

[Aristaeus]

Gender identity itself is not a social construct. Gender identity is biologically determined in the brain before you are born and is not learned, so you cannot be groomed. How that innate gender identity is expressed is a social construct that varies among the society where you live.

It is not. We've been through this countless times before. Gender identity develops in early childhood years and isn't firmly formed until around age 3. It is likely a mix of biological and social environmental factors.

 

[Master Debator]

The benefits weren't subjective; that's how King Cotton was born. Person X's gain doesn't cease to exist because Person Y else gets dicked over. Where do you get all these subjective interpretations?

It's not an objective benefit for Person Y who, as you say, is getting dicked over. There being any objective benefits for you in slavery is subject to whether you are the slaver or the slave.

You made the false claim that everyone was moved by subjective wants alone and I disproved that. Even you indicated that the escaping slave had objective reasons to desire freedom

No. I said desire and feelings are objective in the sense that you are experiencing feelings and so whatever those feelings genuinely are they are objective in the sense they are your true feelings. I'm using objective there to denote truth from falsehoods. If I'm sad then I'm not happy. That sort of thing. Desire, even the desire to not die or not be raped, is still subjective in the sense that it is a representation of your personal preference, feelings and sentiments and this holds true even if sentiments and feelings are objective (true) biological responses. They're your biological responses, they don't speak for me, only for you.

All of the laws you describe are based in objective gain as much or more than subjective wants. To the person making the gain, it's as objective a fact as any you can name.

I'm struggling to understand what this even means. Slavery was an investment. Some people lose out on their investments. Investments are a risk. Whether an investment will turn out profitable can't be known until after the fact so what does it even mean when you say these laws are based on objective gain? The laws legalizing slavery existed because they hoped to profit off of slavery, not because they were clairvoyant and knew that there would be profit. And again, you don't have to profit off of slavery even if you have a reasonable belief that you could make it profitable. As I said, being objectively stronger than someone else doesn't mean you have to subjugate them, only that you can if you want to.

Ooh, are you Making the Argument About Me? What A Surprise!!

 

[Master Debator]

Since even you know that slaves were not citizens, I assume this is a reference to the allegation that men could freely rape their wives. What "nuance" do you see in that adversarial position?

You tell me, you're the one suggesting husbands weren't really allowed to legally rape their wives despite the link detailing its legal history.

I was sure that a cultural argument would be lost on you, but I had to give you the benefit of the doubt.

You can't even deal with the fact that law makers make the majority of the laws in response to society.

Probably because I have no idea what that's even supposed to mean. It's not very clear. What do you mean in response to society? What does this mean for a dictatorship like North Korea for example?

Sometimes it's to a small minority, sometimes to a relative majority. You're still not even framing your own mistaken position adequately, because you're so desperate to Fight the Power.

I never said anything at all about Fight the Power. I don't know why keep repeating that phrase at me. I'm just struggling to understand what you mean. Are you saying rulers and law makers are selective in who their rules are designed to benefit? That sounds like subjectivity, i.e. personal preference and sentiment, to me.

"Quantified" would be a better word than "measured," but close enough: you finally defined the materialist ideal of objective evidence, which no one else on the atheist thread managed to do. Of course, then you commit the error of all materialists in claiming that the measurement does not get drafted into the same War for Subjective Values as everything else. Your favoritism toward trans women is one such Subjective Value.

What? I don't know what, in claiming that the measurement does not drafted in the same War for Subjective Values as everything else, even means. If you want to make some argument about things being drafted into some war of subjective values go ahead but I have no idea what the **** that even is, let alone laying any claim to it.

Your screed did help me realize that the perfect song for materialists would be Simon and Garfunkle's "I Am a Rock." I don't know why you want to be a rock, but you do you.

Ok. And?

 

[Master Debator]

But you, not I, were the one arguing that the rapist's desire to rape was no more objective than the victim's desire not to be raped. Did you forget that?

Has no more objective value. I stand by that. That isn't me saying it has no objective value that's me saying there's no way to make an objective evaluation on the desire to rape verses the desire to not be raped.

I said that the difference was that society agreed that the victim's desire was based in the logical necessity of any organism to survive, and you denied that while fussing about the rape of slaves for no good reason.

I don't even know what logical necessity means. You don't need to survive. You want to survive. All societies agreement represents is some subjective consensus.

You didn't say anything there any more than you have here.

Again the pretense of Socratic argument. That's old too.

Your report was intrinsically limited by its adversarial intent.

The long history of sexual dominance in many species is an objective fact of nature. How do you figure it's only subjective, if animals with no free will observe the same rules?

So many confused ideas being expressed here at once.

1. There is whether or not sexual dominance is a thing that objectively occurs in nature, including in human nature. It does. That's something that can simply be observed.

2. There is whether animals, humans included, are operating on subjective desire or natural responses or a combination of both. Natural responses would be things like your eyes dilating in low light and subjective desire would be reaching for a light switch to illuminate the darkness. We're not the only animals who appear to be able to act with intent or to express emotion but if they do have them, other animals can't currently communicate them to us. Humans can communicate desire to each other.

3. Animals that appear to have no free will, like ants for instance, are not operating under the same rules. As you just said, they don't have free will.

Your false dichotomy remains the antithesis of sense.

Sure.

 

[Master Debator]

Reactions and degrees are still not equivalent.

What? That's my point. Objective facts and subjective desire aren't the same thing. You're the one trying to elevate subjective desire, like the desire for society impose certain rules about rape or slavery into some sort of objective fact.

No, you made an objectively wrong correlation.

What I told you before.

Look up "intersubjectivity" if you get a minute.

Those are just shared subjective agreements. Language as an example. Things we agree to assume for the sake of some purpose like an alphabet and dictionary to promote easier communication of ideas.

Biological imperatives are as objective as gravity any old day,

Who said otherwise? Hunger is a biological imperative, it still doesnt follow then that you have to enslave someone so they can grow your crops and raise your live stock to nourish you. That's how you are choosing to meet that biological need.

The validation is not subjective if it has logical necessity.

You still haven't been able to describe what a logical necessity is. What's a logical necessity that induces you to have to enslave?

 

[Lisa]

It is not. We've been through this countless times before. Gender identity develops in early childhood years and isn't firmly formed until around age 3. It is likely a mix of biological and social environmental factors.

The facts disagree with you because if you were right then John Money would have been able to make David Reimer into a girl named Brenda because he began his gross experiment at the age of 22 months. Obviously that didn't happen and it cannot happen because a person's gender identity is determined in the brain by hormones during the first trimester. There is absolutely no evidence that it is learned by social interaction.