I keep asking you what this
exceptions to rules argument that you keep making is all about. I don't get it. What exceptions and to who's rule? Yours? Nature's? You can't seem to explain it to me but you sure do keep making it.
It's society's established rules-- for one, the separation of males and females in sports-- that you keep kicking against, by finding exceptions to those rules that you imagine will invalidate said rules.
What are you trying to say? You were arguing about consensus and instead of furthering that argument you decide to come back with this exceptions to rules thing. What does that have to do with your attempts to rely on consensus to attack my link about the biological components of trans identities?
I'm not responsible for your straw man. I didn't define the objectivity of *particular* rules in terms of consensus, but in terms of practical reality. There's no society that doesn't have the practical need to legislate against theft and rape. Your pointing out ways that particular individuals get around the rules does not invalidate those rules in the least.
That's not what I'm saying. Can you quote where I said anything at all about not holding people accountable for their actions? No you can't.
When I brought up the corrupt motives for trans women convicts to seek inclusion into women's prisons, you shifted to critique the prisons for not being able to watch every convict. That was you not holding trans women accountable for their actions.
I did and I still stand by that. That's an argument about the subjectivity of desire. That isn't me saying I don't subjectively desire to hold people who objectively harm others accountable.
And your relativistic argument discounts objective differences between the motives of the person wreaking harm and the person suffering harm.
Wrong again. I'm saying address rape and assault in prison and then you don't have to worry about whom goes where. Do you care about rape and assault in prison or just about when a trans person is doing it?
Like I said, you want to blame the system and not the people committing the acts. I argue that rape and assault cannot be totally prevented in prisons due to the practical limits on oversight, but virtue signaling Lefties encourage bad behavior on the part of a marginalized group and then act surprised when more women get raped and assaulted.
That was a good bit of strawmaning fantasy by you. You should be good at it, you get a lot of practice....
Lib States make laws to protect the gender identity of trans convicts even when those laws obviate the state's responsibility to biologically female convicts. Nope, no strawmen there.
Correct, except for the part where you suggest I reject subjective impressions. So there is a biological compenent to all identities, including trans ones.
Your argument re: "the subjectivity of desire," as phrased by you, should admit of no exceptions since you won't distinguish between the rapist and the victim. But somehow the subjective desires of the trans individual merit an exception. Why?
Who's arguing that she can't identify more with black culture? Are
you trying to invalidate subjective impressions?
Still pointing out that one Rachel's subjective impressions are as valid as the other Rachel's.
I quoted her saying she'd pretend to be a African queen. Its her own words guy....
She argued that her African identity superseded the biological reality. That was her actual meaning when she brought up "social construct," not that she was lying, but that she felt the freedom to "construct" her own ethnic reality in defiance of society's.
That's the difference between me and you. You are so frail that you have to believe other people's interpretations and perspectives are false, rather than just different from yours. That's why when I responded I said
it sounds to me like she's talking about cultural identity. I don't care if you feel those quotes mean something differently to you. I only posted them so everyone can put their interpretation up against yours to share the amusement I received from yours.
Your subjective feelings of amusement are not supported by anything objective, least of all your false interpretation of what Dolazel meant.
