TERFs crash London Pride

[JihadJane]

What's the difference between a homosexual brain and a heterosexual brain?

None, as far as I know.

Feelings can be facts. But you haven't really answered what I asked you. Given we both agree gender exists why can't we or why should we not use it as a classification system?

Feeling that something is true doesn't make it true.

Except as a fantasy used to police the sex-based power hierarchy that is patriarchy , no, I don't agree that gender exists. Classifying people according to their gender makes as much sense as classifying them according to the bumps on their head (phrenology).

There are now getting on for a hundred possible genders to choose from so a gender-based classification system is going to get very complicated!

 

[JihadJane]

If there is "...very little difference between men's and women's brains" then one has to explain why most men are attracted to women and why most women are attracted to men.

That's not something brain science has been able to pinpoint. Even amoebas can experience sexual attraction. There are multiple systems of regulation and motivation in the human body.

There is more variation between individual people's brains than between the brains of men and women.

 

[3point14]

That's not something brain science has been able to do.

There is more variation between individual people's brains than between the brains of men and women.

The logical end to this line of thought is that sexual orientation is a choice.

Do you believe sexual orientation is a choice?


It's either that or there is a fundamental difference somewhere between the brain (and ancillary functions) of someone sexually attracted to women and the brain of someone sexually attracted to men.

 

[JihadJane]

I don't care. They've laid their cards on the table, so at least their bias is plain for all to seen.

Calling their transgender-focussed website biased is like calling a weather forecasting website biased because it's predicts the weather.

It seems that what you are really saying is that you don't agree with them.

Pay me for my time and I'll watch them, otherwise I ain't interested.

PM me your address and I'll send you a dollar.

 

[JihadJane]

The logical end to this line of thought is that sexual orientation is a choice.

No it isn't. We are complex social animals with complex cultures. "Gender identity", according to those who say they are able to locate and identify their "gender", anyway, is not a sexual orientation.

Do you believe sexual orientation is a choice?

As far as I know, science hasn't been able to answer this question definitively. It is debatable whether any of our behaviours are down to choice. Free will may be an illusion.

It's either that or there is a fundamental difference somewhere between the brain (and ancillary functions) of someone sexually attracted to women and the brain of someone sexually attracted to men.

Why would it need to be a fundamental difference? Which ancillary functions do you have in mind? There is a constant interplay between our brain, the rest of our body and our environment. This interplay physically changes our brain. Why don't men menstruate. Is it because of their brains?

 

[3point14]

No it isn't. We are complex social animals with complex cultures.




As far as I know, science hasn't been able to answer this question definitively. It is debatable whether any of our behaviours are down to choice. Free will may be an illusion.




Which ancillary functions do you have in mind? There is a constant interplay between our brain, the rest of our body and our environment. This interplay physically changes our brain. Why don't men menstruate. Is it because of their brains?

It's pretty binary, i'll try to use more precise language.

Either:

A human being has inbuilt, natural sexuality as a product of their biology - this would absolutely confirm that there is a fundamental, physical, biological difference between the body, including the brain and ancillary systems, of a person that is sexually attracted to men and that of a person who is physically attracted to women.

OR:

There is no fundamental difference between the brains and associated systems of those who are attracted to men / women and sexual orientation is a choice made either by the individual or their culture/upbringing.


It absolutely, positively has to be one or the other of the above choices.

Which do you think it is? Or do you believe we just don't or cannot know?



Oh, and this:

"As far as I know, science hasn't been able to answer this question definitively. It is debatable whether any of our behaviours are down to choice. Free will may be an illusion."

Is a different discussion. If that's the discussion you want to have we'll split it off to R&P, yes?

 

[JihadJane]

It's pretty binary, i'll try to use more precise language.

Either:

A human being has inbuilt, natural sexuality as a product of their biology - this would absolutely confirm that there is a fundamental, physical, biological difference between the body, including the brain and ancillary systems, of a person that is sexually attracted to men and that of a person who is physically attracted to women.

OR:

There is no fundamental difference between the brains and associated systems of those who are attracted to men / women and sexual orientation is a choice made either by the individual or their culture/upbringing.


It absolutely, positively has to be one or the other of the above choices.

Which do you think it is? Or do you believe we just don't or cannot know?

I believe we don't know. Neuroscience is in its infancy so maybe we might be able to know in the future, (assuming the infrastructure of scientific investigation survives that long!).


Has it been established how, or even if, the brain is important in determining sexual orientation?


ETA: I notice you have broadened the enquiry to be about more than the brain.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

I believe we don't know. Neuroscience is in its infancy so maybe we might be able to know in the future, (assuming the infrastructure of scientific investigation survives that long!).


Has it been established how, or even if, the brain is important in determining sexual orientation?

ETA: I notice you have broadened the enquiry to be about more than the brain.

Still in its infancy.
Gay brain:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex/

Trans gender this time.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4223342/transgender-brain-scan-research/

 

[3point14]

I believe we don't know. Neuroscience is in its infancy so maybe we might be able to know in the future, (assuming the infrastructure of scientific investigation survives that long!).


Has it been established how, or even if, the brain is important in determining sexual orientation?

Okay, so I draw from this that you don't know and think we cannot, currently, know, is that right?

ETA: I notice you have broadened the enquiry to be about more than the brain.

Yes, yes I have. I don't think that's an issue. If what we're trying to establish is if sexual orientation is innate or a choice it doesn't matter if it's down to the brain or to any other part of the body.


Why do you think it matters if we're taling about the brain or the whole human being?

 

[kellyb]

It's pretty binary, i'll try to use more precise language.

Either:

A human being has inbuilt, natural sexuality as a product of their biology - this would absolutely confirm that there is a fundamental, physical, biological difference between the body, including the brain and ancillary systems, of a person that is sexually attracted to men and that of a person who is physically attracted to women.

OR:

There is no fundamental difference between the brains and associated systems of those who are attracted to men / women and sexual orientation is a choice made either by the individual or their culture/upbringing.


It absolutely, positively has to be one or the other of the above choices.

Which do you think it is? Or do you believe we just don't or cannot know?



Oh, and this:

"As far as I know, science hasn't been able to answer this question definitively. It is debatable whether any of our behaviours are down to choice. Free will may be an illusion."

Is a different discussion. If that's the discussion you want to have we'll split it off to R&P, yes?

If you're going to lay it out like "It's either pure biology or it's a choice", whether or not freewill exists is a necessary part of the debate.

I strongly suspect that what feels like "choice" is probably something like an illusion. It's all biology as it happens within the human brain, and the things which happen within the human brain (consciousness, memory, feelings and emotions, logic, decision-making, etc) are strictly a matter of 1) genetics 2) previous experiences and events that wired or changed the brain and rest of the body 3) current environment. And that's it.

I think the "biology or choice" dichotomy is basically a false one.

 

[3point14]

If you're going to lay it out like "It's either pure biology or it's a choice", whether or not freewill exists is a necessary part of the debate.

No, it isn't. It really isn't. That's a deep philosophical question about the nature of subatomic physics and it's predictability. Also about if quantum uncertainties come through at a macro level. It's not really a biological question.


Bottom line is that that discussion is done and, from a practical point of view, useless. It goes like this:


"Do you believe that you have free will?"

"I have no other choice"

And that's the end of it. If you and Jane want to derail this conversation with deep, philosophical pointlessness, then you can do that without me. (not to imply that you'd miss me, I suspect you wouldn't.)

I strongly suspect that what feels like "choice" is probably something like an illusion. It's all biology as it happens within the human brain, and the things which happen within the human brain (consciousness, memory, feelings and emotions, decision-making, etc) are strictly a matter of 1) genetics 2) previous experiences and events that wired or changed the brain and rest of the body 3) current environment. And that's it.

I think the "biology or choice" dichotomy is basically a false one.

You do? What do you think the choices are? What do you think makes one person attracted to one sex but not the other?

 

[JihadJane]

Still in its infancy.
Gay brain:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex/

Trans gender this time.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4223342/transgender-brain-scan-research/

Still in its infancy, indeed. None of the evidence presented in these articles supports the claims made by the article headlines.

The differences are likely to have been forged....

(My hilite) Our behaviour and habits can cause changes in our brain. E.g.: Men who behave more like women do our culture will activate similar areas in their brains to those that are active in the brain of traditionally encultured women.

Debunking gender "science":

https://drive.google.com/file/d/140JGuD31V2DcoY_v_VWBJocGyFYbDBQN/view

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Still in its infancy, indeed. None of the evidence presented in these articles supports the claims made by the article headlines.



(My hilite)

Debunking gender "science":

https://drive.google.com/file/d/140JGuD31V2DcoY_v_VWBJocGyFYbDBQN/view

Okay, so let us go with choice and examine that.
I choose to go from male to female.

If it is a fact, then we can use David Hume and ask this:
Fact/premise: I choose to go from male to female.
Therefore: What then???

If it is a fact it is choice, it is a choice!
So what now, JihadJane???

What follows from the fact, IFF it is choice???
Your turn.

 

[JihadJane]

Okay, so let us go with choice and examine that.
I choose to go from male to female.

If it is a fact, then we can use David Hume and ask this:
Fact/premise: I choose to go from male to female.
Therefore: What then???

If it is a fact it is choice, it is a choice!
So what now, JihadJane???

What follows from the fact, IFF it is choice???
Your turn.

I don't accept that the "choice" is necessarily a fact.

What is the evidence that it is your choice to go from male to female (even if the latter were possible)? A huge network of influences direct our behaviours and thoughts.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

I don't accept that the "choice" is necessarily a fact.

What is the evidence that it is your choice to go from male to female (even if the latter were possible)? A huge network of influences direct our behaviours.

So choice is not a fact. Then nobody chooses their sexuality or what ever.
Then a trans woman is not a trans woman by choice.

Your turn.

The problem is that it is not a problem that there are trans gendered people as such or the rest of LGBT+.
It is only a problem if you make it a problem! Is it a problem, JihadJane?

I mean we can wonder philosophically and scientifically what it really is? But than doesn't tell us how to act; i.e. the is-ought problem.

So at the end of the day, what ought we do?

 

[kellyb]

What do you think the choices are?

I guess I think it's just "a thing that happens in the brain via complex neurological processes which results in what's perceived as a decision."

What do you think makes one person attracted to one sex but not the other?

It has to be "neurological differences based on genetics, past experiences, and environment". It's really complicated, though, and not well understood.

If you take a small step back and look at animals and their various mating behaviors, and then look at we humans as animals, it's pretty obvious that it's "a brain thing", isn't it?

 

[3point14]

I guess I think it's just "a thing that happens in the brain via complex neurological processes which results in what's perceived as a decision."



It has to be "neurological differences based on genetics, past experiences, and environment". It's really complicated, though, and not well understood.

If you take a small step back and look at animals and their various mating behaviors, and then look at we humans as animals, it's pretty obvious that it's "a brain thing", isn't it?

This is sort of my point.

I'm happy to accept that sexual orientation is an innate, biological thing,.

Because of that, because I don't know how it all works I think I then have to accept that "feeling like / wanting to be a man/woman" is also an innate biological thing.

 

[kellyb]

This is sort of my point.

I'm happy to accept that sexual orientation is an innate, biological thing,.

Because of that, because I don't know how it all works I think I then have to accept that "feeling like / wanting to be a man/woman" is also an innate biological thing.

I think the gender critical/anti-transgender argument is that regardless of if it's biological to feel like or want to be the other sex, that alone doesn't obligate everyone else pretend that it's true that the other person is the other sex.

Like, there's a difference between "it's some sort of neurological thing" theory, and "born in the wrong body" theory.

 

[Information Analyst]

Calling their transgender-focussed website biased is like calling a weather forecasting website biased because it's predicts the weather.

It seems that what you are really saying is that you don't agree with them.

I don't agree with their biased and bigoted perespective.

PM me your address and I'll send you a dollar.

My time is worth more than that.

 

[luchog]

I think the gender critical/anti-transgender argument is that regardless of if it's biological to feel like or want to be the other sex, that alone doesn't obligate everyone else pretend that it's true that the other person is the other sex.

Well, no. Reading the TERF writings make it clear that their opposition is much more hard-line than that. They're biological essentialists who deny the validity of the neurological science in demonstrating the neurological basis of transgenderism.

They have an almost religious opposition to transgenderism, insisting that it either doesn't exist per se, that it's nothing but a tactic used by the patriarchy to continue to repress women, or that it's a mental illness at best, and should be treated as such in a rather draconian fashion.