Cont: Trans Women are not Women II: The Bath Of Khan

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ziggurat said:
You are incoherent on this, because you also say that who a woman is is unconnected to biology. These are contradictory positions. You cannot just pick and choose between them.
Click to expand...

It is biology just as sexual orientation is biology. But it isn't sex organs. The functioning of the brain is biology.
 
BobTheCoward said:
It is biology just as sexual orientation is biology. But it isn't sex organs. The functioning of the brain is biology.
Click to expand...

First, it isn't like sexual orientation. We know that because a lot of trans people detransition.

Furthermore, if you want to claim that it's really biological, then there should be an objective test to demonstrate this. But there isn't. There is no objective test to determine whether someone is trans or not. Nor do trans activists want any such test to be developed.

And lastly, even to the extent that it is biological, you haven't established that it's what you claim it is, namely that trans women are really women. The voices that schizophrenics hear may be a biological phenomenon, but that doesn't mean the voices are real voices.
 
Ziggurat said:
First, it isn't like sexual orientation. We know that because a lot of trans people detransition.

Furthermore, if you want to claim that it's really biological, then there should be an objective test to demonstrate this. But there isn't. There is no objective test to determine whether someone is trans or not. Nor do trans activists want any such test to be developed.

And lastly, even to the extent that it is biological, you haven't established that it's what you claim it is, namely that trans women are really women. The voices that schizophrenics hear may be a biological phenomenon, but that doesn't mean the voices are real voices.
Click to expand...

What is the objective test for proving sexual preference?
 
The Atheist said:
Good point - the Paralympics have so many divisions it's impossible to keep up.

I see no reason why the IAAF can't establish a couple of divisions for trans both ways as well as intersex athletes.
Click to expand...

They can totally do that. The problem is that trans-specific divisions defeat the whole purpose of transitioning in the first place.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Transgirls are girls. Just as redhead girls are girls.
Click to expand...

BobTheCoward said:
What is the objective test for proving sexual preference?
Click to expand...

You ask a lot of questions and you make a lot of statements, but you don't answer a lot of questions.

If you were ever inclined to actually critically examine your own beliefs, you might include a question about what the purpose of a high school athletic competition is.
 
Meadmaker said:
You ask a lot of questions and you make a lot of statements, but you don't answer a lot of questions.

If you were ever inclined to actually critically examine your own beliefs, you might include a question about what the purpose of a high school athletic competition is.
Click to expand...

I already answered your question.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I already answered your question.
Click to expand...

Not only have you not answered it, you haven't even referenced it.

Technically, though, I didn't even ask it. I've learned better. I suggested you ask yourself.

So, I suppose it is possible that you have indeed answered it, but you haven't shared your answer. Well, if you do share your answer, I promise to read it, and I would probably even note how I think it informs the answer to the question of where someone like Andraya Yearwood ought to compete.
 
Meadmaker said:
Not only have you not answered it, you haven't even referenced it.

Technically, though, I didn't even ask it. I've learned better. I suggested you ask yourself.

So, I suppose it is possible that you have indeed answered it, but you haven't shared your answer. Well, if you do share your answer, I promise to read it, and I would probably even note how I think it informs the answer to the question of where someone like Andraya Yearwood ought to compete.
Click to expand...

I answered it for myself as you suggested. It is a nice offer that I will not be exercising today, thank you.
 
ChristianProgressive said:
Ironically, they are correct. If you are born with a man's body you are male. If you are born with a woman's body you are female. That will never change, period.
Click to expand...

I try to limit how much I delve into the man/woman male/female thing because...oye.

Because I don't get what "man's body" means. If "man" is held strictly as a "male human" then it's kind of a circular statement. Holding more to the idea of "man/woman" as a social identity with expectations attached, then it's imposing a limited set of definitions on this person that has been determined by a single data point.

So I cautiously offer a rephrasing.

If you are born with a biologically male body*, you are declared "male" on official documents. If you are born with a biologically female body, you are declared "female" on official documents.


*what constitutes a male or female body biologically is, of course, a growing area of study. The issue of relevance here is that, uh-oh, a lot of those objectively verifiable features develop after birth. I'm not too familiar with delivering babies so maybe there's more to making the determination of sex at birth to put on the certificate there is, but my rough understanding of development tells me that short of bombarding every newborn with radiation in a battery of tests, there's not a whole lot to work with.

It might be worthwhile to change the field on that entry to something like "initial determination of biological sex." Really, it just comes down to getting people to stop presuming from that initial determination what "proper" expectations the child should be made to conform to.

This all tracks back to the continued underlying issue: there are (at least) 4 different factors of identity going on and society demands that you conform to just a handful of possible alignments.

These are not "my thoughts" but what I take to be some low-level agreed-upon "truisms":

A heterosexual woman dressing plain and being career-minded is "odd, quirky."

A butch lesbian can likely get away with being a "man" in every way except biologically.

Metrosexuals are probably just confused gay dudes.

In that same vein, I do have some concern over the issue of "my 8 year old boy acts like a girl, so I should get them on hormones and 'support them through this struggle' as a good parent!" There are a whole host of other ways to "support" a child not aligning to one specific mixture of identities than by immediately determining which of the other "approved" combinations they must end up as.

ETA: But just as quickly again, some over-adherence to a specific solution to a range of conditions is not an argument that our understanding of how to access certain facilities and activities should remain unyielding as our knowledge grows.
 
Last edited:
Science says there are only two sexes. Hope this helps.

The Wall Street Journal has issued a throwdown to the gender lobby, insisting in an op-ed Thursday that sex is binary and there is no “spectrum.”

“In humans, reproductive anatomy is unambiguously male or female at birth more than 99.98% of the time,” note biologists Colin M. Wright and Emma N. Hilton. “The evolutionary function of these two anatomies is to aid in reproduction via the fusion of sperm and ova.”

“No third type of sex cell exists in humans, and therefore there is no sex ‘spectrum’ or additional sexes beyond male and female. Sex is binary,” they assert.

https://www.breitbart.com/science/2020/02/14/wsj-no-sex-spectrum-beyond-male-and-female/

Here's the WSJ link, but they have a pay wall.

The Dangerous Denial of Sex

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-dangerous-denial-of-sex-11581638089
 
BobTheCoward said:
What is the objective test for proving sexual preference?
Click to expand...

You might be able to make one by measuring arousal while watching images. But it doesn't matter, I know of no reason we need one. Subjective tests suffice for any reason I would ever want to know someone's sexual orientation for.
 
BrooklynBaby said:
Science says there are only two sexes. Hope this helps.

The Wall Street Journal has issued a throwdown to the gender lobby, insisting in an op-ed Thursday that sex is binary and there is no “spectrum.”

“In humans, reproductive anatomy is unambiguously male or female at birth more than 99.98% of the time,” note biologists Colin M. Wright and Emma N. Hilton. “The evolutionary function of these two anatomies is to aid in reproduction via the fusion of sperm and ova.”

“No third type of sex cell exists in humans, and therefore there is no sex ‘spectrum’ or additional sexes beyond male and female. Sex is binary,” they assert.

https://www.breitbart.com/science/2020/02/14/wsj-no-sex-spectrum-beyond-male-and-female/

Here's the WSJ link, but they have a pay wall.

The Dangerous Denial of Sex

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-dangerous-denial-of-sex-11581638089
Click to expand...

First: Breitbart.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Second, holy *********, "science says" there's exactly two categories in which 99.98% of people fit?

Uh, it kinda seems like, no matter how small that 0.2% might seem, uh, if those in the 0.2% are apparently neither male nor female, then more than 2 ******* possibilities exist!

The authors of this garbage you're sharing can't even be internally consistent.

Plus "reproductive anatomy", "unambiguous", and "at birth" are doing massive amounts of heavy lifting, there.

ETA: "No third type of sex cell" is some real garbage that has already been sufficiently addressed by others in describing a whole range of conditions that have results on biological sexual development, to say nothing of even more complicated issues like gene expression.

Why do biological twins have different cognition, mannerisms, and self-identity?

If I could watch the development of a child in two dimensions, one where they are raised by their biological parents and one where their parents are tragically killed and they are raised by foster parents, would the child be the same "person" in both cases?

I wish people realized what blank slates we are when we come out. Way too much insistence on "hard wired" ********.

Take 5 people from different random parts of the planet, ask them what "natural behaviors driven by centuries of evolution" there are. You'll be lucky if you only get 5 opinions. They will all insist that "all you have to do is look around and see how people act!"
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
And it turns out you have been wrong this whole time. It was never as you described. Just as people didn't realize sexuality was not a choice.
Click to expand...

It turns out no such thing. If you have a man's body you have a man's body. Period. This is a self-evident fact, and the only relevant one where a sports authority is concerned.
 
Ziggurat said:
You might be able to make one by measuring arousal while watching images. But it doesn't matter, I know of no reason we need one. Subjective tests suffice for any reason I would ever want to know someone's sexual orientation for.
Click to expand...

You stated

Furthermore, if you want to claim that it's really biological, then there should be an objective test to demonstrate this.
Click to expand...

What about all the other claims that are biological that you don't state there should be an objective test? By what principle is this one excepted?
 
BobTheCoward said:
Transgirls are girls. Just as redhead girls are girls.
Click to expand...

No they are not. They have the bodies of men. Different musculature, different stamina and endurance. Different build. Those do not change just because their brains are miswired to think they are women. They Are NOT.

#factsmatter
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom