theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Sadly it doesn't matter. If humans were more like horses, there would be no problem of transwomen in sports.
Transwomen are not Women - Part 15
- Thread starter d4m10n
- Start date
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Honestly I'm still reeling from the large, stinky, anti-science, anti-dialogue, post-truth turd that CNI recently crapped into the discussion.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Was he? Sorry then. The theory was not made up on the spot. I did my PhD in equine exercise physiology, and a major part of it was exploring the different strategies adopted by the horse (prey) and man (predator). I could bore you senseless on this for hours, any time you like. Dogs are yet another topic which isn't really relevant here. The females of many predator species hunt, but man has adopted a different strategy for reasons that would take this way off topic.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
You talk like you have attended a Parelli or a Monty Roberts horsemanship clinic.
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
What if it was a trans horse? A male horse that identifies as a female horse, or vice versa?
I'm only partly joking. There are - off the top of my head- some 450 species of animal that exhibit homosexual behaviour. It's a strong argument to show that homosexuality is natural. Are there any non-human animals that exhibit trans tendencies?
Manger Douse
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2010
- Messages
- 2,024
I think there should be some kind of penalty for sea-gulling threads
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Rolfe
Adult human female
Do I? My goddaughter does the Parelli thing. I've no idea who Monty Roberts is.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Are you serious? Homosexual behaviour is normal in many species, notably in cows in pro-oestrus. It's very easy to observe and understand. I've heard of animals who seemed to believe they were a different species from what they really are, at least temporarily, due to fostering.
The idea of an animal thinking it was or wanted to be the opposite sex is ludicrous. The idea that this might influence a horse's handicap allowance - I have no words.
angrysoba
Philosophile
I think that some examples of mimicry of the opposite sex is known in some animals. This is where JS Haldane's example of the "sneaky ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊" ESS comes in, particularly for some fish.
There are presumably examples of DSDs in animals, as well.
Rolfe
Adult human female
The mimicry thing is not trans. I don't remember coming across a DSD case I over 40 years as a vet, though no doubt it happens sometimes. So what? DSDs have nothing to do with trans, nor has sexual mimicry. A female hyena is made the way she is and doesn't think she's male. She's not having surgery and taking artificial hormones to indulge a fetish.
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
Yes. That's what I said.
My point exactly. If trans behaviour is only observed in humans, then it's very likely not a natural phenomenon, and more likely to be a fashionable trend which only humans will create.
I get the feeling you read my post rather too hastily.
angrysoba
Philosophile
So what indeed?
I was merely answering a question by another poster. I'm not making anything of it.
Anyway, you agree with me that DSD happens in animals. You can say it is unrelated to trans and yet we have been discussing a few cases of DSD in this very thread. In fact, so did you!
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
AIUI, homosexual behaviour in dogs is more a dominance display that anything else.
Transgender behaviour is unique to humans - and therefore it's a strong indicator that it is not normal or natural, but rather, a mental condition. The idea that animals can be transgender is ridiculous on its face.
Transgender behaviour is unique to humans - and therefore it's a strong indicator that it is not normal or natural, but rather, a mental condition. The idea that animals can be transgender is ridiculous on its face.
angrysoba
Philosophile
Yes, I agree. But it is a bad argument against trans stuff. There are much better arguments.
Appeals to nature are typically pretty bad because there should be no assumption that a thing happening in nature is a thing that should be promoted. The converse is also true. We don't see other animals building hospitals or inventing computers, but that does not mean that such things are bad.
angrysoba
Philosophile
This kind of logic is itself something that skeptics should resist.
On another thread he is fully in favour of space flight and yet we have no evidence of other animals accomplishing such feats. You could say it is not normal or natural to create rockets and blast off into space, but it doesn't follow from that that it is a "mental condition".
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
I didn't say trans stuff is bad. I said it's a behaviour only observed in humans. Animals don't have the concept of rights- gay rights, women's rights, civil rights. That doesn't mean these things are bad. These things are good- in my opinion. My point is that it does not appear that trans behaviour is innate in the same way that homosexuality is.
angrysoba
Philosophile
And I don't disagree with our point that trans stuff is a human innovation. In particular, if you define it as something that only makes sense as a human innovation, as opposed to the previously given examples of opposite-sex mimicry (which otherwise sounds like a good definition of trans), or DSD, then you are question-begging as it can only be behaviour observed in humans by definition.
That said, even if anyone were to grant this, what is your point?
I think the last sentence was a clue.
Rolfe
Adult human female
I don't think there's any profit in this "is it innate" line of argument. I don't know how to distinguish. It doesn't have to be present in non-human animals to be "natural", arguably anything we do is natural.
Male sexual fetishes are natural and innate. I'm not aware of these appearing in other species, but that doesn't make them less innate or less natural, unless we're going with the sense implicit in "unnatural practices". This debate is constantly hamstrung by the refusal of a number of posters to acknowledge that autogynaephilia is at the root of much male cross-dressing, and extreme homosexual behaviour at the root of much of the rest. These behaviours are natural and innate and not vanishingly rare. The question is, what should be done about them?
Should women be forced to budge up and accept male sexual fetishists - whether heterosexual or homosexual - in their single-sex spaces? Should women be gaslit that these men are uniquely vulnerable and marginalised and require entry to women's spaces to shore up their fragile personalities? Is the bleating of those such as Katie Montgomery or India Willoughby that they feel "unsafe" if required to use male facilities (and somehow they're still unsafe if required to use single-use unisex facilities because if people see them going in they'll be stigmatised) sufficient to force the opening of women's intimate spaces to these men - and, ipso facto, to any man who wants to enter? Or should women be able to say, men, these men are not our problem, please find a solution that doesn't involve breaching women's boundaries?
So long as this absolute fantasy that these men are poor vulnerable flowers who happen to have for realsies been born with female brains in male bodies keeps going, we have a fight on our hands. Which is why the fantasy is perpetuated and we get all this "protect the dolls" nonsense. Women's modesty, dignity and boundaries should not be up for debate when it comes to how to deal with mentally unwell men.
Male sexual fetishes are natural and innate. I'm not aware of these appearing in other species, but that doesn't make them less innate or less natural, unless we're going with the sense implicit in "unnatural practices". This debate is constantly hamstrung by the refusal of a number of posters to acknowledge that autogynaephilia is at the root of much male cross-dressing, and extreme homosexual behaviour at the root of much of the rest. These behaviours are natural and innate and not vanishingly rare. The question is, what should be done about them?
Should women be forced to budge up and accept male sexual fetishists - whether heterosexual or homosexual - in their single-sex spaces? Should women be gaslit that these men are uniquely vulnerable and marginalised and require entry to women's spaces to shore up their fragile personalities? Is the bleating of those such as Katie Montgomery or India Willoughby that they feel "unsafe" if required to use male facilities (and somehow they're still unsafe if required to use single-use unisex facilities because if people see them going in they'll be stigmatised) sufficient to force the opening of women's intimate spaces to these men - and, ipso facto, to any man who wants to enter? Or should women be able to say, men, these men are not our problem, please find a solution that doesn't involve breaching women's boundaries?
So long as this absolute fantasy that these men are poor vulnerable flowers who happen to have for realsies been born with female brains in male bodies keeps going, we have a fight on our hands. Which is why the fantasy is perpetuated and we get all this "protect the dolls" nonsense. Women's modesty, dignity and boundaries should not be up for debate when it comes to how to deal with mentally unwell men.