Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

[MatthewLee]

Re: What to do about North Korea?

You cite exceptional cases as if they prove a general rule. I think this muddies the water. The woman you cited for example was a woman with an unusual child in her womb that was still the product of male and female gametes.

There were eggs and sperm and two zygotes were fertilized and fused.. did I read that right?

Makes and females are required for reproduction in all cases. Two biologically differentiated sexes of human with specifically differentiated sex organs capable of function must share an egg and sperm. Binary by any definition I understand.

Perhaps your exceptional level of knowledge on this matter and the esoteric studies you have done on this matter make you distant from the most basic assertions. It’s hard to see a big picture when you look at the micron level. Half the problem here is just definitions. We have no common set of them and the ones in the dictionary are useless as far you have told me.

By the way.. why do you insult so much? You are accusing people of being “ignorant fuckwits” and of having hurtful and bigoted ideoligoes but truthfully I see all the venom coming from you because people disagree with your opinions. We can disagree without resorting to that kind of name calling can’t we? If you don’t believe that two people can see the same data differently then why discuss it at all?

You have tossed out the word Creationist like a slur. Entirely intolerant of the opinion of others. That only makes it harder for you to teach people something you’re obviously passionate about.

I am unimpressed by the lack of civility in these discussions. Truly well supported opinions can be shared and disagreed with without resorting to shaming. You keep appealing to your own authority and it is obvious you have some education... would you talk to a student like this?

This isn’t fun. It’s just contentious and angry.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Re: What to do about North Korea?

You cite exceptional cases as if they prove a general rule.

No, I cite black swans which counters any claim that all swans are white.

Why are you flapping about this Matthew? Surely you can see you were in error? Why not just acknowledge it and amend your position accordingly?

I think this muddies the water.

Um? Reality muddies your folksy analysis?

So much for your position then if it refuses to take into account facts.

The woman you cited for example was a woman with an unusual child in her womb that was still the product of male and female gametes.

You keep going round the same errors. What does this have to do with anything?

There were eggs and sperm and two zygotes were fertilized and fused.. did I read that right?

In what other way does human reproduction occur?

Makes and females are required for reproduction in all cases. Two biologically differentiated sexes of human with specifically differentiated sex organs capable of function must share an egg and sperm. Binary by any definition I understand.

Lawks. Thats really the most suitable word in response.

What on earth are you even talking about? Gametes don't have a gender, Matthew. Whether an egg and a sperm is necessary for fertilization is completely and utterly irrelevant as to the number of genders in the human population.

Perhaps your exceptional level of knowledge on this matter and the esoteric studies you have done on this matter make you distant from the most basic assertions.

Or perhaps you are lost in your own navel and refuse to understand why the only voice you're producing is coming from your rectum?

It’s hard to see a big picture when you look at the micron level.

Is it? I wouldn't know because there's no need to look at the 'micron level'. But do contrive other ways to spin the fact that you are talking nonsense about scientific facts.

Half the problem here is just definitions. We have no common set of them and the ones in the dictionary are useless as far you have told me.

Sorry but I am under no obligation to simplify a complex subject for you. You can ask me to help you, as you have done, but you not liking the answers doesn't mean the problem is in the terms being used.

By the way.. why do you insult so much?

Sometimes people need a kick up the arse to shake them off their onanistic groove.

You are accusing people of being “ignorant fuckwits”...

Accusing people? No, I am not. It's not an accusation, it's an insult, and it's not 'people' it's one particular person who doesn't actually happen to be you.

and of having hurtful and bigoted ideoligoes but truthfully I see all the venom coming from you because people disagree with your opinions.

Funny because I've pointed no venom at you whatsoever, but it is rather useful to engage in tone-trolling when you can't win an argument, I guess.

We can disagree without resorting to that kind of name calling can’t we?

Which kind of name-calling?

Show an instance of me calling you a name.

If you don’t believe that two people can see the same data differently then why discuss it at all?

You don't see the data differently, Matthew - you're ignorant about Biology. You might not like the way I phrase that, but it's true nevertheless - and no one is obliging you to employ that ignorance in arguing for bollocks. Incidentally, being ignorant isn't really much of an insult - there are huge realms of knowledge of which I am wholly ignorant, and probably always will remain so, the difference of course being that I wouldn't pretend to someone in that field that my ignorant bullshit trumped empirical evidence - because ignorance can be rectified. However, there's another type of ignorance that is wilful, the kind where people refuse to learn and want their stupid ignorant beliefs accepted as being at least on par with reality. Explain why I should coddle such a person.

Regardless, for all this whining Matthew, I've not actually insulted you at all except for calling you ignorant of Biology. Am I wrong? Surely it's only an insult if I am wrong?

Finally, given your first post in this forum and the litany of abuse you pointed at AronRa, I think you must be having a laugh with me? No?

You have tossed out the word Creationist like a slur.

It is a slur, but not by me, by those people who pervert reality in the name of their stupid beliefs.

Entirely intolerant of the opinion of others.

Are you? Why's that then?

That only makes it harder for you to teach people something you’re obviously passionate about.

Funny that as I have a very successful career teaching people something I am obviously passionate about - the difference, of course being, that they don't pretend that their ignorance means they get to make up ad hoc bullshit and have it respected.

Are you arguing for snowflakism in universities, Matthew? Funny how you seemed to want exactly the opposite before.

Regardless, if someone in my class exhibited the same degree of ignorance about basic biology, then I'd be utterly perplexed at how they were sufficiently qualified to be there in the first instance, and be very clear to them that they need to seek emergency remedial classes to make up for the failings in their knowledge. Sorry, but reality ain't a fucking democracy.

I am unimpressed by the lack of civility in these discussions.

Great.

Truly well supported opinions can be shared and disagreed with without resorting to shaming. You keep appealing to your own authority and it is obvious you have some education... would you talk to a student like this?

One as routinely assholish as Tree? Yes, I fucking would.

How about you shut your tone trolling down for a moment and consider whether there might be a little bit more to this than you know?

Because Tree has a history of calling me the most outrageous names, ridiculous accusations, and generally attempting to troll the fuck out of me. So regardless of my lack of asking you permission to do so, I treat him with the contempt he's earned. Incidentally, I won't be asking your permission to do so.

And yes, if a student was as aggressive, obnoxious and idiotic as Tree, I'd talk to him like this... well no, I'd make it a lot clearer by having him removed from my class.

This isn’t fun. It’s just contentious and angry.

/shrug

No one's making you partake.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Re: What to do about North Korea?

Incidentally, Matthew - you talk a lot about rhetorical strategies, so perhaps you can identify the class of rhetorical strategies where someone ignores all the arguments countering their claims and spends an entire diversionary post talking about the format, or the style of the post, rather than addressing the content.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Re: What to do about North Korea?

And yeah...

http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=184296#p184296

Feel free to avail yourself of knowledge of the situation first, Matthew because, as it will come as no surprise to you, the world doesn't actually revolve around you. Months prior to your arrival here, Tree spent considerable effort being abusive and cuntish to me. Perhaps you want me to be a saint and repeatedly turn the other cheek? Sorry, I treat people like they treat me - consider it childish if you will, but there it is. Given you took offense from one insult that wasn't even aimed at you, one should imagine the litany of abuse pointed at me by Tree would make your toes curl.

Also i would be very interested in seeing the list of things Tree called you, the ones i remember are: soviet spy(or something like that) and north korean simpathizer if i'm remembering correctly and now a muslim too :lol:

Make no mistake, this is not in any sense constructive criticism of American policy, this is just regressive leftist shit slinging. I've seen your kind before, I know how you operate. All your efforts serve no other purposes than to: 1. convince young Americans to hate their own country and distort their perception of reality to such an extent they will support foreign policies that go against national interests 2. aid enemies of the US

A regressive left North Korean stooge, no less! :lol:

But he may well have called me a Soviet spy too - he's slung so much shit I've simply come to ignore it for the most part, unless it looks sufficiently fun to mock.

Others have included Communist, ANTIFA, Muslim apologist, racist, SJW, as well as a long foray into discussions of my sanity, others of my moral fiber, and most recently more than a thousand words on my intelligence or putative lackthereof.

 

[MatthewLee]

Re: What to do about North Korea?

I think, you are correct on one point. No ones making me interact here.

Fair enough. God bless, y’all.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Re: What to do about North Korea?

I think, you are correct on one point. No ones making me interact here.

Fair enough. God bless, y’all.

Well, another way would just be to ignore the bits that don't interest you and focus on the bits that do. I only pay a small amount of attention to a couple of peoples' posts here because they rarely write anything worth reading.

Other people, though, challenge my ideas or explain things in novel and enlightening ways, so they tend to be worth paying a damn sight more attention to.

Many years ago, I knew a crusty old git (a tutor) who was immensely knowledgeable about all aspects of physics and the natural world, as well as being a genuinely novel thinker... his key trait was that he was grumpy as fuck and scornful of mediocrity. Conversations with him would tend to be about 95% artfully crafted insults about the paucity in which you must exist given your inability to follow the guy as he leapt effortlessly from one branching subject to the next, and the other 5% startling revelations of awe-inspiring comprehension.

For me, I'd take a life comprised of 95% outright abuse if it resulted in 5% better understanding.

Might be just me, though! May Zeus shine light on your path!

 

[Tree]

Re: What to do about North Korea?

I knew the goalposts would shift,

They didn't. How non-humans reproduce has absolutely no bearing on how humans reproduce.

Some microorganisms for example reproduce asexually by splitting in two, how's that relevant to humans? It ain't. How is hermaphrodite gastropod or fish reproduction relevant to human reproduction? It ain't.

but I also knew it wouldn't matter when there are ample records of both hermaphroditism and asexuality in humans in the scientific literature.

Your own source say it's a disorder. Specifically disorder of sexual development.

Not a third human sex.

Now as for asexuality, your source defines it as:

no sexual attraction to a partner of either sex

Now that's a broad definition. So broad that it would include heterosexuals or homosexuals with levels of sexual hormones so low they don't even realize their apparent lack of interest could be fixed with a hormone supplement.

More:

A number of factors were related to asexuality, including gender (i.e., more women than men), short stature, low education, low socioeconomic status, and poor health

That makes sense considering some medical conditions cause you to lose your libido or maybe never discover it in the first place, how many of these "asexuals" are actually just heterosexuals or homosexuals who don't realize it yet?

That's sexual and binary.

Wrong - is your science denial religiously motivated?

I don't deny science, you do.

If you don't think human reproduction is binary then please state what the 3rd ingredient in reproduction is, after the sperm and egg? Go ahead and make a fool of yourself all the way.

You can't do it alone, you can't do it with 3 people (you can have a threesome but the result will still have only 2 parents), you can't do it with 2 dudes or 2 gals and you certainly can't divide yourself into two people.

Essentially all of this is just untrue, but Tree's ignorance lets him think that his ignorance dictates reality.

All of this is untrue? So here Sparhajoke thinks that:

1. some humans can reproduce alone (and some can even split themselves and become two people, just like some fucking microorganisms)
2. threesomes can produce babies that have 3 biological parents
3. some butt fucking between two dudes sometimes produces children
4. some lesbian fucking sometimes produces children

You can't get more Creationist-level than that.

You're a joke and a pseudo-intellectual, Sparhajoke. It's pretty clear you either never passed junior high level biology or you did and you're just trolling to push your radical left-wing agenda (which you'll also deny having despite constantly spouting SJW level far left propaganda).

You're retarded either way. Either you're stupid enough to actually believe the crap you spew or you're stupid enough to think I'm stupid enough to believe the crap you spew.

I wonder if Sparhafoc would think it's accurate for a biology textbook to state:

"The human hand can have anywhere from 0 to 6 fingers."

I mean if you want to start considering every possible exception to the norm what you get is an incomprehensible pile of mess.

Well, it doesn't work that way. You can remove a wheel from a car and put in a giant rock, it's still a car (just a defective one), it's NOT a new form of vehicle, just a defective car.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Re: What to do about North Korea?

I knew the goalposts would shift,

They didn't. How non-humans reproduce has absolutely no bearing on how humans reproduce.

Some microorganisms for example reproduce asexually by splitting in two, how's that relevant to humans? It ain't. How is hermaphrodite gastropod or fish reproduction relevant to human reproduction? It ain't.

Yeah, because I compared meiosis and mitosis, amirite?

No, what I gave you were easily recognizable ways in which the simplistic binary you asserted as fact is, in fact, factually wrong.

Further, I have given plenty of examples of real world Biology in this thread countering your navel fluff.

but I also knew it wouldn't matter when there are ample records of both hermaphroditism and asexuality in humans in the scientific literature.

Your own source say it's a disorder. Specifically disorder of sexual development.

Disorder of the norm. Yes, that's what the word means, and as I've already been explaining to you why there's a norm, and how the fact that there's a norm doesn't mean that reality is restrained to the norm... in fact, definitionally, for there to be a norm, there must also be things that are not of that norm. In Biology, these tend operate in normative distributions, or bell curves. Either which way, as I've already explained - it's about 1% of the population who have either both sets of reproductive organs, or undeveloped reproductive organs, and every shade in between.... and people with red hair are similarly about 1% of the population, then your argument is tantamount to saying that red hair doesn't exist. In reality, of course, it's just a rare natural phenomenon.

Not a third human sex.

I've addressed your confusion in the very post you're supposedly replying to.

Now as for asexuality, your source defines it as:

no sexual attraction to a partner of either sex

Now that's a broad definition.

No, it's not.

So broad that it would include heterosexuals or homosexuals with levels of sexual hormones so low they don't even realize their apparent lack of interest could be fixed with a hormone supplement.

Perhaps it might include them, but even if it did, that makes no difference to the existence of the other group who cannot feel sexual attraction.

More:

A number of factors were related to asexuality, including gender (i.e., more women than men), short stature, low education, low socioeconomic status, and poor health

That makes sense considering some medical conditions cause you to lose your libido or maybe never discover it in the first place, how many of these "asexuals" are actually just heterosexuals or homosexuals who don't realize it yet?

I dunno? Want me to make up a number? 7.26%... so how about the other 92.74%?

I don't deny science, you do.

He says while denying science.

Your comprehension of Biology is 4 decades or more out of date.

If you don't think human reproduction is binary then please state what the 3rd ingredient in reproduction is, after the sperm and egg? Go ahead and make a fool of yourself all the way.

Human reproduction being binary has what to do with human gender? Oh wait, I already explained this already to you in the post you're supposedly replying to!

You are shifting back and forth between talking about humans (things which can possess 'gender') and reproduction meaning fertilization of egg with sperm (things which cannot possess 'gender') - obviously, this is because you are terminally confused yammering on about another topic beyond your ken, but you think that your gut instinct based on inherited wisdom is sufficient to dictate reality.

Human beings remain human beings in the complete absence of reproduction. Children can't reproduce, but they are still 'gendered'. Many people are born congenitally incapable of reproducing, but they are still 'gendered'. This is because, contrary to your woolly notions, reproduction isn't mapped directly to gender. Instead, what we can say is that gender is normally assigned by morphology, so possessing certain anatomy means you are assigned a particular gender and that is the level of analysis you want to limit the discussion to. However, there are numerous empirical cases which I've already cited and you've ignored where people possess both male and female reproductive organs, meaning by your very own logic, they are not 'male' OR 'female' but must be some other category. Similarly, there are people born with NEITHER reproductive organ, which by your very own logic must mean they are not male nor female.

It's really quite simple: either you acknowledge the facts of these cases, or you pretend they don't exist. If the latter, that's exactly what denial means.

Meanwhile, there are many other relationships between humans and reproduction that aren't covered, and there's no argument been made as to why we should assume reproduction as a stand-in for gender. Your argument is based on assumption, and the assumption isn't concordant with empirical evidence garnered over the last 40 years.

You can't do it alone, you can't do it with 3 people (you can have a threesome but the result will still have only 2 parents), you can't do it with 2 dudes or 2 gals and you certainly can't divide yourself into two people.

Essentially all of this is just untrue, but Tree's ignorance lets him think that his ignorance dictates reality.

All of this is untrue? So here Sparhajoke thinks that:

1. some humans can reproduce alone (and some can even split themselves and become two people, just like some fucking microorganisms)
2. threesomes can produce babies that have 3 biological parents
3. some butt fucking between two dudes sometimes produces children
4. some lesbian fucking sometimes produces children

Ahh look - the little guy's getting crabby again making up silly little names as he thinks he can bully me. So cute. Obviously, all the adults in the room know it's just him beating his chest because there's nothing of value coming from his mouth.

Yeah, it's stupid.

1) In factual reality, a woman's own stem cells could act as the genetic material in cultivated sperm for her infant. There's no magical barrier there. It is, of course, wholly unethical and wouldn't be allowed because it could cause serious genetic problems for the child. Of course, we'd do it to mice...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3107846/

In the early 2000s, evidence confirmed that functional mouse oocytes and sperm can be derived from mouse embryonic stem cells in culture [16–18]. Toyooka et al. [16] reported embryonic stem cells can form germ cells in vitro, and Geijsen et al. [17] found that injecting these cultured haploid male gametes into unfertilized egg led to embryo development to the early blastocyst stage. Hubner et al. [18] reported that mouse embryonic stem cells in culture can develop into oogonia that enter meiosis and recruit adjacent cells to form follicle-like structures and later developed into blastocysts.

2) However, the second point (albeit a follow on from the previous point) is just ignorance masquerading as fact again, and actually partly responds to the other confidently asserted falsehoods.

https://www.nature.com/news/genetic-details-of-controversial-three-parent-baby-revealed-1.21761

Techniques to create ‘three-parent babies’ seek to offer mothers a way to have a child without passing on metabolic diseases caused by faulty mitochondria, the structures that provide energy to cells. Researchers do this by exchanging the diseased mitochondria of a prospective mother with those of a healthy, unrelated donor: the ’third parent’.

In this case, a team led by Zhang, who works at the New Hope Fertility Center in New York City, removed the nucleus from a healthy donor egg and replaced it with a nucleus taken from the egg cell of a woman who carries a rare neurological disease called Leigh syndrome, leaving the donor’s healthy mitochondria intact. The scientists then fertilized the modified egg with the father’s sperm before implanting it into the mother’s uterus. The resulting baby was born in April 2016.

The paper reports new details about the procedure, such as the method used to transfer the mitochondria: freezing and heating the embryo before using an electrical pulse to fuse the mother's nucleus into the donor egg. The study also reveals that some diseased DNA from the mother was carried over inadvertently into the donor egg, which could have long-term repercussions for the child's health.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1363459316689380

In 2015, two novel in vitro fertilisation techniques intended to prevent the inheritance of mitochondrial disease were legalised in the United Kingdom, following an intense period of inquiry including scientific reviews, public consultations, government guidance and debates within the Houses of Parliament. The techniques were controversial because (1) they introduced a third genetic contributor into the reproductive process and (2) they are germline, meaning this genetic change could then be passed down to subsequent generations.

So let's see who's going to deny science here?

You can't get more Creationist-level than that.

My thoughts exactly.

You're a joke and a pseudo-intellectual, Sparhajoke.

Awww diddums... you're making fun of my name again!

And the irony level is divine!

It's pretty clear you either never passed junior high level biology or you did and you're just trolling to push your radical left-wing agenda (which you'll also deny having despite constantly spouting SJW level far left propaganda).

Of course, in reality I am not left wing, and as we all know, people get to stake their own political positions, not have them shoved down their throats by aggressive internet asshats.

In reality, Tree's just shown he's ignorant of Biology, so he can't really be expected to identify actual expertise in Biology - the two go hand in Dunning-Kruger hand.

You're retarded either way.

Oh back to calling me mentally insane again, are you?

It has to be said, if I am mentally insane, one must wonder what's afflicting you to keep getting your arse spanked publicly by a retard.

Either you're stupid enough to actually believe the crap you spew or you're stupid enough to think I'm stupid enough to believe the crap you spew.

The latter - I always assume that people will change their minds when shown facts, even if those facts contradict their previously held beliefs. That's because most people are genuine - of course, there's always going to be a subset of dopey cunts who think they can emote reality.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Re: What to do about North Korea?

See, there's blond hair... right... and there's brown hair... but that's it, capiche? It's binary, innit?

Red hair? Nah, red hair doesn't exist... it's just brown or blond hair misunderstood!

Oh and Tree's a paedophile, because I said so on the internet.

 

[Tree]

Re: What to do about North Korea?

I wonder how many fingers Sparhafoc would say a human hand has?

1) In factual reality, a woman's own stem cells could act as the genetic material in cultivated sperm for her infant. There's no magical barrier there. It is, of course, wholly unethical and wouldn't be allowed because it could cause serious genetic problems for the child. Of course, we'd do it to mice...

So it's:

1, not doable naturally, requiring advanced 21st century tech to even attempt (and therefore it is NOT part of human biology that a man or woman can breed on their own)
2. not viable even if it could be done naturally (i.e. if that's how everyone tried to reproduce humanity would die out)

I am not impressed. It is ridiculous and equivalent to saying the human immune system is powerful enough to cure cancer on its own. No, it can't. Surgery and chemo does it. That's medical technology at work, your fucking body can't fight it off.

Techniques to create ‘three-parent babies’ seek to offer mothers a way to have a child without passing on metabolic diseases caused by faulty mitochondria, the structures that provide energy to cells. Researchers do this by exchanging the diseased mitochondria of a prospective mother with those of a healthy, unrelated donor: the ’third parent’.

In this case, a team led by Zhang, who works at the New Hope Fertility Center in New York City, removed the nucleus from a healthy donor egg and replaced it with a nucleus taken from the egg cell of a woman who carries a rare neurological disease called Leigh syndrome, leaving the donor’s healthy mitochondria intact. The scientists then fertilized the modified egg with the father’s sperm before implanting it into the mother’s uterus. The resulting baby was born in April 2016.

The paper reports new details about the procedure, such as the method used to transfer the mitochondria: freezing and heating the embryo before using an electrical pulse to fuse the mother's nucleus into the donor egg. The study also reveals that some diseased DNA from the mother was carried over inadvertently into the donor egg, which could have long-term repercussions for the child's health.

Another idiotic example of you conflating our bodies and how they work in a state of nature with technology.

There is no way human reproduction would work like that in a state of nature. I'm not interested in what you can do with fancy technology.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Re: What to do about North Korea?

I wonder how many fingers Sparhafoc would say a human hand has?

Normally, 4.

I bet Tree was thinking 'Duh 5'.

1) In factual reality, a woman's own stem cells could act as the genetic material in cultivated sperm for her infant. There's no magical barrier there. It is, of course, wholly unethical and wouldn't be allowed because it could cause serious genetic problems for the child. Of course, we'd do it to mice...

So it's:

1, not doable naturally, requiring advanced 21st century tech to even attempt (and therefore it is NOT part of human biology that a man or woman can breed on their own)

And that became relevant when?

Those goalposts must be made of some kind of ultra-modern lightweight alloy the degree to which they are being dragged around!

2. not viable even if it could be done naturally (i.e. if that's how everyone tried to reproduce humanity would die out)

And a complete non-sequitur to round it all off.

Of course, one might wonder why we suddenly started talking about humanity going extinct if random thing occurred, but let's remember - it's Tree, so red herrings are the norm when he won't admit any of his errors.

I am not impressed.

It is ridiculous and equivalent to saying the human immune system is powerful enough to cure cancer on its own. No, it can't. Surgery and chemo does it. That's medical technology at work, your fucking body can't fight it off.

Wibble wibble wibble mcwoo you say? Very interesting. So about the actual topic?

Another idiotic example of you conflating our bodies and how they work in a state of nature with technology.

A state of nature? Oh Tree... how very Christian of you!

Regardless, you were wrong - science expressly contradicts your claims, so are you denying these facts?

There is no way human reproduction would work like that in a state of nature. I'm not interested in what you can do with fancy technology.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Sparhafoc]

Re: What to do about North Korea?

Oh and...

Not a human hand?

 

[Sparhafoc]

Re: What to do about North Korea?

I recall a 'conversation' with some random dude about Neanderthals, and because I said that Neanderthals had symbolism, art, and presumably culture while he declared they were brutish animals, he called me a SJW! :lol:

It's like the braindead's go-to insult these days.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Re: What to do about North Korea?

Biological sex: male, female, intersex (born with genitalia of both sexes), and asexual (born without any discernible genitalia);

Actually it's just male and female. For someone decrying creationists for their childish pseudo-scientific rejection of evolution, you should know better about this kind of propaganda spread by SJWs out of an exaggerated sense of tolerance for intersex people.

SJWs are the new creationists.

Ergo, given the actual quantity who's denying science in promulgation of their ideology, presumably then, according to your own definition, anti-SJW's are also the new creationists!

That's just what we need: more creationists! :lol:

 

[australopithecus]

Re: What to do about North Korea?

Even to their parents?

Yes. Parents don't automatically have a say in the sexuality of their children by virtue of having birthed them.

Well, it's technically not my business if you want to have untreated cancer and die from it if you want to extrapolate that to its logical conclusion, but if the issue comes up, I'm entitled to state my opinion on the matter and it's the same one: See a doctor.

To compare asexuality to terminal cancer is egregious nonsense. It's an appeal to emotion, but then I assume that's why you chose that comparison.

This may apply to strangers, it doesn't apply to family members. I would be deeply concerned if my children were not showing any signs of sexual interest in their peers by their mid teens.

Why would your child's sexual interest be something you're even thinking about? "Hey Jimmy? You started wanking yet?".

It would be my duty as a parent to get them checked at a doctor (if nothing else to rule out low hormones, past undisclosed abuse and the numerous other conditions that are indistinguishable from asexuality) and the same applies if they claimed to be unable to smell things or taste food.

With your child's consent. You missed that part.

The problem is when people want to force others (especially children) to acknowledge their subjective perception of reality as you can see the case with trans activists wanting to impose special pronouns or fine people who "misgender" or insist that you're a "bigot" if you raise children according to their biological sex.

The problem is when people want others (especially children) to acknowledge their autonomy, as you can see the case with trans activists wanting to impose pronouns that describe themselves or similar people or [citation needed]" or [citation needed]

Fixed that for you.

Ultimately I don't care if you choose to identify as someone born on the planet Mercury, you're free to be crazy to some extent, but if you were to argue that the state should actually write "Planet Mercury" on your place of birth in your documentation or that others must proclaim that you're from Mercury otherwise they're mercuryphobes denying your identity and that textbooks should be edited to factually state humans can survive on Mercury - that's going too far

Ultimately, it seems your lashing out at something you don't understand, because you don't understand it. You clearly care because you've spent how many minutes total trying to argue against non-binary gender identifications and differing sexualities. Someone who doesn't care doesn't do that. I get it, there are certain subsets of people within the LGBTQ and supposed allies who are batshit crazy and demand nonsense, but to rally against all of it because of vocal idiots is equally dumb.

PROTIP: Don't want to be called a dick for misgendering someone? Don't misgender them. It's not hard.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Re: What to do about North Korea?

With respect, Matthew, you're making it more about race than all of us combined. We're not implying you're racist or anything like that; what's actually happening here is your consistency is being questioned.

The process that ended the ban on interracial marriage is the same as the one that ended the ban on same-sex marriage. That was the point of HWIN's reductio ad absurdum. It's not about race, it's not about sexual orientation, it's about the process. The process. You have claimed the process was wrong for the same sex marriage; for some reason you are not saying the same of interracial marriage. Instead you started talking about stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with the point.

So. Was the process wrong in both cases, or is it right in both cases? Your position cannot be consistent otherwise.

Now a fourth person understanding my point. Strange how MatthewLee will waste so much text avoiding addressing a simple point. I have a feeling why.

HWIN said:
"Is there a white gene? Oh, wait, race is a social construct. So what this has to do with my point is beyond me. "

"When it comes to skin color, the team found a patchwork of evolution in different places, and three separate genes that produce light skin, telling a complex story for how European’s skin evolved to be much lighter during the past 8000 years. "

http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=15725&start=180

Yes. There are genes that make white people different from African-Americans and many African descended people because of heredity. These are arbitrary differences because they come from heredity which is not a choice. This is why the comparison between LGBT orientations and racial distinctions is a point of contention. Unless we establish that being Lesbian, Gay, or Bisexual is a matter of heredity then the behavior that accompanies the preference implied by words like Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual must be a choice. What other option is there?

Wow! MatthewLee does not have me on ignore, just refuses to engage with most of my actual points. One wonders why...

The funny thing about this is that I knew exactly that this is where it would go. Remember that MatthewLee made the point that there is no gay gene (singular). When I point out that there is also no white gene (singular), MatthewLee retort is to point out that there are several genes (three) that control the color of white peoples skin. MatthewLee, since there is no white gene (singular), but several genes that control for it, do you acknowledge that there can be a biological basis for sexual orientation, even if it is not controlled by just one gene?

Now if you want to discuss the genetic bases for homosexuality, I am all for it. However, it would behove you to state that this is your point clearly, so we do not waste time on things you deem irrelevant (like the point I was making).

The difference between the cake baker case and Loving V Virginia is profound. The cake baker didn't deny them service entirely, he simply doesn't want to make a custom cake that supports behavior he does not agree with. He won't make Halloween cakes, or ones that disparage LGBT persons either... he has specified this. He feels this is compelled speech supporting a choice he does not agree with. The Loving family had their door kicked in and the pregnant wife hauled off to jail and were told to not come back to the state for 25 years based on an issue of the wife's heredity which is an immutable characteristic.

:facepalm:

I am the only person that brought up Loving v. Virginia and I brought it up as a comparison to Obergefell v. Hodges. No one has compared it to the new case at the Supreme Court. Nice dodge. I am starting to get a feeling why you keep dodging.

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]Now, I will agree that that reductio ad absurdum was not my best work. I was in a rush (and also why I wrote won as one in that post ). However, I think my point is clear since three other people got it. As Collecemall said, "But one might wonder why the racism sticks out yet the bigotry it was derived from is tolerable to you?" In addition, the reason I used interracial marriage as interchangeable with gay marriage is because both were decided in the courts, thus both overturned state constitutions. That fact seemed to be a reason you were so upset about this, thus I thought it would be a good comparison.

[emphasis added]

Perhaps the emphasis will help this time?

Would you require a Muslim Imam to marry a same sex couple in a Mosque?

Yes.[/quote]

I whole heartily disagree with you on that.

Interesting how the same people who insist bakeries run by Christians must bake cakes for gay weddings complete with custom pro-gay marriage messages (if requested) on it are typically the ones a-okay with getting racists (or perceived racists) fired for things that have nothing to do with their job performance.

Citation needed.

I don't claim that either are illnesses, although now that you mentioned it, male on male anal sex is a particularly high risk behavior.

Again, citation needed.

It affects us when the law mandates it. In Canada this is, I believe, already the case. The schools teach it to children and the laws where I live will have Health and Human Services at your doorstep if your child intimates to a teacher you won’t acknowledge their identification as another gender in elementary school. They also are mandated
By law to disregard the parents opinions on the matter and go with the child’s expressed gender identity, as well.

Again, citation needed.

The reality is that he highest levels of leadership in many faiths are now occupied by LGBT persons who are changing their core doctrines.

Again, Citation needed.

It appears that all parties are confusing sex and gender. Although being related, they are not the same thing. I feel if MatthewLee, Sparhafoc, and Tree specified which one they were talking about, so much time would not be wasted in them talking passed each other.

I think, you are correct on one point. No ones making me interact here.

Fair enough. God bless, y’all.

The inevitable clutching at pearls turning to pearls before swine. Oh well. It is not like MatthewLee cared to engage with my actual point. However, the constant dodging and silence on it did speak volumes.

 

[Gnug215]

So, to whom it applies to:

What do you think the consequence would be of soceity as a whole accepting more than one gender/sex/whatever?

I'm assuming you think it would have negative consequences, since you oppose it. What would those negative consequences be?

 

[Tree]

Re: What to do about North Korea?

Yes. Parents don't automatically have a say in the sexuality of their children by virtue of having birthed them.

Parents are supposed to guide and shape their children too you know.

The idea that the choice is between an authoritarian parent who doesn't tolerate gays/asexuals/trans and one who's totally absent on the issue, doesn't have any input to the point of letting the child in the driver's seat so to speak is a false dichotomy here.

So for example, if my kid turned out be trans in life, I'd ultimately accept it. I'm NOT however going to raise him or her in a "gender neutral" way. That's madness. If he's a boy and he REALLY REALLY doesn't like typical boyish things, he can tell me that himself loud and clear. I am not going to encourage gender confusion and I want my children to be comfortable in their own bodies as much as possible. That's how I'll guide him but I'm not going to force a choice on him.

And there's really no evidence someone is "born trans" or "born asexual" or even "born gay" which means parenting and environment plays a role in whether or not those things will come true later in life. Though I wouldn't prohibit it, I'd rather they turn out straight and comfortable with the body they were born in. They'll have a far easier life if they do so and that's not just because of society's "discrimination".

Transitioning to the other sex is very expensive medically and taking those hormone shots from the opposite sex puts you at risk of cancer. Medical procedures themselves are becoming increasingly riskier with antibiotic resistance. The less you have to stay in the hospital the better. (Preferably, you'll never have to go there at all.)

Being gay (male in particular) puts you at an extremely high risk of STDs including HIV due to the way male on male sex is usually performed, the anus just isn't optimal for that. It is so out of proportion that 70% of new HIV infections come from male on male action, despite being only 2% of the population and that's CDC data, not some nonsense a creationist cooked up. I think people shouldn't be persecuted just because they engage in personal high risk activity but at the same time I have no idea why anyone, in good conscience, would think being gay is a great thing or as equally valuable as heterosexuality and even hold pride rallies for it or try to familiarize young children with it which children's story books depicting the "two dads" of a baby penguin or whatever weird stuff they're pushing these days.

Since someone also asked:

https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/index.html

In 2014, gay and bisexual men made up an estimated 2% of the U.S. population, but accounted for 70% of new HIV infections. Approximately 492,000 sexually active gay and bisexual men are at high risk for HIV; however, we have more tools to prevent HIV than ever before.

More than 600,000 gay and bisexual men are living with HIV in the United States.

- keep in mind that would put gay HIV rates at 10%. So there's a 1 in 10 chance that if you're a dude fucking another dude, he has HIV.

To compare asexuality to terminal cancer is egregious nonsense. It's an appeal to emotion, but then I assume that's why you chose that comparison.

I'm in no way saying they're as bad, it's just about taking the principle of minding my business to its logical extreme.

Why would your child's sexual interest be something you're even thinking about? "Hey Jimmy? You started wanking yet?".

That is not even remotely close to how it should go, but you notice something's up when they're:

1. not dating (we're talking about mid-teens here, not young children)
and
2. not expressing any interest in dating

You don't need to ask creepy awkward questions like that at all to figure out something's up.

With your child's consent. You missed that part.

I think you're forgetting who's in charge. Under 18s can have a lot of autonomy and the closer they get to 18 the more of it they get, but not when it comes to refusing medical care. This is true for everyone, even straight and so-called "cis".

If we let children decide if they want to go to the doctor or not, you'd see a sharp decline in children's health and a rise in mortality rates. They're just not mature enough to make those decisions for themselves.

Besides, I'm the one who's legally liable if they don't get the medical care they deserve. So we're doing it my way.

The problem is when people want others (especially children) to acknowledge their autonomy,

Your autonomy ends where my autonomy begins.

Ultimately, it seems your lashing out at something you don't understand, because you don't understand it. You clearly care because you've spent how many minutes total trying to argue against non-binary gender identifications and differing sexualities.

I've expressed doubt over asexuality as an "orientation", but I'm not trying to pressure anyone into sex.

Non-binary gender isn't a thing.

but to rally against all of it because of vocal idiots is equally dumb.

To what extent am I rallying against it? I'm not trying to make being trans illegal nor am I trying to make sex re-assignment illegal (at least not if you're over 18, there should be an age of consent for medically unnecessary procedures).

That said, I'm not under any obligation to pretend that a biological male who thinks he's female or a biological female who thinks she's male is actually those things. Part of my own autonomy is that you don't get to force me to pretend that something that isn't so is so.

The ultimate conclusion of what these activists are saying is that you should indulge any delusion someone has in order to be "tolerant" and I just don't think that's the way forward. There's probably someone out there who genuinely believes he's the King of Mercury and sits all day in a decrepit outhouse and thinks that's his "throne" and he holds a stick in his hand that he found in a trash can, thinking that's his valuable "royal scepter". There are crazy but kinda harmless people like that.

Am I under any obligation, in order to be "tolerant", to address him by his preferred title of "King of Mercury"? Do we really need to go to these extremes to get along?

I'll leave him be to his dream world, but I'm not going to call him king.

 

[Tree]

So, to whom it applies to:

What do you think the consequence would be of soceity as a whole accepting more than one gender/sex/whatever?

I'm assuming you think it would have negative consequences, since you oppose it. What would those negative consequences be?

You mean more than 2, right? We do accept more than one gender/sex. Male and female. We also already (in part) accept crazy behavior as long as it isn't directly harmful. It's not illegal to be a man or a woman and pretend to be something that is neither man nor woman, (except maybe if you're doing this deliberately to commit fraud somehow) just like it's not illegal to pretend to be the King of Mercury and pretend your outhouse is your throne.

We can point out some obvious ones:

1. it's not factual to begin with, mainstreaming lies makes it harder for society to function properly

Now people may bring up religion here, but the difference is so far nobody is being forced to adopt a religion they don't want to. Trans activists however do want to force their perception on others. It's not enough to simply leave them alone.

2. it creates confusion among children
3. I don't know if you noticed that transitioning is expensive and that's going to be especially a problem because the same people who want to "break the gender binary" also want universal healthcare

If I'm going to be forced to pay for other people's healthcare, it better be a damn good reason. i.e. you better be half-dead

We would be better served by trying to help people be comfortable with their own bodies and comfortable with REALITY.

4. it will lead to unrealistic demands on businesses like having to create a 3rd or 4th or whatever bathroom which seems trivial but is actually expensive for businesses and harms the economy

Either that or it will lead to unisex bathroom which do more harm than good, since it breaks certain boundaries that most males and females are not comfortable crossing, harming community cohesion for the sake of 0.01% of the population (many of whom don't even care about bathrooms) doesn't seem like a good idea.

5. it complicates the issue of prisons (how are you going to assign inmates? we only have male and female prisons)


The way things are now is more or less fine. It's not illegal to be trans or non-binary but also the loonies aren't in charge of the asylum. They're in the background somewhere more or less tolerated and they have plenty of people who will even fully accept them voluntarily. No need for grand societal change.

And some trans are fine with the way things are by the way. Take Blair White for example. She does her thing, doesn't care if you accept her or not, doesn't care what strangers think.

Edit: 6. This: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e2KJ7tpQ88

wtf

 

[MatthewLee]

HWIN:

I am not ignoring your post I was at work and I wanted to really give some thougbt to this and read the posts Again so that I would respond to your argument rather than what I thought it was.

I will do so when I get home. I understand, at least I think I do, what the problem was and what I failed to explain.