Culture Intelligent Design

Richard Dawkins takes a risk: Sex is binary

Spread the love

Gotta hand it to him: This is pretty risky in the age of non-binary. Harry Potter author J. K Rowlings got cancelled for saying that being a woman matters: And so now:

The Sunday Times condensed my words into the headline that I have adopted for this piece: Race is a spectrum. Sex is pretty damn binary. Unlike my wombat conjecture, this point really is childishly obvious. When a female and a male mate, each offspring is either female or male, extremely seldom a hermaphrodite or intersex of any kind. [2] Arusha really was a cow, not a half-way bull. But her intermediate colouring made us suspect that this “pedigree Jersey” was actually half Ayrshire—an artificial insemination screw-up. When two people of different races mate, their offspring is of mixed race and this shows itself in many ways, including skin colour. After generations of intermarriage, beginning with the exploitation of enslaved women and girls, African Americans constitute a rich spectrum such that some individuals, when required to tick the “race or ethnicity” box on official forms, might justifiably feel free to “identify as” whatever they choose.

Meghan (née Markle), Duchess of Sussex

The Duchess of Sussex identifies as “mixed race” but is frequently referred to in the press as black. Barack Obama sees himself (and is commonly described) as black although, having one white parent, he might equally well tick the white box. The “one-drop rule,” once enshrined in the laws of some segregationist states, asserted that one drop of African “blood” was enough to make a person count as black—thus making blackness the cultural equivalent of a genetic dominant. It never worked in reverse, and it still exerts a powerful hold on American discourse—while “African Americans” actually run a smooth gamut from those of pure African descent to those with perhaps one African great great grandparent. Were race not a spectrum, Rachel Dolezal’s critics should have spotted that she wasn’t “really” black, simply by taking one look at her. It’s precisely because black Americans are a spectrum that it wasn’t obvious. With negligible exceptions, on the other hand, you can unwaveringly identify a person’s sex at a glance, especially if they remove their clothes. Sex is pretty damn binary.

Richard Dawkins, “Race Is a Spectrum. Sex Is Pretty Damn Binary.” at Areo Magazine (January 5, 2022)

Dawkins is walking a road here. He’s interfering with a scam. Where people get rights or don’t get them based on “race” or claims about non-binary sex. Better wish him luck.

83 Replies to “Richard Dawkins takes a risk: Sex is binary

  1. 1
    polistra says:

    Well, the one-drop rule doesn’t still exert a hold on American thinking. It never did. It was an extreme reaction to Lincoln’s extreme genocide. But that’s a typical British misunderstanding of America, not a modern ‘woke’ thing. We can’t grasp the real British views on nobility and caste, and they can’t grasp our real views on race.

    His basic point is valid and expressed with admirable clarity.

  2. 2
    asauber says:

    Stating the obvious is risky. This is where we are in the TheresNoTruth age.

    Andrew

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    Too funny, Dawkins is savvy enough to know that “Sex is pretty damn binary”, but apparently he is not savvy enough to know that he actually exists as a real person, and that he is not a ‘neuronal illusion’.

    At the 23:33 minute mark of the following video, Richard Dawkins agrees with materialistic philosophers who say that:
    “consciousness is an illusion”
    A few minutes later Rowan Williams asks Dawkins ”If consciousness is an illusion…what isn’t?”.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWN4cfh1Fac&t=22m57s

    Atheistic Materialism – Does Richard Dawkins Exist? Dr. Dennis Bonnette – video 37:51 minute mark
    Quote: “It turns out that if every part of you, down to sub-atomic parts, are still what they were when they weren’t in you, in other words every ion,,, every single atom that was in the universe, that has now become part of your living body, is still what is was originally. It hasn’t undergone what metaphysicians call a ‘substantial change’. So you aren’t Richard Dawkins. You are just carbon and neon and sulfur and oxygen and all these individual atoms still.
    You can spout a philosophy that says scientific materialism, but there aren’t any scientific materialists to pronounce it.,,, That’s why I think they find it kind of embarrassing to talk that way. Nobody wants to stand up there and say, “You know, I’m not really here”.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCnzq2yTCg&t=37m51s

    Jay Richards: “Oddly, the scientific materialist has to deny the existence of scientists.”
    Sam Harris (a scientific materialist): “The self is an illusion.”
    – Michael Egnor Demolishes the Myth of Materialism (Science Uprising EP1)
    https://youtu.be/Fv3c7DWuqpM?t=267
    – Naturalism requires us to believe that our minds are an illusion. But, as neurosurgeon Michael Egnor says, “if your hypothesis is that the mind is an illusion, then you don’t have a hypothesis.”
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/hush-the-universe-is-learning/

    The Confidence of Jerry Coyne – Ross Douthat – January 6, 2014
    Excerpt: But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession (by Coyne) that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant: But more on that below.) Prometheus cannot be at once unbound and unreal; the human will cannot be simultaneously triumphant and imaginary.
    https://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/?mcubz=3

    Quote and Verse:

    “I think, therefore I am”
    – Rene Descartes – per wikipedia, The Latin cogito, ergo sum, usually translated into English as “I think, therefore I am”,[a] is the “first principle” of René Descartes’s philosophy.

    Exodus 3:14
    God said to Moses, “I Am Who I Am”; and He said, “You shall say this to the Israelites, ‘I Am has sent me to you.’”

  4. 4
    Joe Schooner says:

    Where is the risk about saying that sex is binary. Nobody denies this. Where people get into trouble is when they try to use this fact to impose restrictions on people who prefer to dress and live as the opposite sex. If a person’s actions don’t harm anyone else, they are free to do what they will. That is what freedom is about. You don’t have to like another person’s choices, but if no harm is being done, you have to support it if you truly believe in freedom.

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    Joe Schooner, “,,, sex is binary. Nobody denies this.”

    Have you been living under a rock?

    Transgender Ideology Is Riddled With Contradictions. Here Are the Big Ones. – Feb 9th, 2018
    Excerpt: People say that we live in a postmodern age that has rejected metaphysics. That’s not quite true.
    We live in a postmodern age that promotes an alternative metaphysics. As I explain in “When Harry Became Sally,” at the heart of the transgender moment are radical ideas about the human person—in particular, that people are what they claim to be, regardless of contrary evidence. A transgender boy is a boy, not merely a girl who identifies as a boy.,,,
    https://www.heritage.org/gender/commentary/transgender-ideology-riddled-contradictions-here-are-the-big-ones

    Biology Lecturer’s Comments on Biological Sex Draw Backlash – August 12, 2021
    Excerpt: Human Evolutionary Biology lecturer Carole K. Hooven’s comments on a Fox News show last month maintaining the existence of two sexes and defending the usage of the terms “male” and “female” to refer to biological sex in medical classes sparked backlash on social media and within the department, with some arguing Hooven’s remarks set back Harvard and the department’s diversity and inclusion efforts.,,,
    https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2021/8/11/biology-lecturer-gender-comments-backlash/

    etc.. etc.. etc…

    GEICO-What do u live under a rock???
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Bh5C6WYl7Y

    Of related note:

    Born gay or transgender: Little evidence to support innate trait, Wednesday, August 24, 2016
    Excerpt: “a report finds scarce scientific evidence to conclude that gay and transgender people are “born that way. The 143-page paper, published this week in The New Atlantis journal, combs through hundreds of studies in search of a causal, biological explanation for sexual orientation and gender identity, but comes up empty. “The belief that sexual orientation is an innate, biologically fixed human property — that people are ‘born that way’ — is not supported by scientific evidence,” says the report, written by a psychiatrist and a biostatistician at Johns Hopkins University. “Likewise, the belief that gender identity is an innate, fixed human property independent of biological sex — so that a person might be a ‘man trapped in a woman’s body’ or a ‘woman trapped in a man’s body’ — is not supported by scientific evidence,””
    http://www.washingtontimes.com.....-evidence/

    The genetic difference between men and women,,, – 06 Nov 2017
    Excerpt: a full third of our genome is behaving very differently in men and women.
    These new data pose challenges for science, medicine and maybe even gender equity.
    The human genome
    Men and women have practically the same set of about 20,000 genes.,,,
    They found that about one third of these genes (more than 6,500) had very different activities in men and women. Some genes were active in men only or women only. Many genes were far more active in one sex or the other.
    A few of these genes showed sex biased activity in every tissue of the body. More commonly, the difference was seen in one or a few tissues.
    Most of these genes were not on sex chromosomes: only a few lay on the Y or the X.
    How could a third of our genes be differently controlled in men and women?
    https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/11/throughout-our-bodies-thousands-of-genes-act-differently-in-men-and-women

    How Men’s Brains Are Wired Differently than Women’s
    Male brains have more connections within hemispheres to optimize motor skills, whereas female brains are more connected between hemispheres to combine analytical and intuitive thinking
    By Tanya Lewis, December 2, 2013
    Excerpt: “On average, men connect front to back [parts of the brain] more strongly than women,” whereas “women have stronger connections left to right,” said study leader Ragini Verma, an associate professor,,,
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-mens-brains-are-wired-differently-than-women/

  6. 6
    asauber says:

    “people who prefer to dress and live as the opposite sex”

    JS,

    So they know they are pretending to be something they are not. Why, in your opinion, would they do that?

    Andrew

  7. 7
    JVL says:

    I don’t mean to be rude but it’s been more that 48 hours since I’ve been allowed to post to another thread:

    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/if-math-is-a-reality-atheism-is-dead/#comments

    I keep getting a site generate 403 error. Do any of the site admins care?

    Oh, right, I can post to this thread. That means someone has chosen to restrict access to the other thread. Will anything happen about this? Probably not.

  8. 8
    Joe Schooner says:

    So they know they are pretending to be something they are not. Why, in your opinion, would they do that?

    Unless you are transgender, transvestite, gay, etc. you can only speculate about what they believe and what they prefer. The point being made is that as long as they are doing no harm to anyone else, what does it matter?

  9. 9
    asauber says:

    ‘you can only speculate about what they believe and what they prefer”

    JS,

    You are dodging the question. It’s obvious what they prefer. Why do they prefer the pretense and not the reality?

    “as long as they are doing no harm to anyone else”

    How did you determine they aren’t doing themselves harm or someone else harm?

    Andrew

  10. 10
    polistra says:

    People are different. Some prefer to dress differently.

    But those rare genuine intersex types (to the extent that we can extrapolate from the small sample) prefer to live as binary. I was halfway acquainted with one of them, who was a student in a department where I worked as a technician. He was just an ordinary male, not at all ‘in-betweenish’. If you didn’t know anything about him you wouldn’t spot him as unusual.

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    “as long as they are doing no harm to anyone else, what does it matter?”

    And all the girls forced to compete against biological males who pretend that they are girls said Amen.

    Transgender athletes don’t belong in girls’ sports. Let my daughter compete fairly.
    If boys identifying as girls left your daughter a spectator in her own sport, wouldn’t you speak up?
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/06/19/transgender-athletes-robbing-girls-chance-win-sports-column/4856486002/

    “,,, sex is binary. Nobody denies this.”
    – Joe Schooner
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Bh5C6WYl7Y

  12. 12
    vividbleau says:

    JS
    “The point being made is that as long as they are doing no harm to anyone else, what does it matter?”

    Ask the UPenn’s woman’s swimming team.

    I am an advocate for women’s rights if biological men who think they are woman are continued to be allowed in woman’s sports it will destroy title 9.which woman fought so hard to get passed.

    For the record I hope that biological men who think they are a women inundate women sports that is the only hope that we have IMO to return to some sanity.

    Vivid

  13. 13
    PaV says:

    Joe Schooner:

    You don’t have to like another person’s choices, but if no harm is being done, you have to support it if you truly believe in freedom.

    How do you define harm? If society allows people to openly dress in a manner that conflicts with their gender, then how will affect young boys and girls?

    If this confuses even a small proportion of our young and then produces long-term emotional difficulties, which could have otherwise been avoided, is this “harmful”? I sure think so.

    Should I be able to curse at a judge in a courtroom? What harm does it cause? By your logic, I should be free to do this. But this isn’t permitted. So, why isn’t it allowed?

  14. 14
    Joe Schooner says:

    You are dodging the question. It’s obvious what they prefer. Why do they prefer the pretense and not the reality?

    I don’t know. And I don’t care.

    How did you determine they aren’t doing themselves harm or someone else harm?

    Are you suggesting that we should ban everything that can possibly cause harm to themselves?

    With respect to harm to others, we would eventually see it.

  15. 15
    Joe Schooner says:

    Should I be able to curse at a judge in a courtroom? What harm does it cause?

    If allowed it would undermine the justice system, which harms everyone.

  16. 16
    bornagain77 says:

    Joe assumes that there is no harm in transgender”ism”. He is wrong in his assumption.

    The Transgender Movement and ‘Gender Identity’ in the Law
    By Peter Sprigg Senior Fellow for Policy Studies
    Causes and Treatment of “Gender Dysphoria”
    While causality is difficult to determine, those who identify as transgender are more likely to have been victims of child sexual abuse or to have a history of trauma, loss, and family disruption.[vii]
    Susan Bradley, M.D. and Kenneth J. Zucker of the University of Toronto, leading experts in gender dysphoria in children, have declared that “clinicians should be optimistic, not nihilistic, about the possibility of helping the children to become more secure in their gender identity.”[viii] Psychiatrists have reported that gender dysphoria often occurs with other mental health problems in adults, and that it “improved in parallel during treatment” for those conditions.[ix]
    “Gender Reassignment” Surgery
    Full transition involves hormone treatments, breast surgery (removal or implants), other cosmetic surgery, genital reconstruction, and a change of personal identification. However, not every person seeking to live as the other sex will undergo surgery.[x]
    These surgical procedures are not always successful and can be extremely painful.[xi] A lifetime of hormone treatments can also have profound physical and psychological consequences.[xii] Psychiatrist Jon Meyer concluded that “surgery is not a proper treatment for a psychiatric disorder and it is clear to me that these patients have severe psychological problems that do not go away following surgery.”[xiii] High rates of suicide exist even among those who have already received gender reassignment surgery, which suggests that suicidal tendencies result from an underlying pathology.[xiv]
    https://www.frc.org/transgenderidentity
    Click here to read the entire paper
    https://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF16B28.pdf

    A Pediatrician Explains How ‘Dangerous’ Equality Act Would Force Doctors to ‘Do Harm’ – May 10, 2019
    Excerpt: Doctors who are uncomfortable prescribing hormone treatments or doing gender reassignment surgeries could soon potentially be in violation of federal law, warns Dr. Michelle Cretella, a pediatrician and executive director of the American College of Pediatricians. And they’re not the only ones at risk: Parents, too, could find themselves unable to decide on their own child’s medical treatment. Read our interview with Cretella, posted below, or listen to it on the podcast:
    https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/05/10/a-pediatrician-explains-how-dangerous-equality-act-would-force-doctors-to-do-harm/

    Changing the concept of “woman” will cause unintended harms – 2018
    There are more things to consider than some trans activists would have you believe, argues Kathleen Stock, an academic
    https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/07/06/changing-the-concept-of-woman-will-cause-unintended-harms

  17. 17
    EDTA says:

    Asauber points it out above, but this cuts to the heart of the issue: Who gets to decide whether harm is being done? In a liberal time, those wanting to expand the range of allowed behaviors say they should get to decide this. And, just like the debate over where morality comes from, this one could launch another 1000-thread discussion…

  18. 18
    Joe Schooner says:

    Joe assumes that there is no harm in transgender”ism”. He is wrong in his assumption.

    Referencing an anti-gay activist from an organization declared an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center isn’t exactly a credible reference.

    But I didn’t assume anything. I just said that if they do no harm to others that they have the freedom to act as they choose.

  19. 19
    Joe Schooner says:

    Asauber points it out above, but this cuts to the heart of the issue: Who gets to decide whether harm is being done?

    If harm is so difficult to detect, perhaps the best course is to assume no harm. The benefit of the doubt should be in favor of freedom.

  20. 20
    Fasteddious says:

    Transgender people are free to dress and act as they please. They are not free to force the rest of us to accommodate their proclivities and abide by their wishes. They want to use cross-sex facilities, which confuses, embarrasses and sometimes endangers other users. They want us to know and use their “pronouns”, they want to retroactively change their legal documents. They want (and now have) full support from government, schools, businesses, courts, and of course, the media for their delusions. Worse, they and their useful idiots are grooming youth and young children, confusing them about their own sex, in order to draw them into their transgenderism. This confuses children (and adults), alienates some children from their parents, leads to the use of dangerous medications to prevent puberty or block hormones, and eventually, to surgery that renders them sterile, and subject to future health problems. That is simply child abuse, and I have said before that a few years from now there will be a legal backlash (i.e. major lawsuits) by people sucked into this insanity, against the doctors, lawyers, schools, governments, etc. that talked them into becoming trans. Finally, these people want everyone else to pay for their drugs, surgeries, etc.
    All that is how they hurt others, including impressionable children. By tolerating and supporting all this, we are enabling serious mental illness and the growing chaos. My rant for today!

  21. 21
    bornagain77 says:

    JS, Southern Poverty Law Center? Really??? They are far from a neutral arbiter of anything political, but are about as far left as you can get.

    The Southern Poverty Law Center is a hate-based scam that nearly caused me to be murdered – 2019
    After internal challenges with discrimination, the Southern Poverty Law Center can’t call itself an arbiter of justice.
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/08/17/southern-poverty-law-center-hate-groups-scam-column/2022301001/

    The Southern Poverty Law Center vs. Prager University – June 19, 2018
    “Antifa” is to violence what the Southern Poverty Law Center is to words. In short, it is a hate group on the left.
    The SPLC smears individuals and groups it differs with by labeling them as some form of “hater”: “racist,” “white supremacist,” “extremist,” and the like. That it is cited and even relied upon by the New York Times, Facebook, Amazon, Google, CNN, and others, and that Apple gave the organization a million dollars, is testimony to the moral state of mainstream media and corporate culture in America today.,,
    https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/southern-policy-law-center-hate-group-liberals/

    Moreover, one of the papers I cited is fairly heavily referenced, so the accuracy of their claims can be easily checked if you so desire.

    The Transgender Movement and ‘Gender Identity’ in the Law
    By Peter Sprigg Senior Fellow for Policy Studies
    https://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF16B28.pdf

  22. 22
    Origenes says:

    I am all for freedom. Indeed it is none of my business as long as they are doing no harm to anyone else. However, Fasteddious #20 raises some alarming issues. Perhaps certain rules need to be reconsidered. The other day I read a news story about a male serial killer who targeted women, claiming to have killed nine, who is now housed in a women’s prison after being transgender.

  23. 23
    asauber says:

    The other question is, what role does Evolution play in a sudden expansion of genders?

    Survival advantage? Random mutations? Extinction?

    Andrew

  24. 24
    vividbleau says:

    Fast
    “Transgender people…”

    Here is where the problem starts, the use of “transgender “ because whoever controls the language controls thoughts. There are no transgender people. There are biological males who think they are women and biological women who think they are men.

    “They are not free to force the rest of us to accommodate their proclivities…”

    Yes it’s not enough for biological men or women who think they are women or men ,which is a lie that this transforms them to something they are not,they also demand we must participate in the lie.

    As an unknown author once said “ In a time of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act” Welcome to the world of post modernism.

    Vivid

  25. 25
    Joe Schooner says:

    The other question is, what role does Evolution play in a sudden expansion of genders?

    Survival advantage? Random mutations? Extinction?

    Why ask this? I don’t think anyone here is promoting evolution.

  26. 26
    EDTA says:

    JS @ 19,
    I know you see this coming:
    >”If harm is so difficult to detect, perhaps the best course is to assume no harm. The benefit of the doubt should be in favor of freedom.”

    So the questions become, “Which side gets to decide whether harm is difficult to detect?” and “Who gets to decide that freedom gets the benefit of doubt?”

  27. 27
    vividbleau says:

    JS
    “If harm is so difficult to detect, perhaps the best course is to assume no harm. “

    But it is not difficult to see harm as it relates to women sports. Last week you were championing women’s rights in a conversation with SB and how men historically have denied them rights. Now you are supporting men that are trampling on women and their rights to compete fairly with other women.

    Watch this is stunning, turn on the audio.
    https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1470978594256130050?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1470978594256130050%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailywire.com%2Fnews%2Fwatch-heres-what-it-looked-like-when-u-penn-trans-swimmer-destroyed-female-competition

    Here are more examples

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGduDUGIHgQ

    Vivid

  28. 28
    Joe Schooner says:

    But it is not difficult to see harm as it relates to women sports.

    Then don’t allow them to compete in women’s sports.

  29. 29
    vividbleau says:

    JS
    “Then don’t allow them to compete in women’s sports.”

    I’m for that are you? After all you are supposedly a champion for women’s rights.

    Vivid

  30. 30
    Joe Schooner says:

    So the questions become, “Which side gets to decide whether harm is difficult to detect?” and “Who gets to decide that freedom gets the benefit of doubt?

    Society.

  31. 31
    Joe Schooner says:

    I’m for that are you? After all you are supposedly a champion for women’s rights.

    Everyone’s rights should be championed.

  32. 32
    vividbleau says:

    JS
    “Everyone’s rights should be championed.”

    That’s not an answer. I am against allowing biological men who think they are women competing against biological women because of the harm it perpetrates against women in sports. Let me ask you again are you?

    Vivid

  33. 33
    Joe Schooner says:

    That’s not an answer. I am against allowing biological men who think they are women competing against biological women because of the harm it perpetrates against women in sports. Let me ask you again are you?

    What about “Then don’t allow them to compete in women’s sports.” didn’t you understand?

    If a person’s behavior causes harm then you mitigate the behavior that causes harm.

  34. 34
    vividbleau says:

    JS
    “What about “Then don’t allow them to compete in women’s sports.” don’t you understand?”

    And I said I am for that and I am asking you if you are for that. Pretty simple question really, only requires a yes or no. Sorta surprised that a champion for women’s rights just a week ago, one who criticized men for trampling on women’s rights and the society that enabled that behavior can’t give a yes or no answer.

    Vivid

  35. 35
    Joe Schooner says:

    VB, you obviously have a serious reading comprehension problem. Your question has clearly been answered. If a person’s behavior causes harm then the behavior that causes the harm should be mitigated.

  36. 36
    EDTA says:

    EDTA said, “Which side gets to decide whether harm is difficult to detect?” and “Who gets to decide that freedom gets the benefit of doubt?”

    JS:
    Society.

    OK, so society in the US prior to the 60s openly said discrimination on the basis of race was OK. So “society” was right at that time?

    Relativism leads places you probably don’t want to go.

  37. 37
    vividbleau says:

    JS
    “VB, you obviously have a serious reading comprehension problem. Your question has clearly been answered. If a person’s behavior causes harm then the behavior that causes the harm should be mitigated”

    Project much?

    I have documented the harm and the harm is men who think they are women competing in women’s sports. I am asking you if men who think they are women should be allowed to compete in women’s sports.? You have not answered my question.

    Hey I understand you wanting to dodge the question, throw up chaff, no one likes to have their hypocrisy exposed.

    Vivid

  38. 38
    vividbleau says:

    EDTA
    “Relativism leads places you probably don’t want to go.”

    Yeh just observe JS responses. Fun to watch doncha think?

    Vivid

  39. 39
    Joe Schooner says:

    VB, there is obviously no point in trying to have a discussion with you. Your question was answered but you refuse to accept it. That is your problem.

  40. 40
    Seversky says:

    Richard Dawkins takes a risk: Sex is binary

    Yes, I would say that sex in the sense of human procreation is binary but, apart from that, it’s not quite so simple.

    I’d say that this blog post from way back in 2013 pretty much encapsulates my views:

    Gender – It’s Complicated

    Published by Steven Novella under Culture and Society

    A new study by gender researcher, Laurel Westbrook, explores attitudes toward gender determination in various contexts. The issue of gender is interesting partly because it is one of those topics that at first seems fairly straightforward when in fact it is quite complex, not only biologically, but ethically.

    By now many people are familiar with the distinction between sex and gender, sex referring to biological characteristic relative to male and female, and gender being a social construct relative to masculine and feminine. In both cases the first thing we must realize is to avoid the false dichotomy as sex and gender occur along a spectrum, and are not binary.

    Sex

    Biological sex in humans is determined by several factors. Developmentally there are two main factors, genetics and hormonal environment. The system is binary in that there appears to be a female developmental pathway and a male developmental pathway, and most individuals do end up unambiguously toward one end or the other of this axis.

    However, this developmental scheme can be altered in every conceivable way. The XX (female) and XY (male) chromosomal makeups are not the only possibilities. There are individuals with XXX, X, XXY and other permutations.

    Even with typical XX and XY chromosomes, sexual development is highly dependent on the relative concentrations of masculinizing (such as testosterone) and feminizing (estrogen) hormones in the womb and in the body as development occurs. There are not only genetic, but epigenetic, and maternal factors that can affect this. There are also specific conditions, such as adrenal hyperplasia, that can result in an increase in masculinizing hormones, resulting in ambiguous genitalia.

    Biologically there are three aspects of sex – primary sexual characteristics (genitalia and reproductive organs) secondary sexual characteristics (distribution of hair and body fat), and sexual orientation. While these properties tend to segregate together, they also occur in every possible permutation.

    Sexual orientation is a bit socially controversial, but there is not much scientific debate about the fact that biological factors on the brain have a strong influence on sexual orientation. People, in other words, do not just choose to be heterosexual, homosexual, or somewhere in between, they appear to be born with their orientation. This is not to say that culture and society do not affect behavior, but the evidence suggests that basic sexual desires are hardwired into our brains, and can even be considered a secondary sexual characteristic.

    […]

    Gender

    As complicated as the biology of sex can be, gender is even more complex, in my opinion, because we are dealing with more abstract constructs rather than measurable biological properties. Gender refers to the purely social construct of feminine and masculine. How to dress, behave, adorn oneself, and one’s role in the family and in society are all socially determined, with tremendous variations across different societies and over historical time.

    Essentially most people self-identify as either a man or a woman, and tend to follow the social norms for that gender. As with sex, however, this is a false dichotomy in that there are transgender individuals who do not adhere to this simple scheme.

    One thing I find interesting is that different societies tend to tolerate different degrees of bending gender roles. In Western society, at least in the last generation or so, we tend to be more progressive in our attitudes toward gender and gender roles. Men can be “metrosexual” and women can wear business suits and take on traditional male roles in society.

  41. 41
    Joe Schooner says:

    OK, so society in the US prior to the 60s openly said discrimination on the basis of race was OK. So “society” was right at that time?

    Relativism leads places you probably don’t want to go.

    Subjective moral values, not relativism. But, whatever.

    Did you read what you wrote? In the past there were behaviors that were considered morally acceptable that today we would not. And today we have moral values that people in the past would find immoral. That definitely looks like the result of subjective moral values. That you find the plasticity of moral values to be repulsive isn’t evidence for objective moral values.

  42. 42
    vividbleau says:

    JS
    “Your question was answered but you refuse to accept it. “

    Because you have not answered my question. You answered a question I did not ask. I did not ask If a person’s behavior causes harm then should the behavior that causes the harm be mitigated. I asked if biological men who think they are women should be allowed to compete in women’s sports.?
    Do you?

    Vivid

  43. 43
    BobRyan says:

    It used to be, boys were told never to hit girls. Part of teaching boys to be men was ensuring they knew boys were biologically stronger than girls. By telling boys they are no different from girls increases the likelihood of abuse later in life. If boys grow up truly believing men and women are not different, then they see no distinction between hitting a man and hitting a woman.

  44. 44
    BobRyan says:

    Athletically, biological males will always perform better than biological females. Regardless of surgeries and delusions, the differences remain. Women have compacted internal organs, which makes the lungs smaller. Men have larger rib cages and greater lung capacity, which is why they do better with anything requiring endurance. Different muscle structures mean men are stronger than women.

  45. 45
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky quotes Novella to encapsulate his views on gender, and, I guess, to support his view that we should radically change society, (see Fasteddious at 20), so as to accommodate gender confused people who want us all to live in their imaginary world of make-believe.

    Yet why should anyone trust what Darwinists such as Novella, Dawkins, Pinker, or etc.. etc.., themselves have to say about gender, or about anything else in reality, since Darwinists themselves claim that their very own perceptions of reality are not true and trustworthy, but that their very own perceptions of reality are merely illusions, i.e. merely a “constructed representation’?

    “the illusion that our brains evolved to have, a very compelling and persistent illusion – namely that the reality we perceive is real, rather than a constructed representation.”
    – Steven Novella – academic clinical neurologist at Yale University School of Medicine

    “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not concerned with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”?
    – Richard Dawkins – quoted from “The God Delusion”

    Why Evolutionary Theory Cannot Survive Itself – Nancy Pearcey – March 8, 2015
    Excerpt: Steven Pinker writes, “Our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. Sometimes the truth is adaptive, but sometimes it is not.” The upshot is that survival is no guarantee of truth. If survival is the only standard, we can never know which ideas are true and which are adaptive but false.
    To make the dilemma even more puzzling, evolutionists tell us that natural selection has produced all sorts of false concepts in the human mind. Many evolutionary materialists maintain that free will is an illusion, consciousness is an illusion, even our sense of self is an illusion — and that all these false ideas were selected for their survival value.
    So how can we know whether the theory of evolution itself is one of those false ideas? The theory undercuts itself.,,,
    Of course, the atheist pursuing his research has no choice but to rely on rationality, just as everyone else does. The point is that he has no philosophical basis for doing so. Only those who affirm a rational Creator have a basis for trusting human rationality.
    The reason so few atheists and materialists seem to recognize the problem is that, like Darwin, they apply their skepticism selectively. They apply it to undercut only ideas they reject, especially ideas about God. They make a tacit exception for their own worldview commitments.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....94171.html

    It seems readily apparent to me that Darwinists, since they themselves claim that they cannot know what is true and real about reality, (and claim that what they perceive is merely a ‘constructed representation’, an illusion, of reality), should be the very last people in the world to try to offer anyone else advice on how we, as a society, should handle the biologically reality of “Sex is pretty damn binary”.

    Genesis 5:2
    He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day they were created.

    Matthew 19:4
    “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’

    Of supplemental note, Darwinists, (besides not being able to trust their very own perceptions so as to be able to differentiate what is real from what is illusory), don’t even have a realistic clue how sex could have originated in the first place. i.e. “Sex is the QUEEN of evolutionary biology problems.”

    Sex, the Queen of Problems in Evolutionary Biology – Jonathan McLatchie – July 13, 2011
    Excerpt: The origin of sexually reproducing organisms from asexually reproducing ancestors is a profound mystery which has baffled many an evolutionary biologist. The origin and subsequent maintenance of sex and recombination is a phenomenon not easily explained by Darwinian evolution. Indeed, there are several substantive, well-known reasons why the origin of sex presents a serious problem for conventional evolutionary explanations.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2011/07/spinning_fanciful_tales_about_/

    “How did the sexes originate? Why is it that the vast majority of living things require a “male and female” to reproduce? If evolution were true – doesn’t it make much more sense that EVERY living organism was self-replicating and required no useless energy expenditure? When did the first male get here? When did the first female get here? How? Why? Wouldn’t they have had to appear fully functional and at the same time in order for the next generation of organisms to arrive? Of course, they would. So, how is it that the first male and female for almost 2 million living organisms arrived together and fully functional so that reproduction could take place? “Sex is the QUEEN of evolutionary biology problems.”
    – Dr. Graham Bell – ‘The Masterpiece of Nature’ The Evolution and Genetics of Sexuality – 1982, – The Masterpiece of Nature examines sex as representative of the most important challenge to the modern theory of evolution.,,,

    Another whack at the “sex paradox” – July 1, 2014
    Excerpt: The article is most informative about tests done on the various theses but in the end (they state). And so the paradox of sex lives on. “We still really don’t know the answer to this very most basic question,” says Mark Welch. “We don’t know why sex exists.”
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....x-paradox/

    Knowledge gap on the origin of sex – May 26, 2017
    Excerpt: There are significant gaps in our knowledge on the evolution of sex, according to a research review on sex chromosomes. Even after more than a century of study, researchers do not know enough about the evolution of sex chromosomes to understand how males and females emerge.
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170526084533.htm

    New book challenges sexual selection theory in evolution – May 20, 2018
    Excerpt: Darwin’s Secret Sex Problem What Darwin Ignored,,,
    Darwin never seriously confronted the crucial, insurmountable gap in his grand theory between asexual replication and sexual reproduction. Nor could Darwins famed natural selection have provided simultaneous on-time delivery of the first male/female pair of millions of sexually unique species required for evolutions bedrock premise of common descent, a fundamental flaw fatal to the romanticized microbe-to-man Evolution Story.
    https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/new-book-challenges-sexual-selection-theory-in-evolution/

  46. 46
    Joe Schooner says:

    If boys grow up truly believing men and women are not different, then they see no distinction between hitting a man and hitting a woman.

    Why not teach children never to hit anyone. Period.

  47. 47
    EDTA says:

    It has been a while since we jumped into this debate with both feet! Let’s go!

    From Sev, quoting Novella,
    “In both cases the first thing we must realize is to avoid the false dichotomy as sex and gender occur along a spectrum, and are not binary.”

    In fairness, he does later mention in passing that the vast majority take exactly one of the main two biological and societal pathways. But when non-scholars speak on this subject, they always leave out the fact that the proportion taking a main path is significantly larger than those taking a side-path–orders of magnitude larger. It is extremely misleading to say that something is a “spectrum”, which to the untrained in statistical thinking, carries the strong connotation of a uniform distribution. I hate to do this, but I have to agree with Jerry Coyne when he said that sex is bimodal: It’s a distribution with two huge humps, one for females and one for males. The misleading way of stating things is over-used and over-emphasized in a willful attempt to mislead.

    In other words, the dichotomy is real. It’s not false. A statistical minority of exceptions does not ruin a useful dichotomy.

    Continuing with the physical/biological/sex angle only (not gender): The first question to ask is one that I never hear asked, so here goes (and flame away!): Given that a small minority are biologically outside the two main sexes, it is already the case they they did not develop as chemistry/biology/evolution intended. Biology clearly intends one of the two main paths. Anything outside those is maladaptive; that’s basic evolution. As a result, do we know that it is even possible for them to find the same degree of happiness as the rest? Someone born without a standard set of limbs isn’t going to be capable of being as happy as the rest of us. (And they may not be permitted to drive a vehicle, enter the military, etc.) So why would we assume that those on a non-binary developmental path are capable of being 100% as happy in life as the rest of us? If they cannot achieve identical life satisfaction due to biological differences, then that fact should alter our approach.

    The second question follows directly from the first: To what extent should we refashion society to try to equalize the happiness of those not on the two main developmental paths, given that it comes at the expense of the rest?

    Of course, the first response here will be “It doesn’t diminish the happiness of those on the two main paths. Why does the existence of something like same-sex marriage harm your marriage, you blankety-blank homophobe freedom-in-the-area-of-sex-hating idiot??” We have addressed that question in-depth here many times, but it always seems to need re-emphasis. Society only has so much attention to invest in its institutions, and focus put on a new one (same-sex marriage, e.g.) always necessarily means less placed on another (traditional marriage, e.g.). As a result of diminished focus, marriage today is little more than “extreme dating”, with marriages dissolving at a rate not seen in US history (except perhaps right after WWII–war marriages were brittle for other reasons). Children suffer without solid families. I recently read of some research that showed that children from dysfunctional families are more likely to support Hitler-style tyrants as leaders. (Wonderful news that was.) There’s a direct impact for you! I could list more reasons, but I figure those who want to flame me are already typing away…

    Third, ancillary question: Why are we so worried about maximizing/equalizing the emotional state of everyone in the first place? I’ll answer that one for you: We in the West are so comfortable that we have slouched to the point of complete hedonism, and emotions are paramount in a hedonistic world. Therefore, we can supposedly afford to focus on something as ephemeral and fleeting as emotions, to the neglect of the real fundamentals of a strong society. And we are neglecting the fundamentals of what makes a strong (i.e., vibrant, democratic etc.) society. (And I’d be happy to lecture everyone on what those fundamentals are, although KF has done a fine job in many other threads.)

  48. 48
    EDTA says:

    JS,
    >Subjective moral values, not relativism. But, whatever….Did you read what you wrote? In the past there were behaviors that were considered morally acceptable that today we would not.

    Yes, in _practice_, morality does vary over time, and across societies. I don’t think anyone is arguing that unless I’ve misunderstood.

    The more important question is what we say about them in retrospect. Maybe this question will clarify things: If you were caucasian, and were transported to the US Deep South in, say, 1949, would you be an anti-black racist? You can’t (easily) say, “No, because rasicm is wrong.” You’d really put your foot into a trap with that statement, because you’d be making a moral assertion across a span of time when societal attitudes changed. I am curious how you will answer.

  49. 49
    Joe Schooner says:

    If you were caucasian, and were transported to the US Deep South in, say, 1949, would you be an anti-black racist?

    If I were transported to the 1949 Deep South I would have the moral values I have now so I would be anti-racist. Or, at least, as anti-racist as I am now. However, if I were born in the Deep South in 1878 (being my current age in 1949), I would like to think that I would be anti-racist. But, depending on my upbringing, I might just as easily be an ant-black racist.

  50. 50
    Joe Schooner says:

    EDTA@47. You have a very good point that gender identity is not a spectrum like autism is. There are two major modes, where people identify with their binary biological sex, and a very small proportion (~<1%) who do not identify with their biological sex. The same is true of sexual attraction.

    But you could also say the same about people who are paralyzed, who are blind, who are deaf, who are severely mentally handicapped (they are a very small percentage of the population). And people and governments spend billions in attempts to make their lives as happy and meaningful as possible. Wheelchair accessible buildings and bathrooms. Audible crosswalks. Textured edges to train platforms. Closed captioning. You don’t hear many people complain about these additional expenses just to accommodate a low percentage of the population.

    So, even if transgender or same-sex attraction are “incurable disorders”, shouldn’t society do what it can to make their lives as happy and meaningful as possible?

  51. 51
    ET says:

    Sex is binary, except when it isn’t. There are at least SIX biological sexes, going by genetics:

    X
    XX
    XXY
    XY
    XYY
    XXXY

  52. 52
    Joe Schooner says:

    Sex is binary, except when it isn’t. There are at least SIX biological sexes, going by genetics:

    True. But as EDTA has pointed out, they do not form a spectrum or a gradation. There are two roughly equally sized and very large modes (XX and XY) with an additional four very small modes.

  53. 53
    EDTA says:

    >So, even if transgender or same-sex attraction are “incurable disorders”, shouldn’t society do what it can to make their lives as happy and meaningful as possible?

    To a point, yes. I’d say that point should be where it starts negatively impacting the future for the whole of us. And of course that debate also continues with no end in sight.

  54. 54
    vividbleau says:

    EDTA
    “We in the West are so comfortable that we have slouched to the point of complete hedonism, and emotions are paramount in a hedonistic world. Therefore, we can supposedly afford to focus on something as ephemeral and fleeting as emotions, to the neglect of the real fundamentals of a strong society”

    My son calls this advanced first world problems. While we are focused on things like should biological males be allowed into biological womens bathrooms, or whether biological males who think they are women should be allowed in girls locker rooms China is kicking our ass in science and military prowess.

    America is a lost cause. We are a tree that looks good from the outside but is rotten to the core on the inside. The first strong wind will blow it down. When you see the head of our military come off a plane with a mask and full face shield it tells me all I need to know about how we would fare taking on China , Russia, and probably Iran.

    Vivid

  55. 55
    Joe Schooner says:

    To a point, yes. I’d say that point should be where it starts negatively impacting the future for the whole of us. And of course that debate also continues with no end in sight.

    Well, this OP was about the transgender issue, this discussion appears to be on side.

    How would you define “negatively impacts”? To accommodate many other “disorders” or minority races, religions and lifestyles, there is often some level of inconvenience to others. And I assume that by negatively impact you are not referring to someone’s discomfort at having to see or provide services to the transgendered.

    Not allowing transgendered to play in competitive women’s sport is a reasonable limitation on their “rights”. Not allowing them to use the bathroom of their outwardly displayed gender is a more difficult one to argue for restrictions.

  56. 56
    BobRyan says:

    Bathrooms are not about making people feel better about themselves. They serve the purpose of relief and nothing more. A small, less than 1% of the population should be made comfortable by making 99% uncomfortable. Bathroom use should reflect outward sexual organs. Just because a person suffers from a serious delusion that should never be encouraged, which is what the belief of being born into the wrong body is, does not mean they are incapable of using the proper bathroom.

  57. 57
    ET says:

    Being transgender relies solely on feelings. That alone says it all, really.

  58. 58
    Joe Schooner says:

    Bathrooms are not about making people feel better about themselves. They serve the purpose of relief and nothing more.

    The only incidents of assaults involving transgendered are in cases where they have had to use the bathroom of their biological sex. And the transgendered is always the victim, not the perp.

    A small, less than 1% of the population should be made comfortable by making 99%

    And how, exactly, does it make them feel uncomfortable when they don’t know if the person in the next stall is transgendered. By your logic, you want to force people who by all appearance are male (muscular, beard, etc) to use the women’s bathroom.

  59. 59
    Joe Schooner says:

    Being transgender relies solely on feelings. That alone says it all, really.

    And being sexually attracted to someone relies solely on feelings. Yet it is a very strong feeling that much of our society takes into account in establishing our social expectations of behavior.

  60. 60
    EDTA says:

    ET:

    Being transgender relies solely on feelings. That alone says it all, really.

    Excellent summary.

    JS:

    How would you define “negatively impacts”? To accommodate many other “disorders” or minority races, religions and lifestyles, there is often some level of inconvenience to others. And I assume that by negatively impact you are not referring to someone’s discomfort at having to see or provide services to the transgendered.

    Defining “negatively impacts” is also a debate that will never end. Yes, it’s more than emotional discomfort. But in the case of heterosexual marriage, I think it is clear that it is suffering from numerous assaults, and children among others suffer as a result. It should be shored up first, and only then should we devote time to debating what to do for those whose feelings lead them to want alternatives.

    As far as bathrooms, do what protects the most vulnerable first. If that means making a tiny minority emotionally uncomfortable, then so be it. Take the most care of the majority, for the benefit of society as a whole.

  61. 61
    Joe Schooner says:

    But in the case of heterosexual marriage, I think it is clear that it is suffering from numerous assaults, and children among others suffer as a result.

    How is heterosexual marriage suffering? When inter-racial marriage was legalized did within-race marriage suffer? And how does granting rights to transgendered affect marriage?

    As far as bathrooms, do what protects the most vulnerable first. If that means making a tiny minority emotionally uncomfortable, then so be it.

    Fully agreed. But let’s examine who is the most vulnerable. There is no empirical evidence that allowing transgendered to use the bathroom of their outward appearance has increased the risk to anyone.
    (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13178-018-0335-z). Conversely, the risk to transgendered forced to use bathrooms consistent with their biological sex are at a significant higher risk of sexual assault ( https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/transgender-teens-restricted-bathroom-access-sexual-assault/). So, if the priority is to do what protects the most vulnerable, the choice is obvious.

  62. 62
    ET says:

    JS:

    And being sexually attracted to someone relies solely on feelings.

    And? Do those feelings make people want to change who they are, biologically? No.

  63. 63
    ET says:

    Granting rights based on feelings is BS.

  64. 64
    Joe Schooner says:

    And? Do those feelings make people want to change who they are, biologically? No.

    “Brain activity and structure in transgender adolescents more closely resembles the typical activation patterns of their desired gender…” https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180524112351.htm

    So, being transgendered appears to be part of their biology.

    Granting rights based on feelings is BS.

    Then you argument is with the authors of the Declaration of Independence.

  65. 65
    ram says:

    Poll: what do you hope to gain by your participation on this site?

    Thanks

    –Ram

  66. 66
    Joe Schooner says:

    Poll: what do you hope to gain by your participation on this site?

    Don’t post this on any of KF’s threads. He will just delete it because his opinion is far too important for any distractions.

  67. 67
    kairosfocus says:

    JS, in an Internet age where one may set up one’s own blog in a few minutes, commenting even more is a privilege on good behaviour. Distractive, side tracking, caricaturing, personalities and more are disruptive behaviours that too often degenerate into trollish conduct. There is no right to side track. KF

  68. 68
    ET says:

    JS:

    “Brain activity and structure in transgender adolescents more closely resembles the typical activation patterns of their desired gender…”

    The brain governs feelings. And rational thought overcomes feelings.

    So, being transgendered appears to be part of their biology.

    Feelings. There still isn’t any scientific basis for transgender.

    Then you argument is with the authors of the Declaration of Independence.

    What an ignorant thing to say. I dare you to make your case that the DoI granted rights based on feelings.

  69. 69
    ET says:

    Hi ram- I gain insight into the twisted minds and illogic of the anti-ID people.

  70. 70
    Joe Schooner says:

    Feelings. There still isn’t any scientific basis for transgender.

    The fact that they have brain structure and activity closer to that of the opposite biological sex proves you wrong.

    What an ignorant thing to say. I dare you to make your case that the DoI granted rights based on feelings.

    The pursuit of happiness is a right. Happiness is a feeling. They are claiming that this pursuit of a feeling is a right.

  71. 71
    ET says:

    JS:

    The fact that they have brain structure and activity closer to that of the opposite biological sex proves you wrong.

    Correlation is not causation. Grow up.

    The pursuit of happiness is a right. Happiness is a feeling. They are claiming that this pursuit of a feeling is a right.

    The Bill of Rights is what grants us, wait for it, rights.

  72. 72
    chuckdarwin says:

    ET @ 68
    Actually, gender dysphoria (transgenderism) is a recognized syndrome in the DSM-5 and in the federal courts. Additionally, the Declaration of Independence does not confer any rights, only the US and state constitutions confer rights, along with various federal and state statutes. As amazing a document as the DOI is, it is simply a rhetorical announcement that the thirteen colonies unilaterally dissolve their political ties to England…

  73. 73
    Joe Schooner says:

    Correlation is not causation. Grow up.

    And insult is not argument.

    The Bill of Rights is what grants us, wait for it, rights.

    No, government is what grants us rights, or takes them away. The bill of rights is just one example of rights approved by government.

    Based on your comment, you disagree with the following.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

  74. 74
    Joe Schooner says:

    JS: Don’t post this on any of KF’s threads. He will just delete it because his opinion is far too important for any distractions.

    KF: JS, in an Internet age where one may set up one’s own blog in a few minutes, commenting even more is a privilege on good behaviour.

    OH KF. You deleted Ram’s comment, didn’t you. 🙂 . Your self-righteousness is so damned predictable.

  75. 75
    EDTA says:

    I have to agree with ET that granting rights based on feelings is foolish. But if they come from government, then government can take them away, as any totalitarian system does. I’ll go with the US DOI that they come from our Creator, and so when a totalitarian system yanks them away, they do so unjustly. (Our origin as intelligently-designed creatures matters.)

  76. 76
    Joe Schooner says:

    I’ll go with the US DOI that they come from our Creator,

    I’m not going to argue this. But if the pursuit of happiness is a God given right, then surly a transgendered person, who’s brain is structured and acts like that of a person of the opposite biological sex, is attempting to pursue happiness.

  77. 77
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    ET
    Granting rights based on feelings is BS.

    Actually feelings are very important, they confirm you that moral law is true and working . Unfortunatelly some not very smart people put feeling ahead of reason(that manage the moral law) and inevitable they make the reason the slave of feelings and of course that’s the reason they seem insane because they try the gymnastics of adapting the morality to their feelings . They take their feelings that they consider are the highest value and then they try to put together some logic to fit to justify their feelings. :))

    If you are a moral person then feelings are making you more moral because stimulate and energize you in doing moral acts. Feelings are sane.
    If you are an imoral person you already put your feelings as master of your reasoning process and your feelings became ill and after a while that you ignore the voice of reason your feelings are cemented (draw new brain structure ) and you will lose contact with reality and reason because you used reason as a prostitute to justify your feelings.

    The pursuit of happiness is a right. Happiness is a feeling. They are claiming that this pursuit of a feeling is a right.

    Criminals , pedo , terrorists have feelings too and if happiness is a right why are they punished? They shouldn’t be punished here or in hell because is their right to have whatever feelings they want , no matter what consequences . Or not? 🙂

  78. 78
    Joe Schooner says:

    Criminals , pedo , terrorists have feelings too and if happiness is a right why are they punished? They shouldn’t be punished here or in hell because is their right to have whatever feelings they want , no matter what consequences . Or not?

    As mentioned above, the pursuit of happiness is not a legal right. But all rights can be restricted if your actions do harm to others. What harm do transgendered cause?

  79. 79
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    What harm do transgendered cause?

    :)) They deny basic biology and believe that if a boy thinks that he is girl that would make him a girl . This is the definition of INSANITY.
    They harm themselves/their families/society.
    They harm innocent children that could be influenced by this insanity.
    PS: This insanity doesn’t take place from a day to another but from choosing consciously
    to believe a wrong thing for years and years that create new brain patterns.

  80. 80
    Joe Schooner says:

    They deny basic biology and believe that if a boy thinks that he is girl that would make him a girl . This is the definition of INSANITY.

    Brain structure and activity is part of basic biology. And transgendered have brain structure and activity closer to that opposite their chromosomal sex.

    They harm themselves/their families/society.

    How?

    They harm innocent children that could be influenced by this insanity.

    Do you have proof or is this just another unsupported assertion?

    This insanity doesn’t take place from a day to another but from choosing consciously
    to believe a wrong thing for years and years that create new brain patterns.

    Do you have evidence for this?

  81. 81
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Joe Schooner

    They deny basic biology and believe that if a boy thinks that he is girl that would make him a girl . This is the definition of INSANITY.

    Brain structure and activity is part of basic biology. And transgendered have brain structure and activity closer to that opposite their chromosomal sex.

    They harm themselves/their families/society.

    How?

    They harm innocent children that could be influenced by this insanity.

    Do you have proof or is this just another unsupported assertion?

    This insanity doesn’t take place from a day to another but from choosing consciously
    to believe a wrong thing for years and years that create new brain patterns.

    Do you have evidence for this?

    Joe Schooner have you been molested as a child and/or did you molested children ? You can answer with sincerity because you are safe with us. We are your friends.

  82. 82
    Joe Schooner says:

    Joe Schooner have you been molested as a child and/or did you molested children ?

    Aren’t you also the idiot who said that if a person has nothing to forgive his father for that he must hate God?

    You obviously have no desire (or ability) to have an honest discussion.

  83. 83
    EDTA says:

    JS,

    But if the pursuit of happiness is a God given right, then surly a transgendered person,…

    Happiness there did not refer to a mere emotion, but rather to what we’d be more accurate in calling “self-determination” today. I.e., the right to choose where to live and what occupation to pursue, etc. The founders weren’t thinking of fluffy things like having every emotional (perceived) need satisfied.

Leave a Reply