Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Richard Dawkins stripped of 1996 Humanist of the Year Award...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    I would have to disagree. A brief search of various available scientific articles on the net makes it clear that this issue is far from resolved. Nor have you considered my questions. Why are we now seeing an increase particularly among young people and children [pubescent and/or prepubescent] who are suddenly identifying as trans?

    If the condition is as widespread as these recent incidents suggest, where is the corroborating evidence from among older people? How many fifty, sixty, and seventy year olds are coming forward to have their genders reassigned? Do you have any information on that?

    The incidence of DSD and inter-sex individuals is tiny in proportion to the population and of course such individuals need all the help and support they can be given. However, this sudden upsurge raises serious questions.

    The simple fact is that biological sex is not a spectrum in humans. It is binary and is connected to the distinct types of sex cells [gametes] produced. Hence in humans males are the sex that produce sperm [the small gametes] and females are the sex that produce ova [the large gametes]. I have yet to read that intermediate human gametes have been discovered. Sexual preferences however are an entirely different issue.

    Some fish can change sex as a result of population levels and/or external pressures. Some reptiles and insects can reproduce by parthenogenesis. Humans can do neither. Of course our evolutionary background may play a part in why there are found some rare examples of individuals who have some sex cells that are different from their phenotype. However, I am not convinced that those rare examples support the claim that human biological sex is a “spectrum”. Furthermore, we also know that sex can be determined in utero thereby permitting foetal sex selection often accompanied by the attendant aborting of embryos purely because they are female.

    In my opinion, a lot of this desire for gender reassignment is premised on the very term “gender” which is a cultural and not a biological phenomenon.

    In our western society the two separate sexes are culturally conditioned to adhere to what constitutes specific male and female gender typical behaviours, rather than on actual biology. We also have to recognise that even today our society still has deeply laid patriarchal mores.

    It does not follow that a little girl who likes playing with trucks, climbing trees, and making dens is a boy trapped in a girl’s body anymore than a little boy who likes dressing up in his mother’s evening gown, playing with dolls, or baking cakes, is a girl trapped in a boy’s body. They are simply children doing what children do.

    Some of those children will be attracted to same sex partners, a tiny percentage will be DSD. Most will be neither.

    It is within wider society that the fault lies because of those cultural mores and prejudices particularly towards boys who receive social opprobrium if they do not behave or act in a manner that constitutes or befits “Being a man”.

    Nor am I entirely convinced by your comment that “a transwoman is mentally a woman”. Again, from the available literature there is no conclusive evidence that the theories concerning the [so-called] male and female brain are correct. The Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus concept has been widely discredited.

    In a short video interview with New Scientist magazine in 2019 cognitive neuroscientist Prof. Gina Rippon made the point that while there are tiny differences within male & female brains she questioned their significance; and while she also made the point that there are hormonal differences particularly concerning reproduction she again noted that even there overlaps are found.

    In her corresponding article in the print edition she notes that stereotypes about any group’s innate abilities can become self-fulfilling prophecies. “If someone is aware of a negative stereotype about the group to which they belong this can impair their performance in a related task” and that studies have shown that “if a task is presented in a positive context, then both the associated brain processes and how well someone performs the task will be different from when it is presented in a negative context.

    That leads to the question, why should we assume that expectations concerning behaviours should be any different? If from birth boys and girls are surrounded by huge social pressures [toys, clothes, home, school, advertising, fashion, etc] to act and behave in a certain way it is not surprising that they grow up viewing these as “natural” aspects of their respective sex. In the same article Prof. Rippon also references a study undertaken in 2015 at Tel Aviv university that examined the characteristics of more than 100 brain structures in over 1400 scans and found it impossible to divide these neatly into “female-typical and male–typical brains”. Likewise two psychologists at Temple University and Cabrini College in Pennsylvania USA found that playing computer/video games was a better predictor of spatial awareness than biological sex. While more males played these games, females who were at the same level of competence and experience showed equally good spatial skills. [see New Scientist, March 2-8, 2019]

    However, we both agree on the dangers of corporate interests capitalising on these issues and that pertains to my own concerns that it is possible that much of what we are seeing, particularly among the young, is a combination of gender stereotyping in our society, peer pressure, the impact of the media [especially social media] and [to some extent] a fashion fad. Hence as to your question “Where is the parade” of regretful individuals who have transitioned, this is still early days. I doubt I will be around to see it but I wonder what may transpire over the next thirty or forty years if young people today increasingly decide to go through this process.

    I was also interested in your reference to “feminist ideals”? What precisely do you consider those to be?

    I find it somewhat amusing that several high profile “celebrity” trans women so often present themselves as the [male created] stereotype of what constitutes “sexy” femininity. To wit cripplingly high heels, make-up, big hair, and breasts thrust forward in décolletage dresses. There are even trans women who take part in beauty pageants [Lucia Heredia]. Such [male created] contests [cattle markets] serve purely to objectify women as sex objects and have been vilified by feminists for decades.

    Another trans woman, India Willoughby [who transitioned when she was fifty] while discussing a top UK hotel’s demand that its female staff shaved their legs was asked what her reaction would have been if she had been required to shave her legs while living as a man and replied “What a bizarre question. Why would I shave my legs when I was living as a man?" Ms Willoughby continued by noting “Personally, I wouldn’t like to be served by somebody with hairy legs, grubby nails, dishevelled hair, and looking a bit worse for wear.” A sexist attitude which she reinforced by continuing that “for women, the expectation is that you do look clean.” [subtext - unshaven female legs are dirty].

    As previously noted I have trans friends and those who are trans should be offered every support and help. However, I am not convinced that there are as many trans individuals around as is presently being suggested. In that I agree with what Prof. Dawkins wrote,

    “In 2015, Rachel Dolezal, a white chapter president of NAACP, was vilified for identifying as Black. Some men choose to identify as women, and some women choose to identify as men. You will be vilified if you deny that they literally are what they identify as.
    Discuss” [my emphasis]

    And that is precisely what has happened. These people are not “literally” women [or men] and to abuse or vilify someone for pointing out that biological fact is completely reprehensible.

    Why do you think we've seen more people identifying as gay over time? Isn't it because of societal acceptance? How can you distinguish between young people coming out as trans because they believe a path exists for them to transition and be accepted and young people who don't know any better following a fad? If you can't distinguish them, why take the pessimistic view? Also transpeople are significantly more prone to suicide than the average person, so I suspect that's part of the reason there aren't many older transpeople.

    Human sex is binary in that two sexes exist to produce offspring, same as most animals, but it's a spectrum in that genetic and prenatal variation can result in abnormal sex characteristics, whether that's a combination of genitalia or an atypically self-sexed mind. Ignoring rare outliers for the sake of a generalization may seem practical but it's not scientifically accurate.

    "It does not follow that a little girl who likes playing with trucks, climbing trees, and making dens is a boy trapped in a girl’s body anymore than a little boy who likes dressing up in his mother’s evening gown, playing with dolls, or baking cakes, is a girl trapped in a boy’s body. They are simply children doing what children do. "

    I would expect any mental health practitioner involved with transpeople would be rather insulted at the implication that they can't distinguish between tomboys and transmen. This is related to what I was talking about when I wanted to you to consider the alternative to the trans-rights movement's reality, that medical professionals the world over would have to be utterly incompetent at the most basic foundation of their area of expertise for transitioning to be wrong.

    When I say a transwoman is mentally a woman”, that is specifically not me saying "a transwoman is neurologically a woman". Identification is beyond physical brain differences, at least to our current understanding of brain cell functionality. The scientific indication I referred to comes in the form of, for example, correlation of cerebral aspects or twin studies. You agree with me that there is no way to definitively categorize brains into "male" and female", so what's stopping you from reaching the conclusion that brain variance exists beyond a sex binary? Why can't that variance result in trans or nonbinary people? Why isn't a woman-identifying mind justified in participating in women's spaces regardless of their body?

    Within the context of pop-feminism, an idealistic but ignorant liberal might, for example, see powerful women utilizing patriarchal power structures as feminist even though the feminist ideal would be the dismantling of those power structures. My consideration of feminist ideals is context dependent, so while in one context it might be equal pay, in another it would be the elimination of the capitalistic work concept.

    I believe that women perpetuating objectification/patriarchal precepts is beyond the scope of the thread, especially since it's just as common amongst ciswomen as it is transwomen as far as I can tell.

    The problem with not considering transwomen literal women is that you are making that determination with an arbitrary standard. Why is genitalia or chromosomes superior to mental identification? The vilification comes from the needless cruelty of working against trans acceptance by designating people in the most disadvantageous way possible for no suitable reason.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      You could start by taking a look at what is happening to girl's and women's sports.
      Even in the most uncharitable ideation of trans women athletes, it involves a handful of individuals. How is that requiring anyone to "scrap everything and restructure it" or "transform the basic structure of society"?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by seer View Post

        I'm not talking about accommodating but boys actually being in the showers with girls. And be clear - do you think it is fair for biological boys to compete in girl's sports.

        Biden orders girls’ and women’s sports, restrooms, locker rooms open to males

        https://mustreadalaska.com/biden-ord...open-to-males/
        Some problems will certainly arise as society adjusts to the reality of more trans-athletes and other trans-gender issues. This has been the case during any historical social changes – e.g., racial integration in schools during the (much resisted) ending of Jim Crow era regulations. But with common-sense and good-will on all sides any such difficulties can be readily resolved.
        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post

          Even in the most uncharitable ideation of trans women athletes, it involves a handful of individuals. How is that requiring anyone to "scrap everything and restructure it" or "transform the basic structure of society"?


          Camel's nose, meet tent.


          We've seen it before in other areas of 'sexual politics' - it starts with a cry for acceptance and freedom to just do what they want (perhaps justified) and ends with the activist fringe weaponising the power of the State to hunt down and silence anyone who doesn't actively endorse and support their behaviour.
          ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

          Comment


          • Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
            We've seen it before in other areas of 'sexual politics' - it starts with a cry for acceptance and freedom to just do what they want (perhaps justified) and ends with the activist fringe weaponising the power of the State to hunt down and silence anyone who doesn't actively endorse and support their behaviour.
            I note though that 'in other areas of sexual politics' where conservatives opposed change that they subsequently came round to the liberal view. There would be very few conservatives nowadays who would want to return the divorce laws to their previous state where divorce was all but impossible, very few conservatives who would want to reinstate bans on interracial marriage, and the last polling data I saw on same-sex marriage found that the majority of Republican voters now support its legality and that number is continuing to rise.

            It seems to me that 'in other areas of sexual politics' as you put it, liberals have a 100% track record of being right on the issues, and conservatives have a 100% track record of eventually agreeing a few decades later that the liberals were indeed right and that the old conservative view was wrong. So if you're going to try and draw lessons from that history, perhaps your conclusion ought to be that it's highly likely the liberals are also right on this issue and that in a few decades conservatives will agree with the current liberal view.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
              I note though that 'in other areas of sexual politics' where conservatives opposed change that they subsequently came round to the liberal view. There would be very few conservatives nowadays who would want to return the divorce laws to their previous state where divorce was all but impossible, very few conservatives who would want to reinstate bans on interracial marriage, and the last polling data I saw on same-sex marriage found that the majority of Republican voters now support its legality and that number is continuing to rise.

              It seems to me that 'in other areas of sexual politics' as you put it, liberals have a 100% track record of being right on the issues, and conservatives have a 100% track record of eventually agreeing a few decades later that the liberals were indeed right and that the old conservative view was wrong. So if you're going to try and draw lessons from that history, perhaps your conclusion ought to be that it's highly likely the liberals are also right on this issue and that in a few decades conservatives will agree with the current liberal view.

              I don't see that it follows from 'everyone agrees that this is right' to 'this is in fact morally right' unless one is a moral relativist. Which I'm not, and which you're not either, IIRC.

              Quite possibly a majority of self-declared 'conservatives' will come to 'agree' with 'liberals' on this issue too. So what?

              All that aside, the point is that this is (another) substantial change in society. Which you evidently think it is, too.
              ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

              Comment


              • Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                I don't see that it follows from 'everyone agrees that this is right' to 'this is in fact morally right' unless one is a moral relativist. Which I'm not, and which you're not either, IIRC.
                Everyone agrees the sky is blue. Why? Because the sky is blue. The objective reality of things leads to widespread belief in their truth because they are true.

                So precisely because I'm not a moral relativist and think there are moral truths, I think there will arise widespread beliefs in those truths, due to people realizing those truths. So, as you put it, I think 'this is in fact morally right' will cause 'everyone agrees that this is right'. Everyone agreeing that something is right is thus very good evidence that it is right.

                As I noted in this thread there appear to be two core moral ideas that all groups and cultures seem to agree are moral - fairness and caring for others, and as I noted in this thread our modern pluralistic society over time is likely to bumble towards core moral truths as peoples from different cultures interact and bring their moral ideas together and argue over them and debate them and discuss them each critiquing the others' arbitrary additions to the core moral ideas until the additions are discarded and only the core remain. The arc of history thus bends towards a clearer picture of morality as different cultures interact in the West like a whetstone sharpening each other's views on the subject.

                Our pluralistic Western society engaging in decades-long debate and reflection on the morality of a subject, with input from many different groups and voices and ideas, and then gradually reaching a consensus on a issue, makes it very likely that consensus is correct. In the same way that the sky being blue leads people to agree that it is blue, so the fact that there are object moral truths means that when a society goes through the process of really serious reflection and reaches a consensus on the issue that that consensus is highly likely to reflect those moral truths.

                Quite possibly a majority of self-declared 'conservatives' will come to 'agree' with 'liberals' on this issue too. So what?
                You suggested learning from history with regard to sexual politics. Well, history says conservatives always come to admit their previous positions were immoral and that the liberals' position was moral.

                All that aside, the point is that this is (another) substantial change in society.
                I'm not particularly inclined to care how big a change it is or isn't. Cultures are always changing. History shows cultures can undergo pretty much any amount of change without issue. It's not something we need care about.
                Last edited by Starlight; 04-30-2021, 05:10 AM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                  Our pluralistic Western society engaging in decades-long debate and reflection on the morality of a subject, with input from many different groups and voices and ideas, and then gradually reaching a consensus on a issue, makes it very likely that consensus is correct. In the same way that the sky being blue leads people to agree that it is blue, so the fact that there are object moral truths means that when a society goes through the process of really serious reflection and reaches a consensus on the issue that that consensus is highly likely to reflect those moral truths.
                  Why couldn't such a consensus be reached with moral relativism?
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post

                    Even in the most uncharitable ideation of trans women athletes, it involves a handful of individuals. How is that requiring anyone to "scrap everything and restructure it" or "transform the basic structure of society"?
                    And we've turned girl's and women's sports upside down to accommodate these, as you agree, "handful of individuals." Girls are losing athletic scholarships set aside for them to biological males. Their records are routinely being broken by biological males. All to accommodate these nothing more than a "handful of individuals."

                    The real War on Women is being waged by the left while they fabricate faux conflicts to distract attention away from what they're doing

                    I'm always still in trouble again

                    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Why couldn't such a consensus be reached with moral relativism?
                      If there were no actual truths to agree on there would be little to cause agreement among people about them. We would not expect to see any level of agreement if both A and not-A were equally valid moralities and there were no reason for someone to hold A over not-A. We would instead expect people's moral views to be almost entirely random.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                        Everyone agrees the sky is blue. Why? Because the sky is blue. The objective reality of things leads to widespread belief in their truth because they are true.

                        So precisely because I'm not a moral relativist and think there are moral truths, I think there will arise widespread beliefs in those truths, due to people realizing those truths. So, as you put it, I think 'this is in fact morally right' will cause 'everyone agrees that this is right'. Everyone agreeing that something is right is thus very good evidence that it is right.

                        As I noted in this thread there appear to be two core moral ideas that all groups and cultures seem to agree are moral - fairness and caring for others, and as I noted in this thread our modern pluralistic society over time is likely to bumble towards core moral truths as peoples from different cultures interact and bring their moral ideas together and argue over them and debate them and discuss them each critiquing the others' arbitrary additions to the core moral ideas until the additions are discarded and only the core remain. The arc of history thus bends towards a clearer picture of morality as different cultures interact in the West like a whetstone sharpening each other's views on the subject.

                        Our pluralistic Western society engaging in decades-long debate and reflection on the morality of a subject, with input from many different groups and voices and ideas, and then gradually reaching a consensus on a issue, makes it very likely that consensus is correct. In the same way that the sky being blue leads people to agree that it is blue, so the fact that there are object moral truths means that when a society goes through the process of really serious reflection and reaches a consensus on the issue that that consensus is highly likely to reflect those moral truths.

                        You suggested learning from history with regard to sexual politics. Well, history says conservatives always come to admit their previous positions were immoral and that the liberals' position was moral.

                        I'm not particularly inclined to care how big a change it is or isn't. Cultures are always changing. History shows cultures can undergo pretty much any amount of change without issue. It's not something we need care about.


                        Well, then you're wasting my time, because that is what I'm discussing.


                        That aside, you're agreeing with me on that point, so OK Thanks Bye
                        ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                          That aside, you're agreeing with me on that point
                          No. I don't think being nice to transgender people is a big change.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by MaxVel View Post



                            Camel's nose, meet tent.


                            We've seen it before in other areas of 'sexual politics' - it starts with a cry for acceptance and freedom to just do what they want (perhaps justified) and ends with the activist fringe weaponising the power of the State to hunt down and silence anyone who doesn't actively endorse and support their behaviour.
                            Not only that, but if it becomes an accepted practice to allow transgender athletes to compete in woman's sports, competitive sports teams will actively recruit transgenders in order to keep winning. Remember back in the 1980s and 90s when sports teams were using steroids to pump up their athletes? This will be a repeat of that. Soon all of the national titles will be held by transgender "women"

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                              If there were no actual truths to agree on there would be little to cause agreement among people about them. We would not expect to see any level of agreement if both A and not-A were equally valid moralities and there were no reason for someone to hold A over not-A. We would instead expect people's moral views to be almost entirely random.
                              That does not follow. Perhaps we are just genetically predisposed towards certain behaviors. Higher primates for instance live in community and with hierarchy and some lower forms altruism, sharing and caring. Why couldn't that be the source of our moral sense? Isn't that more parsimonious?
                              Last edited by seer; 04-30-2021, 08:26 AM.
                              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                                That does not follow. Perhaps we are just genetically predisposed towards certain behaviors. Higher primates for instance live in community and with hierarchy and some lower forms altruism, sharing and caring. Why couldn't that be the source of our moral sense?
                                To my mind if humans are genetically predisposed to be altruistic, then that can be a valid reason why being altruistic is a part of objective morality. The fact that all humans are genetically predisposed this way by virtue of evolution selecting for it in a herd species, is then the truth of the matter that causes everyone to agree on it, in the same way the sky being blue is the truth of the matter that causes everyone to agree on it. As a result, humans would agree that being altruistic was moral and it would not vary as a matter of subjective opinion.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by lee_merrill, 06-03-2021, 11:57 AM
                                1 response
                                38 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Christian3  
                                Started by Machinist, 05-26-2021, 10:52 AM
                                97 responses
                                522 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Stoic
                                by Stoic
                                 
                                Started by seer, 05-12-2021, 05:35 AM
                                545 responses
                                3,415 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seer
                                by seer
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 05-09-2021, 09:43 AM
                                21 responses
                                189 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 05-09-2021, 09:34 AM
                                144 responses
                                1,079 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X