Bones

This makes zero sense. 

None of them (pro-lifers) have the requisite intellect to grasp the simple fact that potentiality ≠ actuality. Never has. Never will. 

The ONLY stage of gestational development where the fetus can be equates to that of [a] human being is the point of fetal viability. It is at this point of development within the womb that the viable fetus can survive outside the womb without further gestational development. With ir without medical intervention.

To call a zygote, blastocyst, embryo and unviable fetus the emotively charged term, “baby,” is an implicit misnomer. It’s factually inaccurate on all levels. 

Consider that 1 in 20,000 men have no Y chromosome. About 40% of men also lose Y chromosomes as they age. Does that mean they are no longer men?

How can I tell a trans woman they don't really feel like a woman?

I've never met a trans person that did not have long and hard conversations with their family and doctors.  Every single one of them saw a therapist

Explain to me how it's VERY hip to be trans and how people's lives improve overall as the result of claiming to be trans.

There is at least one survey with 28,000 trans people that checks in with them every few years. The one I'm thinking of has been going on for over a decade though I'm sure there are others.

Maybe read the suicide notes?

https://people.com/human-interest/transgender-teen-suicide-note/

Because the purpose of wedge issues is precisely to focus the conversation on those subjects which will peel undecided people over to the conservative side over time. Whether or not any substantive discussion actually takes place, simply the fact that these are the topics being discussed tilts things in a conservative direction.

Why do you think Jordan Peterson has been pumping out videos repeating the exact same lies for so many years now, with no progress, engaged debate or intellectual curiosity?

It's because those are the talking points which benefit the conservative think tanks which are where his money comes from.

So you didn't read the OP then. 

Of course I read it.

I also note that, for some odd reason, the prolific refuters of this stereotypically "right wing" belief are no where to be found.  

Because it's entirely boring, it's almost like the only people who actually care about these wedge issues like "gender affirming care," puberty blockers etc. are conservatives. 

every slightly feminine teenager should be castrated or whatever else you wrote about in the OP.

 I predict he will be number one again some day but he will get overtaken by somebody  active and more disciplined- that could very well be you.

Bones asked me to debate Hunter's laptop and I accepted but then he got busy. 

not (no offence intended) intel or other prolific snipers.

Well, I don’t snipe people, I just participate in topics I think I can win even if the other side is Whiteflame-leveled. Then again, I normally don’t accept highly scientific or political topics because I am young and relatively ignorant compared to some of us here.

Well, I believe most plus-size models at least still work out.

No one praises being an absolute junk hunk, but what we praise I think is that we should be able to exercise regardless of weight.

Isn't the whole gender movement to broaden it's definition such that it includes labels such as 

But those are almost all boiling down to variations of the same inherent thing; mostly just with different ascribed names. Clown, and tree - not so much 

There is no doubt that there exists a plethora of individual preferences when it comes to selecting a sexual partner, but I think that, for one to ascribe each preference a seperate "gender" (a term already heavily implications of the traditional biological definition [would be akin to describing the Big Bang as "God"]) is both misleading and unnecessary.

Gender has almost invariably been used in relation to social aspects of sex since the 1960s - gender roles, gender stereotypes, etc.

But saying that, the argument you’re making seems to be not necessarily objecting  that there are not 72 “genders” in the way that word is presented - but that you object to the word “gender” being used specifically.

no you still don't understand im talking about "tree self" and "clown self" 

Wouldn’t that be building up the modern definition of gender to include and ascribe such ridiculous extremes and the mocking the result - wouldn’t that qualify as a strawman?

So you are confused then, which explains a lot. You say you are an atheist, but then say religion solves our problems, which implies that we should follow religion because it solves said problems, which entails believing in religion.

Mirroring this line of attack to your position:

“So you are confused then, which explains a lot. You say you aren’t a rapist, but then say rape offers a reproductive advantage, which implies that men should rape women because it offers a reproductive advantage, which entails being a rapist.”

No, what will happen is that the tribe is, as a population, bred to be more aggressive and hence be able to survive. This is not simply about the individual survival, it is about how, if enacted, rape furthers the evolutionary success of a population, at least in the instance we are discussing. 

There's just more to sexual selection than how aggressive you are. Yes, it's important. No, it's not the only variable. No one wants children with down syndrome, shoddy immune systems, bug eyes, cleft heads etc.

If you don't select for those things because you're raping everything, then you'll end up with a pool of genes that are seriously mixed. Meanwhile, the neighboring tribe takes an extra bit of time to select for desirable genetics, and thus produces better children on the whole.

And the biggest issue - even if religion is advantageous, how does this tie to its truth? 

It's not an issue at all for this thread. This thread is specifically about whether religion is evolutionary advantageous, not whether there is any truth to it. I even wrote the opening sentence to address this: "Functionally, regardless of whether the religion in question is true, it will solve issues that humans face."

It's clearly implied what you are getting at - I would wager that you are religious, are you not? Further, as a society, we ought to pursue truth over falsehood, so I think neglecting the truth element is detrimental. 

No, I'm an Atheist, and you look like a massive idiot for derailing the thread because you think it's "clearly implied" I'm arguing that religion holds the truth, especially when I explicitly said in my OP's opening sentence: "Functionally, regardless of whether the religion in question is true, it will solve issues that humans face."

It couldn't be more obvious that I'm arguing about the functionality of religion, not the veracity LOL.

Massive L

Do you understand how evolution via natural selection works? Those who are aggressive survive, and as rape is by nature a violating disposition upon a seperate agent which also increases the gene pool and thus allows for mutation, a male who constantly rapes other are better equipped to pass their offspring on, when compared to a morally sane person. 

Aggression is part of evolutionary success, but not all aggression is desirable. This is an instance wherein aggression isn't desirable. It pollutes the genepool with undesirable genetics. It makes tribes/groups weaker in the long-run. Yes, the individual organism gets to pass on genetics, but it makes it more likely that the genetic lineage will end if you don't select for desirable genetics.

And the biggest issue - even if religion is advantageous, how does this tie to its truth? 

It's not an issue at all for this thread. This thread is specifically about whether religion is evolutionary advantageous, not whether there is any truth to it. I even wrote the opening sentence to address this: "Functionally, regardless of whether the religion in question is true, it will solve issues that humans face."

You've just equivocated rape being evolutionary disadvantageous with it being disgusting. These two things not contingent upon each other. 

Nope. I've argued that it's disgusting **because** it's evolutionarily disadvantageous. 

I said it doesn't "help the genepool", not increase the genepool.

Rape is also evolutionary advantageous - it allows for one to expand their gene, which is the driving function of evolution.

It's not evolutionarily advantageous. That's why people are shocked, disgusted and appalled by it. That's why you've used "rape" for its shock value to counter via Ad Absurdum, but it actually contradicts your argument. 

You are confusing these: (1) what is good for the individual, and (2) what is good evolutionarily speaking. I'm talking about (2), not (1). Rape may help the ugly, hopeless loser, but that doesn't help the gene pool in the long-run (hence, isn't evolutionarily advantageous).

I'm sure you're already familiar but Tate being banned off social media platforms is not a violation of his free speech rights (these social media platforms are private entities).

...I'm sorry, I'm honestly trying to understand this analogy and I'm not getting it at all. It's not just that it doesn't compare well with the circumstances we're discussing, but it also doesn't even reflect the specific circumstances that I discussed. You're right that part of the problem is that the adverse conditions for the mother are greater than those for the father, though I'm not very clear how this analogy utilizes anything similar to that distinction. If you want to demonstrate that your principle makes this largely unimportant, please do so more directly.

 I personally wouldn't consider what a mother goes through in order to give birth equivalent to financial payments

Stripping away the entire context that makes these two decisions distinct to focus solely on consent doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me.

When you force a man to pay child support, you are forcibly taking their wealth which is a result of their own labour. To say that the State can forcibly take your money to pay child support is synonymous to saying that the State can compel you to forced labour until your child support is payed off. The link here might not be clear, but as it is the case that child support comes from money, which comes from labour, and it is also the case that some assert that men must pay child support, it logically follows that labour is compelled i.e, slavery. 

 If we didn't have bodily autonomy rights, it would literally be legal to rape someone, that's how important bodily autonomy/bodily integrity rights are.

But I'm telling you that there are distinctions between them. You can claim they're inconsequential, but so far, your only justification for that conflation is that both include loss of consent, which is true, but also only one small part of the issue.

If a mother "opts out" via an abortion, then both functionally opt out. If a father opts out but the mother does not, then the mother is left with all the financial and physical responsibilities.

There's a real world cost to those women that, I would argue, outstrips any benefit these men gain from being able to opt out of the cost of child support.

The father is being held to the same commitment.