Total posts: 2,182
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
A 2008 study compared the genes of 112 trans women who were mostly already undergoing hormone treatment, with 258 cisgender male controls. Trans women were more likely than cisgender males to have a longer version of a receptor gene (longer repetitions of the gene) for the sex hormone androgen, which reduced its effectiveness at binding testosterone. The androgen receptor (NR3C4) is activated by the binding of testosterone or dihydrotestosterone, where it plays a critical role in the forming of primary and secondary male sex characteristics. The research weakly suggests reduced androgen and androgen signaling contributes to trans women's identity.
Ok, first of all, can you provide me the study?
Second of all, weakly is the key word in this paragraph.
. The authors say that a decrease in testosterone levels in the brain during development might prevent complete masculinization of trans women's brains, thereby causing a more feminized brain and a female gender identity.
Therefore, we have the mental illness called gender dysphoria.
if transgenderims is a biological, most biologists say yes but to an unkown degree.
Give me a statistic on how many biologists claim this, because I'm pretty sure you mean some biologists, not most. Because most real biologists would claim that your sex is unchangeable.
- In 2013, a twin study combined a survey of pairs of twins where one or both had undergone, or had plans and medical approval to undergo, gender transition, with a literature review of published reports of transgender twins. The study found that one third of identical twin pairs in the sample were both transgender: 13 of 39 (33%) monozygotic or identical pairs of assigned males and 8 of 35 (22.8%) pairs of assigned females. Among dizygotic or genetically non-identical twin pairs, there was only 1 of 38 (2.6%) pairs where both twins were trans.[8] The significant percent of identical twin pairs in which both twins are trans and the virtual absence of dizygotic twins (raised in the same family at the same time) in which both were trans would provide evidence that transgender identity is significantly influenced by genetics if both sets were raised in different families.
This is just citing common knowledge. Yes if you start gender reassignment surgeries' on kids, they are more likely to become transgender. This is obvious.
It's completely blatantly obvious from your last couple of posts on this topic that you are not interested in a deep discussion about transgenderism itself, and you are only interested in trying to fact check everyone, and play with definitions. If you continue to challenge basic biological definitions without providing evidence for them, and you can't understand the simple concept of an ideology, no one is going to take you seriously.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Transgenderism is an ideology and is also a political point of view and, there are many sources to prove this if you would like to check them out:
- Behind a paywall but the title suggests that there are ideologies regarding gender, not that the condition of Transgenderism itself is itself an ideology. Do you see the difference?
- Please don't pretend you want to discuss the modern scientific perspective and then introduce the Southern Baptists as a legit source. We Americans officially don't have to give one single fuck what the Southern Baptists. Those magical claims have no business in any serious discussion of public policy. If we were able to ask the Transgender community whether the Southern Baptists are a legitimate institution to be consulted for an accuate definition of the Transgender experience what do you think the answer would be? If we were to ask the Scientfic community whehter the Southern Baptists are a legitimate institution to be consulted for an accurate definition of the Transgender experience what do you think the answer would be. SInce both groups would obviously say, "oh hell no" let's agree that religious hangups about sex and sex control disqualify all religious opinion from an accurately scientific perspective.
- Behind a paywall but I doubt the Grey Lady would mistake any adjective for an ideology.
Basically to wrap this up, you basically just said they were paid to say this, and they are probably not being truthful.
So that's on you to not see the empirical evidence.
- In fact, I'm fairly confident that the notion of an ideology of transgenderism originates with the Heritage Foundation.
- Let's agree that any organizaton that backed Trump's big lie about the 2020 election knowing that the fraud was on Trump's side can no longer be treated as an objective reporter of American political fact.
- Organizations like the Heritage Foundation have never pretended to objectivity and may not cited as an objective source for defintion
- WIKIPEDIA: The Heritage Foundation has engaged in several activities in opposition to transgender rights, including hosting several anti-transgender rights events, developing and supporting legislation templates against transgender rights, and making claims about transgender youth healthcare and suicide rates based on internal research, contrary to the findings of peer-reviewed scientific studies.
- Making up your own internal research, that is truly anti-scientific. Mainstream science rejects the Heritage Foundation's phony research.
- The Heritage Foundation defintion claims:
- Proponents of the ideology believe that
- gender identity is as important as biological sex (I've never met anybody who makes this claim)
- and
- that trans people should be regarded as the gender with which they identify (basic courtesey, only true assholes fail to respect every citizen's right to name themselves and customize their identity. In America, one's identify is one's own).
- So just objectively, Heritage foundation's totally biased definition layers one accusation that's generally false on top of one common courtesy on assholes don't do.
Ok first of all, if your going to say that any organization that lyes shouldn't be trustworthy ever, then you are going to have to account for all the leftist news organizations that lie all the time and get away with it. Also, using wikipedia isn't always bad, but using it to support your theory, and not to define something isn't the smartest idea. Making up your own research is essential to finding the truth. Just because someone did their own research doesn't mean they are using biased materials in that research. Im sure you would be able to find their evidence for this research with a little deep dive into the heritage foundation. Also, I have met many transgender supporting and transgender peoples, saying that gender is of the utmost importance. All of their arguments have to do with gender. Gender is the base of their ideology. So I think it is safe to say that this is a truth. Also when they say transgender people should be regarded as the gender with which they identify they are saying that that is what the ideology believes, they are not saying that is what transgender people should believe. Again they are reporting on the beliefs of the ideology, not what the ideology should believe. You have no empirical evidence to tie your theory of the Heritage foundation to being lying a**holes.
Yes, this is true that not all transgender people view their actions and beliefs and healthy or normal. That is also true for many other beliefs, hobby's, addictions, etc.
- Well, then you agree with me that transgenderism is not an ideology and we are both just waiting for you to remove your head from your ass..
The people who involve themselves in the ideology, do not represent the ideology. This is basic knowledge. The idea of the ideology defines it. Just as pedophilic preists don't represent Catholicism, no person or group of people represent Catholicism. The ideology defines it. I thought you of all people would be able to grasp this basic concept.
I did not claim that all people who share one psychological trait must also share one political viewpoint. I didn't even claim that all transgender identifying people share the same political viewpoint.
- That is what you are claiming when you call it transgender ideology or an ideology of transgenderism, that's like defining white supremacy as white ideology or the ideology of white people.
Politics don't hold every ideology. Religious ideologies have within them different political viewpoints. Just because you have the same basic belief or ideology as someone else, doesn't mean you have to have the same political opinions on how society should be run to a T. You can be a Christian, with Christian beliefs, and still be a democrat or republican.
I only described and defined the transgender ideology (idea).
- False. IF we follow Heritage and say the ideology you oppose claims something like: "gender identity is as important as biological sex," than that's a pretty vague and at least superficially false statement. I don't know anybody who claims the like.
They belief that gender identity (the gender in which you want to identify) is as important as biological sex (what you were born as). Now as for getting into details of that claim, you can break it down easily, but when someone asks what they belief and you say that, they have an answer. Simple.
- Now, say you were to change that to:
- As a mattter of public policy, people may choose their gender identity and pursue their happiness therein as they see fit
- You might call that ideology but as I've said before, that is the US Constitution and upholders of the US Constitution ought not be properly referred to as "transgendered"
Public policy? The right to choose what you want to do with your life is up to you. So if you want to live in fantasy land, then you have every right to. That's a constitutional right. The Transgender ideology is not part of the constitution. The constitution gives you the right to fit into other ideologies that you deem fit. Again, how are you not grasping this simple concept.
- Let's take a look at how big a problem this ideology you speak of really is. Please provide 3 examples of political expression of the idea that "gender identity is as important as biological sex," that is not merely expressing the idea "that transgender people are entitled to the same civil rights as any other citizen."
Their are many examples:
- You just agreed with me that not all transpeople share the same set of beliefs. You forgot to explain what fault you found with my reasoning and you sould also explain why you agree with my faulty reasoning.
.............The people apart of the ideology do not represent the ideology. The ideology represents itself.
This is common knowledge.
- But we just agreed that not all transgendered people hold any one belief in common, so how can it be just to eradicate a people based on an ideology held by only some, or even perhaps none?
Dude. Did you not read what I wrote. I said that I am against the IDEOLOGY not the people that follow that ideology. I want the idea eradicated not the people eradicated.
and it is just a coincidence that you think that the ideology and the people are one thing?
I DON'T!
the ideology of the Transgenders?
Excuse me? I said the "transgender ideology." Do you understand the difference between a belief, and the people who believe that? Ideas are not the same as individual people. Ideas define themselves. How are you not able to grasp this?
If you're going to be part of honest conversation, at least present my position correctly.
Dude........................you are literally doing that exact thing to me right now.
- "The ideology of transgenderism" is your phony claim, not mine.
- If you were to more directly ask biologists if transgenderims is a biological, most biologists say yes but to an unkown degree.
Yes. There is a mental illness called gender dysphoria. So either it's an ideology or a mental illness. Which one is it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The fact that you are unable to wrap your head around basing gender off of anything but biological sex because that is all that makes sense to you is not an argument that someone else's ideology is also based off of your construct.
Ok, what is it based on then?
Again, you are the one criticizing the ideology you and others labeled "transgenderism", but you repeatedly refuse to acknowledge that the ideology you are criticizing is entirely in your own head. The actual people you point to who you claim hold those idea are talking about something entirely different.
Really? Because I go off of transgender people's argument, and all of them agree with the ideology I have described.
Gender throughout relatively recent human history has been associated largely around certain observable traits we consider to be feminine.
No, gender up until recently has been defined as what you are born as. I think you mean gender roles, define femininity and masculinity.
They include the way one dresses, carries themselves, appears, and the responsibilities they assume. None of this has anything to do with ones genitals or chromosomes because those are not things we see on the outside in any normal setting.
Yes, it does, because gender roles typically tend to match someone's biological sex. Not always, but most of the time it does.
That's what the LGTBQIA community is actually talking about. Your whole argument is one big strawman.
This community has literally said, men can menstruate, men can get pregnant, men can become women, and women can become men.
That is what they claimed, not what I said they claimed.
But it's worse because you are also just factually wrong about the idea that there are only two sexes in any objective sense. There are plenty of real world examples of people born who do not fit neatly into one of your two boxes. I'm not going to explain it to you because it has been explained to you multiple times already. If you suddenly become interested in reality Google "intersex".
Oh my gosh, you with intersex.
Let me ask you a question. If someone is born with one arm, even though humans are typically born with two, does that mean that there is now a spectrum of arms?
Intersex is someone being born, and something went wrong with their biological developmental process in the womb. Even though it is a bit confusing, there are still defining characteristics and traits of all intersex people that define them as either male or female.
If a third sex were to exist, it would have to have a purpose. Us as humans reproduce with a male and a female, and that's all we need. If another sex were to exist, what would its purpose be, and if it didn't have a purpose, then why didn't evolution take it out?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I thought you would continue to involve yourself in practical arguments. But when you say that teaching 5th graders about sex acts is ok then obviously you are the one not dealing with morality or reality.
So, in the end, I am the one with the arguments, and you are the one who gave up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Please give me the titles of these books so we can decide if it's pornography. Hint: Are You THere God It's Me Margaret is not a porno.
Look up pornographic books in kids schools on google, and you will find all the books you need. It literally shows sexual acts being performed and talks about sucking d*** and other horrible things of that manner.
No, what you said was "stop promoting the agenda." I'm asking you what that means in practical terms. Who has to stop doing what. When pressed, you said:The media, schools, children's shows, entertainment etc.What should 'media' specifically STOP doing that's currently seen by you as 'promoting the agenda.' What children's shows are going to make Russia decide it's time to attack us? Which entertainment specifically is China looking at and saying "You know what, two more Sam Smith singles and America will be ready to fall!"?You are on the verge of 'raving.'
I don't think you see the bigger picture or the threat of this ideology. Again I say to you, do a dive in history. This ideological warfare was used by many mass murderers to persuade the populous into horrible things.
The media needs to stop painting transgenderism as a thing we should promote to people. The media needs to stop condemning every single person who disagrees with this narrative.
Who is teaching this? Where?
In woke college campuses they literally have tampons in men's bathrooms. They also claim men can get pregnant and have periods. You ask me where this is happening, well literally look up what I said what is happening, and in a couple of seconds you will find people claiming this to be true.
It's not hard to make a google search.
Teachers who tell a class of fifth graders that it's okay to have sexual attractions, sexual urges, and if you don't have them, cool, but you will soon so don't freak out, they're not pedophiles and it has NOTHING TO DO WITH TRANSGENDERISM.
Why do teachers need to talk to kids about sexual attraction and sexual urges. That is not their job. Their job is to teach math, science, biology, and history. Not teach kids about pronouns, and how to suck other kids d***.
I'm talking about sex education, and not just from teachers, from parents. THere aren't many states in the union today where you can be arrested for talking about a girl having her period, or lose your job for telling your 10th grade health class it's not a huge deal to be gay. It doesn't make you a pedophile.
Yes it is. And I am glad that these states have these laws to protect kids.
Sex education is only supposed to explain how reproduction works, and how to protect yourself. It does not teach kids explicit sex acts, positions, and unnatural attractions. Sex education is not even supposed to be in elementary and only sometimes is in middle school. It usually takes place in high school when the kids become more mature.
At what age should a girl learn about her period? This is also "talk about genitals." Does that make someone a creep?
Talking about your own specific genitals and biological processes that may occur is different from talking about genitals and tying that to sexual acts.
I'm with you on pedophilia.
You are most definitely not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
"Transgenderism" has nothing to do with science and biology.You know who else agrees? Your own source:
That source wasn't to prove transgenderism wrong, only to prove that it is an ideology.
If one thing is "as important as" something else, then by definition, they are two different things.
Let me explain this to you.
Yes Gender and Sex are not entirely the same. This statement is true. But the idea of gender/gender roles is based off of sex.
Gender is a social construct. Social constructs must be based off of something, otherwise it is a social construct without construction.
Just like money. Money is a social construct based off of the buying, selling, and trading of humans. Money is based off of that.
Gender is based off of sex. And there are only two sex's theirfore only two gender roles, only two genders. If their are more genders, than where did they come from, what are they based off of, and what is the legitimacy of it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I don't see a "push" for "transgender ideology" anywhere.
This statement alone just proves how uneducated you are on this topic.
Sorry, but you do. How does this "shut down" society? The rest of the Hitler stuff is a ridiculous comp. Too ridiculous to even address.
First of all, anything is addressable. The more stupid it is the easier it is to address, so why are you having a problem addressing that?
Second of all, teaching society that men can menstruate is a big problem. All the things I stated are not fact, and are delusional. When society promotes and teaches delusion, that shows others like China and Russia that we are no longer a threat and easily confused and manipulated. It also gives the higher government elites dictator like power over the people. Whatever they say will go, without resistance.
I looked into both of these in earlier discussions and never denied they existed; I said I can't find any instances of anyone being fined or criminally charged under these laws. Sounds like it addressed a problem that didn't exist and doesn't exist today.
Yea, and I didn't say anyone has been fined or charged for it, I just stated that California has made that a law. That is called taking away free speech.
No, it is not, actually.
Explain yourself dude. Let me ask again:
SHOWING PORNOGRAPHIC BOOKS TO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL KIDS IS NOT PEDOPHILIA??
I agree, you don't seem to know what pedophilia is.
Do I really have to show you the deffinition of pedophillia like a child.
Pedophillia: a specific disorder where there is a preference for sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children.
Sexual activity can actually include talking about sexual preferences in detail, and showing other pornographic material.
Talking in certain ways is actually considered sexual activity. That's why you can actually be arrested for talking to kids in sexual ways. Even if it wasn't thought that is still very horrible.
Elementary school children have sexual urges, guy. Why should they not understand them? Why don't they need to know that it's fine to have these urges?
You know, I thought you were a reasonable guy, but after a comment like that, I think you might actually be a pedophile.
I was going to address more of your post but it seems we've been over that ground. Can you please tell me how do you solve your perceived 'promotion of the transgender ideology' satisfactorily. What would you like specific people to stop doing specifically. What should the transgender community stop doing that is currently 'advancing their agenda'?
I already answered your question in my last post.
To whom is this addressed?
The media, schools, children's shows, entertainment etc.
Also, teaching kids about consent, about sexual attraction, and about their genitals has nothing to do with transgenderism.
Yes it does. If a boy thinks he is a girl and wants a vagina, then you have to talk to a child about genitals, or just don't be a creep.
same here, except I'm against what's actually pedophilia, not children getting fulsome and accurate sex education from an early age
That is pedophilic behavior.
and teaching kids about sex overall.
Why. Just why.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AustinL0926
What judges do you want?
I will choose Grey Parrot, and whiteflame.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
(1) Have grounds for compassions to suit your (and other's) Christian faith(2) Avoid the 'transphobia' line of argument(3) Agree that transgenderism has some biological merit, but only in the sense of schizophrenia/bipolar disorder/another mental illness, rather than a valid lifestyle choice or natural urge that should be enabled
Turns out any time I do this, they only deny it, which is a relatively clear sign of a win for me.
Right now I am trying to hit at all the common sense part of it to draw out the insanity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
How does transgenderism benefit society? I don't think it does, at least not in any way you'd find beneficial, but I also don't see it as deleterious to society either. It's benign at worst.
Ok, so it doesn't benefit society.
So if transgenderism doesn't benefit society, and we don't need it, then why the big push for this ideology? They have all the rights that we have, and all the same freedoms, so there's no need to protest that. So why the push for this transgender ideology?
Okay, so it's an ideology that's proposing an idea. What rights of yours are being infringed upon, or do you FEAR will be infringed upon?
How did Hitler gain power?
Through media influence. That was the main reason he gained control and persuaded the German people to follow along with his plan. He preached world peace and he even claimed what world leaders are claiming today, that we would save the environment.
No Germans rights were being infringed upon, but society still fell, and because of society's collapse, that is what eventually infringed on their own rights. Same thing is happening now. Again, it's not the LGBTQ community. It is the transgender ideology.
It's common sense of why it is bad for society. If an ideology is preaching, that men can be women, men can menstruate, men can go into women's bathrooms, men can compete against women in sports, theirs are more than two genders, etc. then that is going to shut down society very fast. I hope I don't need to explain how that is bad.
I cannot find anyone in California who's ever been arrested for misgendering someone. Or even fined under the California law. If this ever happened, I feel like at least ONE conservative news outlet would have made a crusade out of it, but it doesn't seem to have ever happened.
"It has been reported that Governor Jerry Brown signed into a law that would make it a crime to “willfully and repeatedly” decline to use a senior transgender patient’s “preferred name or pronouns.” SB 179 (“Gender Recognition Act”) was signed into law back in October. The law will allow individuals to update state-issued identification documents (including birth certificates, state identification cards, and driver’s licenses) to select “nonbinary” as their gender."
""It shall be unlawful for a long-term care facility or facility staff to take any of the following actions wholly or partially on the basis of a person’s actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) status," the bill reads."
That's not what pedophilia is, not remotely.
Talking to kids about consent. Talking to kids about genitals in a sexual way. Making pornographic books, and comic books and putting them in kids elementary, middle and high schools. That is not pedophillia?
Adults talking to kids about consent is sex education and not pedophilia.
Not sex education. They are talking to them about sexual attraction. Who they are attracted to at young ages, and why they are. They are talking to kids about how to give concent. If that is not pedophillia then I don't know what is.
Adults talking to kids about whoever they're sexually attracted to, in the context of "you like what you like, it doesn't make you a freak or any less worthy of respect" is not pedophilia.
KIDS SHOULD NOT BE TAUGHT ABOUT WHO THEY ARE SEXUALLY ATTRACTED TO!
Kids (especially elementary schoolers) shouldn't need to know about that. THEY ARE KIDS FOR CHRISTS SAKE.
If you think that kids will understand when they are taught about pronouns, consent, sexual identity, and sexual attraction, then you are mistaken. They are kids and don't need to know about that. Stop sexualizing the kids. Leave them alone.
No reputable news organization I can find is reporting this, and it doesn't make any sense on the surface. How would a child pay for this procedure, for one. It sounds like the kind of thing that one of your self-selecting news outlets would turn into a clickbait headline.
"Vulnerable House and Senate Democrats refuse to say whether they support gender reassignment surgery for minors and if the controversial procedure should be allowed without parental consent, despite recent concerns over the issue."
"Washington State could soon require youth shelters to hide minors who run away from home in order to obtain an abortion or sex change operations without parental consent."
Now, WHAT IS THE SOLUTION for the problem you see? I'm not saying you need to have written a bill that could pass a state legislature. I'm saying you see a problem, and it bothers you quite a bit, so you must have an ideal solution in mind. What is it? What does it look like in the broadest terms?
Simple. Stop promoting this to kids. Stop promoting this ideology. That is the solution.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
It’snot that hard to become informed about the subject matter you want to debate,use Google, learn to read, stop babbling about science like a moron.Science knows alot about transgenderism and they know a lot about transphobia too, the consensusis that Transphobia is the pathology.
Any biologist that says transgenderism lines up with biology is full of sh**.
Get a clue, read, learn, stop embarrassing yourself, try to conform toour societal norms, learn something and stop blathering like an idiot.
I guess you can't refute any of my points I made to you, so you just turn to insults. Oh, no I'm crying. What I am I going to do??
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Ok, this one is going to be fun.
- TRUTH#1: Transgenderism is not an ideology, it is not a poltical point of view. Not all transgender people even view transgenderism as healthy or normal.
You can put TRUTH in front of whatever you'd like, but that doesn't make it true.
Transgenderism is an ideology and is also a political point of view and, there are many sources to prove this if you would like to check them out:
"Transgender ideology is a controversial topic with opposing viewpoints1234. Proponents of the ideology believe that gender identity is as important as biological sex and that trans people should be regarded as the gender with which they identify13. This has influenced policy-makers in some places to allow trans women into spaces that were once reserved for females1. The opposing viewpoint, often described as "gender-critical", argues that biological sex is unchangeable and that the conviction that one has been born in the wrong body should not be dispositive1. The transgender movement is criticized for denying basic facts about human beings and fostering dissonance2. The ideology is also criticized for ignoring contrary evidence and competing interests, disparaging alternative practices, and aiming to muffle skeptical voices and shut down any disagreement"
Yes, this is true that not all transgender people view their actions and beliefs and healthy or normal. That is also true for many other beliefs, hobby's, addictions, etc.
You commit the basic fallacy of overgeneralization by assuming that all people who share one psychological trait must also share one political point of view.
You commit the fallacy of faulty reasoning. I did not claim that all people who share one psychological trait must also share one political viewpoint. I didn't even claim that all transgender identifying people share the same political viewpoint.
I only described and defined the transgender ideology (idea).
- THIS: " Ideology: "a set of opinions or beliefs of a group or an individual. The transgender movement is an ideology. So I did describe one. " It is every bit as fucked up a prejudice to say that all transpeople share a set of beliefs as it is to say that all straight men share one set of beliefs
Again, fallacy of faulty reasoning. Maybe try to be slow on the accusations.
If you want to base your argument in truth you need to remove your biased and false prejudices from the original question.
I am basing it in truth. Biological truth, Scientific truth, and logic and reasoning.
We started this conversation two weeks ago and you scampered.
From what I remember, I mostly made that thread to let others talk about the issue, not for me specifically to go into deep conversation about it.
- TRUTH#2: You need to stop lying about your own motivations. Two week ago you claimed "the LGBT community and ideology is not healthy for society, and must be eradicated."
- Today it is: "I don't have a problem with the transgender people"
Yes...............this is not lying. I don't have a problem with transgender people. I do have a problem in the belief's that they hold, but not the person specifically. Also if you wouldn't have cut out that last part like the mainstream media does to a lot of people, you would have shown the whole story.
"the LGBT community and ideology is not healthy for society, and must be eradicated (the ideology, not the people)."
If you're going to be part of honest conversation, at least present my position correctly.
- Obviously, eradication is an existential threat. I believe that you are a threat to me and to LGBTQ people everywhere. When people threaten me like you did two weeks ago and then come back two weeks later "oh, no....I don't have a problem with the transgender people" not only can I not believe you, my defense posture is raised even higher because you a threat trying to disguise yourself as a non-threat.
Well obviously, either you didn't fully read and understand what I wrote, or your logic is flawed. Also, I do believe that you are saying your defense will be raised higher, is a threat, and I will be taking that personally, by crying and worrying all night long.
TRUTH#3: You need to stop lying about what biologists say about transgenderism. Medical schools teach that the transmission of sex to embryos is complicated and not entirely understood.
Give me a biologist (just one) by name (preferably a trustworthy one) who claims that the ideology of transgenderism lines up with biology.
Every time you say "LGBTQ is not scientific or biological" you are lying and failing to face the facts as 21st century science has presented them to you. Here is an excerpt from Scientific American (not a Christian website) article entitled, "Stop Using Phony Science to Justify Transphobia"
Well, even though you didn't provide a source link, I found it myself.
Here are some problems with it, I need you to adress:
"The popular belief that your sex arises only from your chromosomal makeup is wrong. The truth is, your biological sex isn’t carved in stone, but a living system with the potential for change."
Ok give me one example of a male biologically changing into a female, or vice versa (just one).
The article also says that there is no difference between the female brain and the male brain, so.................yea.
The rest is talking about how babies receive their biological sex, and intersex. people.
Two things. Babys receiving a sex, proves that a binary exists.
And intersex is literally not another sex, it is a disorder/development issue. It would be like someone being born with one leg, and then everyone saying that there is now a whole spectrum of types of legs.
And intersex is literally not another sex, it is a disorder/development issue. It would be like someone being born with one leg, and then everyone saying that there is now a whole spectrum of types of legs.
Created:
Posted in:
It's good for society for all people to have the right to self ownership. It's a fundamental human right.
People already have the right to self-ownership. No one is taking that away from them.
How does transgenderism help people gain the right to self-ownership, when they already have the right to that?
Again, the question is how it benefits society, and why do we need it.
This isn't what you said earlier: you said the ideology is limited to the idea that men can become women and women can become men. So with such a limited scope, what rights do you think this ideology is trying to infringe upon of yours?
Not, limited. I said this is the basic principle in which the ideology is based upon.
This ideology is trying to propose an idea that will hurt society, therefore hurting me, and in doing so infringing on my rights.
If an ideology is to be accepted, it has to make a case for itself, instead of just affecting society without any justification as to why, then letting the people deal with the consequences it brings.
So our culture is taking the ideology that a man can become a woman and woman can become a man wants what to become a law? This isn't clear at all.
This ideology is influencing people to believe in the idea that any resistance to the ideology should be punished. You can already see this in California and Canada where you can be arrested for misgendering someone.
Catholics protect and empower molesters by shielding them from prosecution and relocating offending priests to other parishes, where they almost always do the same thing. As far as not forcing their views into societal norms, then why does anyone care about what a candidates religious values are? And literally EVERY religious organization forces their beliefs onto children. It's the only reason religion continues to exist. You mention there are "a lot" of examples, can you define "a lot"? Is it possible you don't see drag queen pedophiles being arrested because...it doesn't happen as much as you're worried about? Seems like that would be a more sensible explanation for the lack of arrests, no?
Let's get back on track. Honestly drag queens is a whole other argument. I shouldn't have brought it up in the first place.
What occurs more often do you think: transgender pedophilia (not children going to story hours which you lump in here, that's not pedophilia) or transgender violence?
I think that all people of all different groups have the same capacity of violence. It's the pedophilia that is very prominent in this community, with adults talking to kids about consent on YouTube Kids, adults talking to kids about who they should be and are attracted to sexually. That is pretty pedophilic to me.
Don't all minors require parental consent for prescriptions and operations?
Yes.
I don't know where you live but kids in my state can't just go get a prescription for something. Are there a lot of 11 year olds just going to doctors and getting prescriptions where you live? Because if so, maybe THAT's a problem to deal with before you start worrying about who is dressing how.
Obviously, you are behind the times. Democrats right now are pushing the idea that kids should have the right to transition without parent consent. Look it up, it something that they are legitimately pushing.
Maybe there's a more useful way we can have this discussion.I'll acknowledge that you have a problem with transgenderism.Can you tell me how you'd propose to solve it?
Well can you answer my questions first? I will be glad to answer yours once mine have been answered.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
You even had the first “reality” trans kid (pre-teen) Jazz who transition before the world. The boy now suffers from depression, anxiety, and never feels like himself. Looking at what appears to be a girl in the mirror, but always feeling like the boy he is/was.No idea what you're talking about, sorry.
Yea, with all due respect you should probably do at least a little research into the topic before arguing for it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Ok, so there isn't a huge problem now, but if transgender people aren't sufficiently shamed and marginalized now, we might got a a place where....what happens, exactly?
When ideological subversion is taking place, it doesn't matter if it is bad at the moment. Nazi Germany didn't start out murdering jews. Jews lived in Germany, but over time, the media and social norms of Germany, took it to a place, where Jews were being attacked and slaughtered, and it was normal and ok.
It isn't infringing on rights, but the transgender ideology wants our rights infringed. I am not talking about what's happening legally in our country, I am only talking about the ideology. The ideology is wrong, not the people. The ideology is wrong, not the law. And what's happening in our culture right now, is that our culture is taking in this ideology, and pushing it to be a part of law, which I have a problem with. People don't have to explicitly say things for the meaning to be behind it. Hitler didn't tell everyone he wanted to dominate the world, he used ideological subversion to get to his goal.
So answer my questions:
Is this ideology good for society? Why do we need it? If we don't need it and it's not beneficial for society, then why are we pushing it?
So isn't the problem with pedophilia and not drag queens? I'd say you have bigger bites to take from the pedophilia apple: start by stripping the Catholic church of all their government protections, tax incentives, etc. After all, pedophilia in church settings is far more prevalent than it is in the drag community, and if your main issue is you want to protect children from predation, I can get with that no problem, but by starting with transgenders and not religious groups writ large, you're tripping over a dollar to pick up a penny. If you could discover that the rate of child abuse by transgender individuals is well below child abuse by the clergy, would you change your crusade?
Oh of course we can get into other examples of pedophila with other groups of people, but don't change the subject.
The difference between the Catholic Churches pedophilia, and the transgender communities' pedophilia, is that true catholics all over the world don't waste a second to condemn these people, and they aren't forcing their beliefs into societal norms, they are just open to those who want to go to church. The church is not violent.
The Transgender community does not condemn their own pedophilic actions, they do try and force their ideology onto people, (especially children), and this transgender movement has a lot of ties to violent behavior. Now don't hear what I am not saying. I am not saying all transgender people are violent.
I suppose in rare cases, but I would say that churches are more dangerous. How many children were molested at a drag queen story hour last year? How many were molested by members of their clergy, regardless of denomination?What other bad things? I mean besides pedophilia, that's pretty bad.
Not just rare cases. Their are a lot of examples, of drag queens dancing, stripping, and being inappropriate with children at libraries' and other events. These events are recorded and easily found with just a simple google search. When you have an ideology and a group of people where pedophila is happening and it is not being condemned then that is a problem.
With the church, there are cases where children are molested, but these cases condemn, arrest, and charge the pedophile. I don't see any drag queen pedophiles being arrested and charged.
This is a belief with a lot of semantical nuance. If someone believes this, what's the impact on you? Or your community.
I have answered this a thousand times. How does it affect me?
Look for yourself in the previous posts.
So your peers then do not have the right to self identify?
They should have the right to identify as whatever they want. That doesn't matter. They shouldn't have the right as non-adults who can't drink, drive, smoke, own a gun, etc, to medically transition or take drugs and hormones.
You didn't really describe an ideology.
Ideology: a set of opinions or beliefs of a group or an individual.
The transgender movement is an ideology. So I did describe one.
You described one belief that I'm not sure is even an accurate representation, like where do you get it?
Well, if you don't understand, then with all due respect, you should probably educate yourself more into a deep dive of transgenderism and what they believe, and the actions that they make, and then try and equate it with facts.
You already said you've never talked to a transgender person
Where did I say that.
I have talked to transgender people. I have actually debated many of them in rational conversation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Where do you see the promotion of the idea that men can become women and vice versa? That doesn't sound like what I've seen at all.
"Transgender people identify as something other than their birth sex. Many struggle deeply to accept their male or female bodies and choose to undergo medical alterations. They may say they are ‘trapped in the wrong body’."
What I've seen is people just wanting their rights to be respected, including the right to be whatever they want to be, however they want to be it, provided they don't infringe on the rights of someone else.
Ok lets get something clear. What rights do transgender people not have that everyone else does, and if there is none, then what exactly are the rights that need to be respected.
Now, as for the bolded part of you quote, if that was the case, then I wouldn't be as concerned as I am right now. What this ideology has done though, with the help of media and cancel culture, is go after everyone who disagrees with this ideology and has called them terrorists, bigots, transphobes etc. It doesn't infringe on any rights at the moment, but I am worried about the future problems with this ideology's growth and popularity. Again ideological subversion is a very deadly thing.
I know in the past you've expressed some concern about what might look like "grooming" but is in fact just outreach.
Well, democratic politicians and leaders who have heard about this grooming have not condemned this behavior. Now they don't fully support it either, but they still complain about the backlash.
When the problem with drag queen strippers putting on shows for kids was brought up, democrats didn't condemn it, but instead telling the people through the media, that republicans are trying to infringe on the rights of drag queens. Again republicans' don't care about the existence of drag queens, we care about the drag queens who are identifying themselves with this ideology, and being pedophilic. It doesn't take much to condemn this behavior, but a lot of democrats don't do this. Now I will say, some do, but the more prominent democratic leaders don't.
It's important for a person who might be around your age to feel like there's a community for them, even if they feel like they might be transgender, that they're not alone.
Do you see how this could lead to pedophilia, and other bad things for kids especially?
Again, the gender and sex wars is mostly about attraction to people, why you are attracted to that person, and what genitals' you think you should have. If a child goes to an adult to talk about this or to feel included and not alone, what are they going to have in common? That they both like certain types of people and they both want different genitals?
Science and biology state that there are organisms born with penises and people born with vaginas. Transgenderism does not in any way deny this. THe man / woman thing isn't a scientific thing, it's lexicographic. If those two words are deleted from human knowledge, man and woman, then what's the impact that undermines societies as we know them, exactly?
I didn't say transgenderism denied the existence of the sexes. I claimed that they believe that men can become women and women can become men.
Do you think transgenders should have to hide that they're one gender or another?
I believe that transgender people (people who suffer from gender dysphoria) shouldn't have to pretend they are something that they are biologically and factually not, even if they feel like they should be that thing. Now adults should have the right to do this, but I don't have to agree with the legitimacy of it.
Or that a little girl at six years old cannot discover at 14 that she is transgender, and opt to pursue that with other transgenders?
A little girl who suffers from gender dysphoria should get help, not affirmation to the mental illness.
Should transgenders be limited in what jobs they can have? Or what hours they can be seen in public?
Again, I don't have a problem with the transgender people. I do have a problem with the ideology.
Created:
Posted in:
That’s brilliant kid. That’s like saying we already have a cure for cancer, it’s called death.
How?
Created:
Posted in:
So what do we do with all these men and women who can’t have children? Should we ban them from society because they can’t procreate? Should a woman who can’t have children not be allowed to get married?This argument was made when the Supreme Court considered the question of gay marriage. It failed to impress the court.
Ok......................this has nothing to do with my argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Glad to participate, but what is the specific "ideology" as you see it?
Thank you for asking me to clear definitions. I respect that.
I mean the ideology of transgenderism, which suggests and promotes the idea that men can become women and women can become men.
Please also let me know what the 'perspective of transgenderism' is, and how it goes against science and biology (transgenderism is nothing new, as someone points out, so it has perpetuated throughout human history).
It goes against science and biology, because science and biology state with empirical evidence that there are men and their are women. Men have a penis and testes, different body structure, and more testosterone in the body than females. Females have a vagina, ovary's, and a different body structure, and more osterigin than males.
The transgenderism ideology denies this biological fact.
THen I'm glad to discuss, but I don't want to guess at what your positions are and get them wrong.
Thank you, and I appreciate that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Why?
Usually with debates the topic is so pointed in, and with transgenderism there is a lot to hit at and talk about. A lot of points to be made.
The world is a freak show, there's everything imaginable out there, from people screwing dinkeys to sociopathic cannibals and everything in between, why is transgenderism such an obsession for you, how does transgenderism affect you?
Yes the world is a freak show, and the freak show should be looked at it as just that, and not normal. I want things that are weird to stay weird, because then we live in a weird world. You just proved my point in saying that this movement/ideology is a freak show, by relating transgenderism to freakshow type things.
Now how does it affect me? I already explained that in the first post.
Transgenderism affects society. I live in society. Therefore I am affected.
Lives ruined and death....meh, so whatTransgender people exist...oh no, the sky is falling, save me save me.
I think that you will find that ideology's and persuasion using media and power is far more detrimental than firepower for humans.
Look up Chaos GPT. It's goal is to find the best way to eliminate humans. Read what the plan is.
What makes the existence of transgender people so much more incredibly important to you than death and ruined lives.
Not the existence of people with gender dysphoria. The transgender ideology.
You always talk about the ideology but you never answer the question, what exactly do you think the ideology is?
The transgender ideology is an ideology that promotes the idea that men can become women and women can become men.
The LGBTQ community is about as diverse as any community, yet you think they are all unanimous in support of this secret ideology you know about, please rxplain this "ideology" that terrifies you so much.
I think you will find that this community does not include a huge number of people. They promote diversity but only include people that agree with them. That is not diversity, that is a cult.
Fill in the blanks - The transgender ideology is ______________________________________________________ and it upsets me because ______________________________________.
Blank one: An ideology that promotes the idea that men can become women and women can become men.
Blank two: Because it is changing society without the want to challenge it and prove itself worthy. It is changing society, whilst going against basic biology and science.
Explain to my how it works, and why it would benefit society. I will ask questions and I expect them to be answered with clear and consistent answers that don't contradict each other.Explain how intolerance works, and why it would benefit society?
That's a question to a question. Not an answer.
What is the "perspective of transgenderism", is that another name for the "ideology", I know what transgenderism is, not sure what the "perspective" is, please explain.
When I say perspective of transgenderism I mean if you want me to use the terms and definitions that you made up to debate this ideology then I won't because those terms and definitions are biologically, scientifically, factually, untrue and false. I will use the definitions that are biologically, scientifically, and factually true.
Do you think transgenderism was recently invented kid, is that the peoblem here?
Nope. It has been a round for a while. But it has only recently been actively promoted and praised by society and the media.
Yes, we have always had societal norms and transgenderism has always existed, not the norm, but the whole idea of the term norm is that there is a distribution around the norm.
This ideology is not just trying to become the norm. It is constantly begging for praise and affirmation.
OK, and for that entire time transgender people were part of society.
Not promoted though.
Again my problem isn't with the people, and the existence of gender dysphoria. My problems is with the promotion of the mental illness.
Oh, so that's it, you think transgenderism was just invented LOL.
Nope. That is factually inaccurate.
When I said: "If someone is to suddenly present something like transgenderism which would break social norms, then I want at least an explanation as to why it will benefit society better and why we need it."
What I mean is that if someone is to suddenly promote this ideology. Remember transgenderism has not always been called transgenderism. It has commonly been known as gender dysphoria, so I think it is fair to say people are presenting the idea of transgenderism, as a identity and not a mental illness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Someone who?
A group of people. Sorry for not elaborating. This LGBT movement that the left is using to try and change society's standards.
Societal change is gradual.And the bit that affects us the most is this bit.And affect in this context, means that which challenges ideas that were established previously.And ideas that became established, were instilled by others who were affected by even earlier stages of social development.So we are sort of always playing data catch up. And therefore we are always somewhat out of date in terms of our established data bases relative to current trends.You either run with the new, or stress over what inevitably happened but does not correspond with your established way of thinking.
I don't care about these ideas being challenged. I want these ideas to be challenged. That is what I am asking for. I am asking for these ideas to be challenged and looked at/ studied, not just accepted without thought.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Just another ideology centred around the innate necessity of sexual reproduction.
Big part of it sure, but I don't think that is how this ideology is effecting out society. Sexual reproduction is being torn apart by things like hookup culture, pornography etc. Maybe it is doing it a little bit, but not a whole lot.
Just more over thinking about penises and vaginas and the endocrinal itch.
Well if someone is going to try and change society, I ought to know the reasoning and logic behind it. Don't I deserve at least that?
Created:
Posted in:
- The American Revolution was Justified (SLIGHTLY PRO)
Would you be willing to argue slightly con on this one?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mikal
Well there are many reasons I find it concerning.
The idea of transgenderism is that a man can become a woman, and vice versa. This idea in of by itself breaks down social norms. Now I don't know about you l, but I like society the way it is. We have been thriving with our social norms for a while now and it has been good. If someone is to suddenly present something like transgenderism which would break social norms, then I want at least an explanation as to why it will benefit society better and why we need it. If no explanation is provided then I am going to assume using human nature as evidence that it is simply for self pleasure and desires, which is not always good and I am obviously going to question that.
Created:
Posted in:
I would usually make a debate in order to win an argument, but I like to go into deep conversation about these topics instead.
So, I would like to challenge anyone or multiple people to argue in defense of this ideology.
Explain to my how it works, and why it would benefit society. I will ask questions and I expect them to be answered with clear and consistent answers that don't contradict each other.
Now if you are the type of person that tells me in order to argue I need to argue from the other perspective of Transgenderism then you can leave, because the perspective of transgenderism goes against science and biology, and I will stick to the side of biology.
There needs to be a starting ground for arguments that we can agree on so if you wish to argue, base it in truth or at least try to base it in truth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Now that's what I call a strong philosophical argument for more guns, more guns, more guns.You guys are good LOL
Every mass shooting has been stopped with a gun.
Either by suicide, cops, or held at gunpoint.
Created:
Posted in:
Find me one civilization where lives haven't been ruined and people haven't died.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AustinL0926
I can do Con, for the Invasion of Ukraine being justified.
If not we can figure out another one.
Created:
Posted in:
Body differences in men and women:
Skull is larger in males.
Male shoulders are wider & higher. Females carry an angle in their shoulders.
Females' thorax is lower than the males.
Males' torsos are shorter than females.
Females have a wider pelvis.
Males have longer arms.
Oblique slant of femur is more pronounced in females.
Legs are longer in males.
Created:
Posted in:
Hormone Therapy:
While it may seem like a simple solution to a complex issue, the reality is that hormone therapy can lead to serious future health problems. Hormones play a vital role in our body's functions. They regulate everything from our metabolism to our mood and can have a significant impact on our overall health. Hormone therapy involves the use of synthetic hormones, which are designed to mimic the natural hormones in our body, and synthetic hormones can have unintended consequences. One of the biggest concerns with hormone therapy is the risk of cancer. Studies have shown that hormone therapy, particularly in the form of estrogen, can increase the risk of breast cancer. In fact, a study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute: Influence of Time From Menopause and Mammography on Hormone Therapy–Related Breast Cancer Risk Assessment | JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute | Oxford Academic (oup.com) found that women who took estrogen and progestin were at a higher risk of developing breast cancer than those who did not.
Another concern with hormone therapy is the impact it can have on cardiovascular health. Hormones like estrogen and testosterone can affect the way our blood vessel's function, which can increase the risk of heart disease. In fact, a study published in the Journal of the American Heart Association: American Heart Association issues statement on cardiovascular side effects from hormonal therapy for prostate cancer - Harvard Health found that hormone therapy increased the risk of heart attack and stroke. There is also the concern that hormone therapy could have long-term effects on the body. For example, some studies have suggested that hormone therapy could lead to a higher risk of dementia in women. There are also concerns that it could lead to bone loss, which can increase the risk of fractures and osteoporosis.
The reality is that hormone therapy can have unintended consequences that could impact our health in the long-term. Instead of giving hormones to individuals with gender dysphoria, and hoping that it will help, we should find the best solution to this problem, that has the least number of consequences.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
My definition for a woman: Someone with a high ratio of brain connections between brain hemispheres compared to brain connections that stay in the same hemisphere.
.............with this definition you could define a lot of things as a woman.
My definition for a man: Someone with a low ratio of brain connections between brain hemispheres compared to brain connections that stay in the same hemisphere.
Same thing.
Lets see if this answers Matt Walsh's question, "What is a woman?"
The only answer that is suitable, is an adult human female.
That doesn't exclude trans-women, because trans-women are not women by definition. If a man really wanted to become a woman, he would call himself a woman, not a trans-woman, and even then, he wouldn't be a woman, because he is a biological male.
And I know you Libs are going to pull out the "biology and gender aren't the same thing" argument. Then I ask you this. If gender is a social construct and has nothing to do with biology, then what is it based off of.
This is my view on this issue:
I think that in order for society to survive, thrive and become successful, that we need to base it on scientific, and biological truths. Using biological truths, a woman is a biological adult human female. Female = Woman, and Male = Man. It's honestly not that hard to understand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
If something has the capacity for life then by definition, it isn't life... Yet. So why do you place it in the same category as that which is currently life?
A living thing that has the capacity to live on its own, is life.
If I am making a cake, and I put it in the oven, then you take it out of the oven and throw it on the ground, it isn't cake anymore. But it was going to be claiming. Using your logic, that cake in the oven was never cake in the first place.
Why does it matter whether it's through natural processes or not? This really sounds like a reach.
Mother nature (God), whichever you prefer, created a natural process for us as humans to survive and thrive. Thats why it matters.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Why is that obvious? How does that matter and how exactly do you measure that in its DNA composition?
If something doesn't have the capacity for life, then it isn't alive, and doesn't have any internal value in of itself.
Then remove the embryo from the mother and let it live its life. I'm all for it.
I said through natural processes, meaning, the natural process of birth, using the mother's womb to get nutrients. It's still consuming by itself. It's not biologically part of the mother body, it is something different.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Not under your definition. You argued that if it has human DNA and is alive in a scientific sense then it is human life.
AND a chance for life, obviously.
An embryo cannot form into a human by itself either.
.........yes, it can. Through natural processes.
Is this guy for real?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
As previously discussed, our moral conscience isn't lined up to perfection. Our morality is somewhat centered on what keeps the population together (ie. Cooperation, empathy, compassion) , but definitely not perfectly so.
Our moral conscience is.
The choices we make based on that conscience isn't.
You need to broaden your horizons. Their are tons of examples of other social species consistently acting in seemingly moral ways.
"The empirical evidence gathered until now suggests that Rowlands may be on the right track and that some animals are indeed capable of behaving morally."
Acting morally and having a moral conscience are two different things.
If you tell a dog to give you the stick back, and it growls at you, is it "sinning?"
Because our species realized long ago that living with others has advantages over survival alone thus maintaining the group is beneficial to the individual.
So, you think that morality is evolutionary?
Ok, so it could be for the base of survival, but that moral conscience still existed, nonetheless.
If a group of cavemen decided, oh if we act this way, things work out better for us, that's not them discovering morality, that is just them acting on it. The morality was always there.
Just like a baby learning from its mistakes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Tat’s because it [IS] the “wrong” definition.
How so? Explain to me.
“Search up” the definition? What the flying fucktards does “search up” mean?
Ok, so basically you go on google,
then you type the definition into the bar at the top,
then you press enter
Super difficult I know.
No, that’s unhealthy stupidity.
Sacrificing junk food for healthier options is unhealthy stupidity??
No, it is not. Not by any definition. At all.You’re the denialist here.Clown.
I know your most likely not a liberal on most things but look what you are doing when you can't argue back.
You revert to repeated name calling, with no logical answer to my arguments.
You claim I am the denialist here, whilst not explaining why my argument is denying anything. I give you the evidence, and you yourself call that denial.
Repeating is necessary when the deaf are present.
Repeating is what you do when you can't say anything else.
“Living human” is one term, I already recognized that. You have not. You clearly do not understand let alone comprehend what it means to put two words together to create a very specific meaning behind the term.
It's called using adjectives, adverbs, nouns, etc. to put a sentence together. Come on man you did this in the 1st grade.
You are a living human. I am a living human. But a fucking zygote is NOT [a] living human. Period. Fact. Period.
What makes a living human? Look up the definition of living, then human, then you will have your answer. Period. Fact. Period.
I don't understand your logic here.
Do you have to look like a human to be a human?
Do you have to act like a human to be a human?
Do you have to be in a certain place to be a human?
No, a zygote, blastocyst, embryo and unviable fetus IS NOT [A] LIVING HUMAN.I love the word, all words. Difference between you and I is that I understand the different meanings of terms depending on the linguistic context in which they are used. YOU DO NO!!! That is YOUR personal problem, not mine.
You're telling me I don't understand, whilst not explaining to me how you do, and I don't.
Context does matter yes. But a zygote, by definition, is a living human.
You can use the term living human in another context, describing a born human, but you can also use it to describe a zygote.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
A sperm has human DNA, and is alive, therefore it is a human life by your definition.
A sperm is not human. It carries some human DNA, like a lot of cells do, but it can't form into a human by itself.
It needs the other half.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Do you believe a man in a coma who will never wake up gets all of the same rights?
If you are 100% sure he will never wake up, then no, he doesn't get the same rights because he is dead. Never waking up is dead.
Should the doctor who pulls the plug and the family that approved it go to jail for murder?
If he has a chance for survival, then yes. But then of course if the patient signed something telling the doctors to let them go at a certain point, then of course no.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
As usual, wrong definition.sacrifice1 of 2nounsac·ri·fice ˈsa-krə-ˌfīsalso -fəs,or -ˌfīzSynonyms of sacrifice1: an act of offering to a deity something preciousespecially : the killing of a victim on an altar2: something offered in sacrificeWhen you put the term “human” in front of ‘sacrifice,’ the actual term becomes “human sacrifice,” as you initially wrote it.human sacrificenoun
- the killing of one or more human beings as part of religiousritual
You can try to avoid it all you want, and you can call this me not understanding definitions, but you're making it out to be harder than it actually is.
I provided a definition, and all you replied to it was it was a wrong definition.
But it's funny, because when if you search up the definition I provided to you, the first word that comes up is sacrifice.
When I sacrifice eating junk food for the sake of getting healthy, that's sacrifice, but it's not anything to do with a deity or God.
Abortion, by definition is human sacrifice whether you like that or not, it is.
Bottom line, abortion is not a part of any definition, thesaurus, synonym, or otherwise in the entirety of the English language even remotely associated to [a] “human sacrifice.”
Well of course it's not, because the corporations, and influence it has would be ruined if it was labeled as human sacrifice.
Living human, again, two terms made into one, implies a born human being.
Now you're just repeating yourself.
I said living human, and that's all I said.
You can think I am implying something else, but I'm not.
And by the definition, from conception, a zygote, embryo, or fetus, is a living human.
I know you don't like the word, because it makes abortion sound bad when you want it to sound good, but it's the literal truth.
There is no pregnancy where a zygote, blastocyst, embryo or unviable fetus ever actually = [a] human being.
My mother's pregnancy involved the stages of me being a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, and fetus, and became a born human. That proves your point wrong, immediately.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Why do you think someone or something (arbitrarily?) *chose* good and bad? I don't think that.
Ok, lets break it down.
There are subjectively good things, and subjectively bad things, yes?
Now my question is how do we know that murder is actually bad? Why is insulting someone actually bad? Why does insulting someone hurt their feelings, and not boost it? Why are we as humans wired that way?
Isn't it crazy how all humans are wired in a way, where all of our moral conscience, moral instinct if you will, is lined up almost to perfection? No one told us about these things except for our parents, but even people born with horrible parents, still have that same conscience.
We are wired this way, but why, and how did all humans simultaneously become wired this way? There are a couple of answers.
Something caused specifically us humans to act this way. But what type of force or influence can influence one race of species to act all the same way? If this was the case you would have to argue that morality is evolutionary, but I don't see any animals enacting any moral law into their everyday lives.
And there could be more answers I'm open to new ideas, but the answer I think fits best and explains it the most, is something wired us this way, unnaturally.
Something that can give all humans through all of human history the same basic moral conscience would be a powerful force.
My question basically asks, why are good things good, and bad things bad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@hey-yo
Well, they are biologically alive.
There is no difference between them and a born human, except for some developmental issues. And if they say development issues define humanity then they have to account for all humans born with a developmental issue.
They can't survive on their own for a while, but so can't people in a coma, and people who have certain disability's.
They didn't take over the mother's womb, the mother let them in.
You can't kill a human being.
Yea all that. I could go deeper, but it would have to be part of conversation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Look up the term sacrifice. You’re wrong.Still using incorrect term to get your poorly argued unsubstantiated position on abortion across. 🤦♂️
Sacrifice: "an act of giving up something valued for the sake of something else regarded as more important or worthy:"
Aka, abortion.
It’s not [a] human (being).
Ah ah ah. I said living human, which it is.
And it never will be.
Well, that's wrong. It can become a fully developed human.
Potentiality ≠ actuality.
Potentiality doesn't not always equal actuality, but in the case of pregnancy most of the time it does.
More babies are born, than naturally die in the womb.
So, Potentiality = actuality is wrong.
It's more like = potentiality most of the time equals actuality in the case of pregnancies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
I am.
Well then there's no need to argue with you, because that is just absurd.
Most cases it is unnecessary, but when the population is so large the world can not only not functionally hold them but physically cannot hold them, that is when we should sacrifice some so that some lives, as opposed to everyone crowds to eventual death.
Yea..................ok then.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I'm open to morality being objective. What I object to is objective morality needing a divine authority
Couple questions then.
Who or what chose what was good and what was bad?
Where do you get your moral conscience from? And don't tell me our conscience evolved, because all other creatures besides humans don't have different levels of morality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@hey-yo
Do you have other reasons as to why abortion should be illegal?
Its killing human life not enough for you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Yes, I get what you're saying, but the point I'm making is regarding objective morality.
Yes, and you're saying that you don't think morality is objective.
I am saying it is.
Created: