Philosophy Now Forum

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

thedoc wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: In any event a gay man is perfectly capable of impregnating a woman, and a gay woman capable of getting pregnant. Lesbians are still women.

Capability isn't always the same as desire, and if the Gay man doesn't want to impregnate a woman how is he to pass on his genes, likewise for the lesbian. If the genes are not passed on, they are lost to the gene pool.

Open your eyes. Where do you live? In cave? Gays have kids. Get over it.

Are you claiming that every gay couple wants have children? I think that you need to get over the idea that every gay couple wants to have children, they don't, just as there are a few heterosexual couples that don't want to have children.

thedoc wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

thedoc wrote:
Capability isn't always the same as desire, and if the Gay man doesn't want to impregnate a woman how is he to pass on his genes, likewise for the lesbian. If the genes are not passed on, they are lost to the gene pool.

Open your eyes. Where do you live? In cave? Gays have kids. Get over it.

Are you claiming that every gay couple wants have children? I think that you need to get over the idea that every gay couple wants to have children, they don't, just as there are a few heterosexual couples that don't want to have children.

Gays do have children.
Gay genes do pass from generation to generation.
The genes that comprise and result in homosexuality would still pass from generation to generation if no gay person ever had a child.
Homosexuality is ubiquitous in nature.

You are you gay, and in denial, or are you just stupid?

Hobbes' Choice wrote: 1. Gays do have children.

2. Gay genes do pass from generation to generation.

3. The genes that comprise and result in homosexuality would still pass from generation to generation if no gay person ever had a child.

4. Homosexuality is ubiquitous in nature.

5. You are you gay, and in denial, or are you just stupid?

1. No argument with this, but not every gay or gay couple has children, adopted or otherwise.

2. 3. 4. You seem to be assuming that there is a "gay gene" that is present in everyone, that is stated but not proven, and only accepted by a few.

5. Could be, but not likely. Compared to you, I'm a Genius.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Gender reassignment surgeons are geared to offer their trade as a solution to gender dysphoria. Just like the woman that is convinced that she is able to eat chocolate without getting fat, those surgeons think they have to answer to a socio-mental problem of children that even before they are fully male or female think that their gender is wrong, and are told that being a tuff girl or a weak boy is no way to live.
Before the days of surgery people learned to live with what nature had given them. And just because you can, does not mean you should.

[/quote]
Not at all true, Hobbes. People have switched sex roles from the dawn of humanity, just that there were no surgical means to do so until the modern age. Do you think that sex change surgery emerged without a long history of resistance? If medicos could have found a way to cure trannies and gays in those conservative times, they would have done. Conversion therapies are proven failures, time and again.

I saw a doco on a trans conversion facility some years ago. Their touted "big success" stopped prostituting him/herself, found God, got married and seemed happy. A few of years later, in deep depression, the former transperson died. In their final interview, this poor messed up human being who only wanted to be authentic but was not allowed to do so by society, and said in the final interview, "I would have rather have been a woman" after years of furious denial of his/her past.

If transpeople can't have the surgery then many will do more of what they did before it was possible to change over - suicide. Or they will be discriminated against harshly because their queerness is so transparent. The surgery is basically an alternative to suicide for those who feel disallowed by society to behave authentically. Of course, if society had a more mature attitude towards gender then such surgery might not be needed. Given the west's reversion to autocratic right wingers, it seems that sex change surgery will be essential for some individuals for many years to come.

Greta wrote:If transpeople can't have the surgery then many will do more of what they did before it was possible to change over - suicide.

That is the myth. There isn't a grain of truth to it.

The reality is that the number of suicides of the "transgender-aspiring" people (i.e. those with a mental illness called "body dysphoria") is just a smudge HIGHER than those "transgender-aspiring" people who do not undertake the surgery. It's also the same as the suicide rate of the mentally-ill generally. In other words, mutilating them does not make these mentally-ill people well. They kill themselves anyway...at a just-slightly-higher rate, to boot.

Moreover, if any significant number of them actually suffer from Aspergers Syndrome, as the new study suggests, then their gender dysphoria is temporary, the result of a confusion induced by the syndrome itself, and one for which therapies are highly successful. Mutilating Aspergers sufferers is guaranteed to make their lives much worse, not better, in terms of their happiness and well-being.

So it's time we stopped barking up the wrong tree there -- that is, if we actually care at all about the suffering of mentally-ill people who are killing themselves, rather than simply striking poses of "liberal tolerance" while the mentally ill continue to kill themselves on the brazen altar of our liberal pride.

We also need to stop pretending "discrimination" has anything to do with it. We know it isn't that: because if it were, then the most suicidal group in the US would be African-Americans, because they've had far more discrimination than anyone: yet they have one of the LOWEST rates of suicide. Clearly, discrimination does not generally make people kill themselves.

But mental illness does. I wonder if we have the courage to admit that, and actually try to help some people? Meanwhile, in many "liberal" countries, they're cutting back on mental-health services...

Most importantly, it's crucial we stop advocating gender-reassignment as a general curative. If anything, for most people it's making things worse, not better. And statistically, it turns out it's not helping anyone.

Greta wrote: Not at all true, Hobbes. People have switched sex roles from the dawn of humanity, just that there were no surgical means to do so until the modern age. Do you think that sex change surgery emerged without a long history of resistance? If medicos could have found a way to cure trannies and gays in those conservative times, they would have done. Conversion therapies are proven failures, time and again.

I saw a doco on a trans conversion facility some years ago. Their touted "big success" stopped prostituting him/herself, found God, got married and seemed happy. A few of years later, in deep depression, the former transperson died. In their final interview, this poor messed up human being who only wanted to be authentic but was not allowed to do so by society, and said in the final interview, "I would have rather have been a woman" after years of furious denial of his/her past.

If transpeople can't have the surgery then many will do more of what they did before it was possible to change over - suicide. Or they will be discriminated against harshly because their queerness is so transparent. The surgery is basically an alternative to suicide for those who feel disallowed by society to behave authentically. Of course, if society had a more mature attitude towards gender then such surgery might not be needed. Given the west's reversion to autocratic right wingers, it seems that sex change surgery will be essential for some individuals for many years to come.

Kristians can keep fighting tooth and nail against anything they perceive as deviating from their narrow view of the way they want things to be but they are fighting a losing battle. Just look at how quickly society has changed towards those who deviate from the accepted (kristian idea of) norm. Remember the huge fuss over Ellen's lesbian kiss? It's so common now that it's more likely to induce a yawn than a gasp. Homosexuality was illegal here until quite recently. It's hard to imagine now. If women caught their hubbies looking at porn on the computer they would rush off to the lawyer's office for divorce papers. Now they laugh about it: 'Gary can't come to the phone right now, he's watching porn'. The awful 'Shades of grey' is even normalising S and M, something that most people hadn't even heard of until the book came out. Who would have thought that would become the 'new norm'? Of course it's mostly media driven. If people see S and M on American comedy shows then it's going to be publicised, and if not exactly 'normalised' then accepted to the point where it's just another thing to be blase about. What if the hubby on some American sit com comes home to find wifey having sex with the family dog? Oh, the hilarious jolly japes. That might seem ridiculous, but so did a lot of things thirty odd years ago. Of course there are going to be lines that have to be drawn, but unfortunately humans aren't very good at that. I'm not saying that a lot of good hasn't come from it, it has, but you do have to wonder where it will take us.
People are too lazy to protest any more about causes they believe in. The media is doing it for them. There's no escaping it. If we don't want the mass media to control our perceptions and ultimately our minds, then we will have to stop using it.

As an aside, I don't know why 'trans' want to be included in 'LGBT'. The first three letters are only concerned with sexuality. Gender identity is quite different.

thedoc wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: 1. Gays do have children.

2. Gay genes do pass from generation to generation.

3. The genes that comprise and result in homosexuality would still pass from generation to generation if no gay person ever had a child.

4. Homosexuality is ubiquitous in nature.

5. You are you gay, and in denial, or are you just stupid?

2. 3. 4. You seem to be assuming that there is a "gay gene" that is present in everyone, that is stated but not proven, and only accepted by a few.

You might think you are a genius,but how do you infer from the phrase; "The genes that comprise and result in homosexuality."; that I am talking about A "gay gene"? Or that it is present in everyone?
Homosexuality is more likely to be the result of very complex interactions of several variations of genes. What is clear is that it is not a choice anymore than my heterosexuality.
I asked you to use your imagination, maybe you don't have one.
Answer me this. Did you choose to be straight, and if you did when was that?

Immanuel Can wrote:

Greta wrote:If transpeople can't have the surgery then many will do more of what they did before it was possible to change over - suicide.

That is the myth. There isn't a grain of truth to it.

The reality is that the number of suicides of the "transgender-aspiring" people (i.e. those with a mental illness called "body dysphoria") is just a smudge HIGHER than those "transgender-aspiring" people who do not undertake the surgery. It's also the same as the suicide rate of the mentally-ill generally. In other words, mutilating them does not make these mentally-ill people well. They kill themselves anyway...at a just-slightly-higher rate, to boot.

You clearly don't know any transpeople. I have known many, some quite well, including a former boss. You are wrong on this one, IC. Suicides are largely caused by discrimination - I don't even think gender dysphoria would exist without such discrimination. If society stopped being neurotic abut sex and gender tomorrow, the number of people seeking such surgery, or even to change roles, would shrink dramatically. That will not happen so the surgery continues to be needed. It's not a mental problem but a social one where naive cultures fail to recognise or understand human diversity due to ideology, and the result is behavioural distortions.

Whatever, people's private lives are their own. We have no right to interfere. Are you going to campaign against breast implants too, or do you just worry about what happens to people's penises?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:As an aside, I don't know why 'trans' want to be included in 'LGBT'. The first three letters are only concerned with sexuality. Gender identity is quite different.

Being such a small minority their advocated probably sought the help of larger, more respected and resourced, advocacy groups.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

attofishpi wrote:

uwot wrote: Well, that's one option. It does rather raise the question of whether there was an historical Jesus and what he actually looked like.

As far as im aware even atheist theological scholars have little doubt that Jesus existed. He would look like a jew wouldn't he?

Except that modern Jews don't really look much like Jews these days; they are too white for a start.

Personally i don't give a flying rats what Jesus looked like. That said, Jews tend to procreate within their own faith, i'm not aware of them making a concerted effort to breed with the more 'white' types, and they appear to be overall extremely 'white'.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

thedoc wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: 4. Homosexuality is ubiquitous in nature.

2. 3. 4. You seem to be assuming that there is a "gay gene" that is present in everyone, that is stated but not proven, and only accepted by a few.

but how do you infer from the phrase; "The genes that comprise and result in homosexuality."; that I am talking about A "gay gene"? Or that it is present in everyone?

Answer me this. Did you choose to be straight, and if you did when was that?

You used the term "ubiquitous" and humans are part of nature.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ubiquitous

I don't remember when I became straight, but I have always liked female company.

Greta wrote:You clearly don't know any transpeople.

Not at all true, actually. In fact, I'd be mighty surprised if you happened to be one of the people who know more than I've known. But it doesn't really matter, because we're talking facts and statistics here, not personal anecdotes: and the facts are really, really clear.

Suicides are largely caused by discrimination.

Not true at all. The facts don't bear that interpretation at all. Look at the most discriminated-against communities, then compare them to gender-dysphoric people, and you'll see. Discrimination is not the cause of suicides. The Black community kills themselves less often than whites do, actually.

I don't even think gender dysphoria would exist without such discrimination.

Oh, I see...it's the fault of doctors. If we didn't tell them they were mentally-ill, then they wouldn't be? Is that your theory?

If society stopped being neurotic abut sex and gender tomorrow,...

That's the funniest line ever! Our society permits and celebrates practically everything...permissiveness is the one thing we never seem to lack. Heck, the quickest way to become a celebrity around here is to become a known deviant. We've got Pride parades in the streets, Madonna offering sexual favours to everybody who votes the right way, and Smiley Virus riding a wrecking ball naked, and our "woman of the year" is a man. The one thing you can't accuse us of being is a bunch of stuffy Victorians...heck, we made a trans-man out to be "woman of the year." I doubt you can get more undiscriminating than that. Hilarious.

I wonder what you would consider sufficiently uninhibited.

It's not a mental problem....

And you know this because....feeling! Not a statistic, not a fact, not a shred of evidence....but because of a feeling, apparently. Meanwhile, these poor people are killing themselves, and you're not concerned about finding the truth? Cold...that's cold.

Look, I'll give you your props...you come across as a nice, gentle, liberal-minded person: but don't you think that when people are killing themselves the truth is more important that the self-serving political agenda of the social-liberal set? Don't you think we ought to go with the facts?

I think we need to help these people, not exacerbate their illness while we preen ourselves as "open-minded" and watch them kill themselves. For as I say, the surgery and discrimination have no statistical impact at all on the suicide rate. And those are the facts. Check it out for yourself, if you doubt that....

And if you actually do care anywhere near so much as you say you do.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Except that modern Jews don't really look much like Jews these days; they are too white for a start.

Probably due to many have migrated from a Sunny climate to colder climates where lighter skin is prevalent.

attofishpi wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

attofishpi wrote:
As far as im aware even atheist theological scholars have little doubt that Jesus existed. He would look like a jew wouldn't he?

Except that modern Jews don't really look much like Jews these days; they are too white for a start.

Personally i don't give a flying rats what Jesus looked like. That said, Jews tend to procreate within their own faith, i'm not aware of them making a concerted effort to breed with the more 'white' types, and they appear to be overall extremely 'white'.

The point is that they are white because they are not from Palestine, Judea, or Israel. Jews come from everywhere but. They come from all over the world; US, Europe, Russia.

thedoc wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Except that modern Jews don't really look much like Jews these days; they are too white for a start.

Probably due to many have migrated from a Sunny climate to colder climates where lighter skin is prevalent.

How?