I pointedly said that your sexual biology should not affect your legal rights, — Pantagruel

So was this a typo? Did you just miss out the word 'not' between 'should' and 'affect?'

Your sexual biology should affect your medical treatment. — Pantagruel

I don't see how you can separate legal rights and 'medical treatments,' the latter is surely governed by the former.

So are these hetero men trying to have sex with lesbians or trans men trying to have sex with lesbians or a bit of both? How would you ever know for sure?
Do such attempts at manipulation of the situation support you negating all efforts made by genuine trans folks to gain the legal right to change their sex status IF they have fully transitioned or are pretty close to doing so.
You stated earlier that you had 'existential' concerns here, that warrant you making comments such as:

Personally I think anyone supporting gender ideology is now participating a crime against humanity. — Andrew4Handel

What is this existential threat that YOU personally face, when a person who was born a man, transitions into a woman and becomes legally recognised as such?

It is where people start claiming the right to know what is best for someone else that is the problem. — Pantagruel

Is that not exactly what you are doing in the case of trans folk?

I wonder if the whole trans issue isn't just another rider on the entitlement bus. — Pantagruel

The more I have to waste my time thinking about it the more I'm moving from being a passive to an active opponent. — Pantagruel

Are the quotes above not based on YOUR claims about those who are currently involved in fighting for an improved legal status for trans folks. In Scotland, the government tried to make it much easier to change your legal sex status. Overturned by the so called 'British' government.
I am not familiar with the main sticking points but no-doubt there was something about a case where a person not fully transitioned, having the legal right to enter a female toilet or a criminal posing as trans, getting into a female prison rather that a male one. I don't know the word for word detail of the proposed Scottish law but most trans folks seemed to be happy with it.

Trans people are protected by the same laws and have the same human rights as everyone else. It is not gay rights part 2. It is undermining the rights and same sex protections of women and gay people. As a gay man I have to accept women who identify as gay men in my dating pool after escaping a religious cult and where people encouraged me to become heterosexual and engage in relationships with women. Gay people fought against conversion therapy are now being told they have a prejudicial genital preference and are sexual racists. — Andrew4Handel

I agree, it's not gay rights part 2, It's trans rights.
What do you mean by 'accept women who identify as gay men?' Is the imposition placed on you more than a person of the female sex, requesting you to refer to them with the pronoun he?
I have a good friend who's daughter has recently made such a request.
Is there further extremely difficult burdens being placed on you by such 'women,' that you have not made clear to me so far?
What have the pressures others have put on you, related to you becoming hetero got to do with a women who want to be referred to using a male pronoun? Are you saying these women are pressuring you to have sex with them, based on you being a gay man?
I am sure I am misunderstanding what you mean in your quote above, please clarify.

I don't think people should be able to participate in surgeon assisted genital mutilation. There was the German case of a cannibal victim who consented to be eaten by Armin Meiwes. Consent does not resolve ethical issues. Gender ideology involves other people in its perpetuation. — Andrew4Handel

Your outlier examples are getting more and more extreme Andrew.
I support full bodily autonomy but that does not mean I would accept that you can therefore offer yourself as food, especially as cannibalism causes the equivalent of mad cow disease in humans.

Women have not all consented to having biological men in their spaces, winning their awards and in their domestic violence shelters. They are having this imposed on them from above. — Andrew4Handel

I agree that this is a very difficult and complicated area. I personally think that a fully transitioned trans woman poses no threat to women in what we would consider traditional female spaces.
If you still have male genitalia then perhaps you would not be allowed in women only spaces. I know that some on-line trans folks don't share that opinion and hold a more nuanced view.

Now it has come out that ther have been 6500 sexual assaults reported by women in British hospitals including a stroke victim who died after being raped. — Andrew4Handel

I think all of these crimes are committed by deviant men who will role play any character to achieve their goal. I think this has nothing to do with trans issues at all.
If someone dresses as a doctor and claims to have the skills of a doctor and ends up killing someone whilst acting as a fake doctor, is that the fault of doctors?

It is not. Which is why it is equally not society's business to address such issues. — Pantagruel

Government must still legislate on the issue and people vote for government so there IS social responsibility in that sense.

No your sexual preferences should not relate to your legal rights, which are universal human rights and general by nature, not specific. — Pantagruel

:up:

No. Your sexual biology should affect your medical treatment. Which is why clarity around actual sexual biology is so important. — Pantagruel

It might affect the type of medical treatment but are you saying that your biological sex should affect your legal right to a particular medical treatment you want. Are you anti-abortion for example?

I am not sure what irreversible harm, especially bodily harm could come from joining a religion temporarily. — Andrew4Handel

I am sure you would agree that psychological harm is every bit as malevolent as physical harm.

However the two situations are different and the harm of religion in no way justifies the harm of gender ideology. — Andrew4Handel

I would not suggest one harm justifies another. Religion is an old friend of 'conservative norms' and religious dogma is constantly used to point to what many today consider deviant malalignment with what they consider the sanctum of binary sexuality. In some religious regimes today, you would be murdered due to being homosexual and I would be murdered as an apostate. Also under such regimes, neither of us would be given any kind of equal legal status, compared to those who comply with the strictly religious and strictly binary sexual model. It seems to me that trans folks are fighting for the same legal rights that gay folks have won for themselves in many countries today.

I think there is a much bigger, underlying issue that trans issue's feed into.
Is it your business what consenting adults choose to engage in sexually?
Should your sexual preferences affect you legal rights?
Should your sexual biology affect your legal rights?

I don't accept your 'irreversible genital mutilation' categorisation, unless you are referring to such as the circumcision of children without their consent or forced female genital mutilation, as practised by some fanatical groups. Trans operations are by consent, but yes, some people have expressed regret at some point afterwards, in the same way some people have expressed regret in getting a boob job or an irreversible face lift.
Trans folks would explain to you about all of the checks and processes involved in becoming trans. It is a very slow, very careful process and 'reversible' is maintained for as long as is medically and psychologically possible.

I have not seen a proliferation of other groups talking about similar regrets. — Andrew4Handel

Yeah, almost every atheist now debating theists on-line, are ex-theists.

Woman face is black face. Transgender is the same principle as transracialism and trans ablism. Appropriating someone else's protected characteristics. No man should be given access to women's spaces and awards due distress with their birth sex. That is misogyny and gaslighting women. Other peoples identity and privacy should not be given away due to someone else's mental health. That does not happen in any other area of life. — Andrew4Handel

I could respond to you sentence by sentence Andrew but I honestly suggest you communicate with real online trans folks, or at least watch some of their call-in shows. People call in all the time, who hold your opinions and some who dissent even more so that you do. The on-line trans folks are far better positioned to answer your points compared to a het, cis male such as me.
I have watched about 5 episodes of the transatlantic call-in show, over the past year or so.

I cannot invalidate the youtube examples Andrew cites, they in fact exist, but they are outliers, and do not significantly challenge trans issues.
Has the number of deconstructing christians destroyed christianity?
If there are enough of them one day, then perhaps the number of christians will reduce to zero, at some point in the distant future (I certainly hope so!).
I am more suggesting that Andrew should not get 'over-excited' about the small number of outliers he has came across in comparison with the number of trans folks who have no regrets at all, including all those trans folks on-line currently offering dialogue with all those who wish to engage in such.
Including you. Why not contact them and put your views to them.

There are several gay men on YouTube now who talk about the regret and pain of having themselves castrated and their penises removed due to internalised homphobia and being caught up in gender ideology and misled. — Andrew4Handel

There are many w on YouTube now who talk about the regret and pain of being w and having their x removed due to internalised y and being caught up in z ideology and misled.

You can fill in the variables as fits your current views. You could for example use:
w = christian(s)
x = scepticism
y = fear
z = woo woo

Just cause you say it with GUSTO Andrew, does not make you seem any less irrational on this issue imo.

Welcome to life as a human being. Picking a side on an issue is what folks do. I prefer you to choose your side, instead of fence sitting, at least you are voting as you see fit. I simply stand in opposition to your position. The debate will hopefully continue or else the different sides can war towards M.A.D. What do YOU want to do?

It seems that if a trans person dresses like Mrs Doubtfire, Tootsie, a clown, a David Bowie androgenous character etc then they make your approved list for reading stories to children. BUT a man dressed as frankenfurter or like the lead singer of twisted sister is to you, abnormal!!! and the children are in some kind of danger you have yet to explain. Are you worried about the imagery or message in this video? Should we protect children from it?

Ok, It was useful to drill down a little more into your position in this issue.

Can you not try harder? Have you ossified when it comes to your notions of conservative norms?

No, you are misunderstanding my purpose here. You asked if it was 'normal' for a transvestite to read a story to children. I am trying to suggest to you that your concern is based on irrational fear, based on your own interpretation of what are conservative notions of social 'norms.'
I think most children are a lot more socially intelligent than many 'conservative' adults.
What dangers do you think children are being placed in when they are being read a story by a man dressed as a woman or a female character?

Tim Curry has read many a children's story.

So it's just certain forms of clothing the children should be made to fear because you associate the image of Frank-en-furter with female prostitution rather than what the writer of the rocky horror show intended, a transexual from Transylvania who (in the story) was actually an alien visitor in disguise.
Can you not see that you brought your own interpretation to that image in particular?
Does the lead singer of twisted sister not also look like a hooker?
Why do you assume the clown or 'tootsie' is not trans?

So where would your criteria draw the line in telling stories to children, from the following:


https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/A1IP1NkhFgL._RI_.jpg



Which of these images should we make sure children are most afraid of?

All of Christianity is my interpretation of Scripture," is, while common in Christianity itself, not particularly well justified. — Count Timothy von Icarus

:halo: You wont be surprised that as an atheist, I consider almost every declaration, based on a theistic foundation, are not particularly well justified.

........ etc. all embrace free will.......there isn't a consensus — Count Timothy von Icarus

I know.

My favorite theory of freedom and justice is the one Hegel outlines in the Philosophy of Right, but it's a bit difficult to do justice to in a quick summary. I will try later if I have time because I think it answers this question in many ways. — Count Timothy von Icarus

My favourite theory of freedom and justice is that there is no system/notion of freedom and justice that is not flawed and there never will be, imo. BUT, I personally believe that a socialist/secular humanist approach to freedom and justice is best. I don't think that stance is augmented or diminished by any declaration that socialism and secular humanism, are sourced as 'states of physics.'

Five years ago, I was positively disposed to the issue, but the way it has been weaponized, anything to do with trans now has a really negative aura from me. Previously, had the opportunity arisen, I would have strongly defended any trans person I saw or knew was subject to prejudice (as I have defended vulnerable people in the past). I no longer feel like that. My goodwill has been alienated. — Pantagruel

Trans issues are not going to 'go away' because you and/or others have switched from having a more benevolent stance towards 'them.' The issues of all minority groups, remain, as long as they have existent members. I personally find the support that many Islamists have for child marriage and when it is acceptable to consummate such, far far more personally horrifying than any trans issue I am aware of.

I think many of the people posting here would benefit from making friends with a trans person or a person who has a different gender identity from themselves.

The list - obviously- wouldn't include hypersexualized characters like ↪Michael's hunky fireman. — Tzeentch

This dramatised example of a cis male, dressed as a female, playing agony aunt and giving advice to children, I assume would make your 'acceptable' list, if 'The Mrs Doubtfire show' was a real show on TV today:


There is always the interesting ideas of:

1. How would you react to finding out that one of your close female friends was born a man or vice versa and they were always too terrified to tell you?
2. How would you react to finding out that someone you really were attracted to, did not have the genitalia you were expecting. As a cis person, would you feel automated in your compulsion to now hate them?
3. How would you deal with your father/mother/son/daughter declaring themselves trans?

I think we often have to bring the situation a lot closer to our personal selves, in any way we can, to see if there really be personal monsters there.
Many many so called god believers soon act like their god often has a second name, 'zilla.'
They quickly go from a god of peace and love to a god zilla of anti-difference.
Is it so difficult, to start with the premise of 'vive la difference.'
Surely solutions to the the toilet, sports and protected female spaces issues can be found, that satisfies as many of the stakeholders as possible.
Surely extreme comments such as:

This is an existential issue. There is now something like a war (for reality) going on. About preserving the truth and bodily integrity and mass co-oercion to a quasi religious ideology.

Personally I think anyone supporting gender ideology is now participating a crime against humanity. You can try and censor people but gender critical people have their own spaces and spheres of influence now. — Andrew4Handel

exemplifies the 'irrational' path we must all avoid when considering trans issues.

I will give you my opinion in more detail tomorrow, as I am away to enjoy my Saturday night but I would first ask you, do you have a list of characters that a person might dress up as, that you would find acceptable or 'normal' for reading stories to children and ones that you would find unacceptable or 'abnormal?'
What criteria would you use to include a character on or off such a list?

I think an omnipotent being could choose to reach in at need and alter the will of somebody when it suits the being's purpose. Of course this blows away determinism if the omnipotent thing can make 2+2=5 now and then because such interference suits its purpose. Momentum is conserved except when God does magic... Every law would have to have that exception listed. — noAxioms

By definition, yes, I agree. This is one of the reasons I find theism to be such tosh! The claim 'god made me do it,' would have to be a legally valid one and admissible in court because there is the biblical prima facie case, of what god did to pharaoh's 'free' will. If we accept that happening IS fact, then god may well have made you do it, perhaps even via it's control over Physics.

There's recognition and there's education. Undoubtedly children could be educated on the virtues of Hasidic Judaism, or veganism, or any number of other things also. But is it necessary? — Pantagruel

Yes, when the goal is to reduce/prevent/remove the development of misinformed, irrational hatred of a minority group, particularly a mostly non-violent, non-threatening minority group, such as trans folks.

Thanks for the CNN link. As you suggest, the article was not being too heavily alarmist, but was offering significant warning. I cannot post any quotes from it as I try not to accept cookies.
From my own past reading on this (mostly about coral reef damage/bleaching and melting ice in the arctic and antarctic regions), I agree that the current situation in Earth's Oceans is very bad. I do not however think that we have reached the point of no return and I remain hopeful that your prediction of a human population fall from the current 8 billion to 1 or 2 billion, within the not to distant future, is unlikely, BUT I cannot provide convincing evidence that you are completely wrong.

is there ANY word for biological sex? — Mikie

Yeah, SEX! Your sex is biologically male or female (unless you are a hermaphrodite.)
From Wiki:
A hermaphrodite is a sexually reproducing organism that produces both male and female gametes.
So, I think that's a human that can produce eggs AND sperm.

then the trans community needs better PR. — Mikie

I assume, hence the call-in shows and their increasing on-line presence, in debate/dialogue mode.

The Christian god doesn't defend or respect human free will. Not according to the OT, where god does stuff like "harden Pharaoh's heart" and through it's so called 'prophets,' it celestially dictates what it's 'chosen' MUST do, regardless of any 'free will' they might think they have.
I responded to your post, just via annoyance, but I wont continue to do so, as this distracts from the purpose of the thread.

The main two 'stances' I have heard from on-line trans folks and their supporters on the issue of gender and the biological reality of a persons sex are:
1. Gender is a social construct and therefore is not a biological condition.
2. The scientific facts related to biological sex are irrelevant to trans issues.

I understand. If we’re expecting people to believe — Mikie

Again, only from my own very limited experience of listening to on-line commentary from trans folks, it seems to me that they are more concerned with being allowed to exist, without fear of violence against them or being marginalised to the point of having almost 0 life opportunity, much more, than they are concerned with what individuals 'believe' about them. BUT, call-in shows like the one I posted are amongst their attempts to open reasoned dialogue with the masses of dissenters they face.

Have you ever considered contacting something like the youtube phone-in show below and asking them about the issue of gender and physically changing sex, since these folks actually live it?

My argument is independent of whether the universe actually is deterministic or not, let alone being independent of our ability to know if it is deterministic or not. — noAxioms

Ok. I broadly support your thread title;Avoiding blame with 'Physics made me do it' is indefensible.
I think it's important that the human race take full responsibility for their own battles with fear and their own sense of awe and wonder, but there are many other claims that I think are akin to this one that I would find very problematic, such as 'god made me do it.'
Other claims such as he/she/they made me do it or my mental illness made me do it or the trauma of my life experiences made me do it, etc, are different in my opinion.
Is there a stealth reason for your OP? Are you trying to carve a path from "Avoiding blame with 'Physics made me do it' is indefensible" to not accepting 'extenuating circumstances' as a legal/personal defence.
What main message are you trying to establish, based on someone accepting your OP 100%?

Is your OP not dependant on whether or nor the universe is in fact deterministic?
I asked you once before if you thought quantum fluctuations were a true example of random happenstance. Your answer was that under classical physics you thought they were, but you offered no reasons for thinking that under quantum physics, they were not.
Is "Avoiding blame with 'Physics made me do it' is indefensible" an issue at all, if we have no irrefutable evidence, that the universe is deterministic or not. Perhaps the truth is that the universe contains both 'instantiations,' deterministic and random.

I don't have a great deal of confidence in a New York Times article. I am cynical enough to treat all newspaper articles, as deserving only a base level of confidence that it is true.
Unfortunately, I could not read the article without agreeing to subscribe to the newspaper.
Do you have any better links to support the proposal that your point below has very strong evidence behind it?

1. The oceans are already too warm to reverse catastrophic climate change. AGI will triage the global population centers so that 1 in 4 (2bn) people might survive to the end of the next century. — 180 Proof

Typed like a true emotionless AI!
It may diminish, but will be freshly remembered by a significant few of the highest quality!

Has @Jamal or his mod minions, decided to 'diminish' this thread?
I apologise in advance for such a terrible accusation if it's just a tech hitch.
In truth I am not that bothered anyway. It's lived a long life in the league of page one threads.
It seems to be getting pushed down the pages, regardless of any new posts on it. :lol:

1. Any exemplar, reliable scientific studies you know of that claim this as fact?
2. Not yet, I agree but tech advances may/I think will, change this. I will stick with my stepping stones projection/prediction.
4. I quote from the article ", the Transcension Hypothesis ventures that an advanced civilization will become fundamentally altered by its technology. In short, it theorizes that any ETIs that predate humanity have long-since transformed into something that is not recognizable by conventional SETI standards."

Same in B5, the humans required 'Vorlon' tech and the power of the alien tech (the great machine) they found on the planet that B5 orbited, Epison III. Without that, 'the first ones,' would have remained invisible to them. G'Kar explains it quite well below:


6.

"Global efforts?" Never were, never will be. — 180 Proof

See! Your more pessimistic sentences are still alive and kicking! :grin:

No doubt, over the next century or so, 3 out of 4 (6bn) of us will be left behind in the ditch so that the rest of our biological descendents can survive (predominantly due to the efforts of our machine descendents 'herding a billion cats'). — 180 Proof

LOOK! there's another one! :joke:

Thanks for the very interesting response.

1. I understand your 'balkanise the globe' projection but I don't agree with your bracketed ('even when AGI comes on-line.') I think AI progress, will help us very significantly, with climate change and I am also boosted by two others 'impressions,' I have. Global youth seems more aware of the threats that our historical and current stewardship of the Earth has caused, and seem more determined (compared to earlier generations) to organise themselves, to reverse those effects. Even many members of the traditionally nefarious rich and powerful, are beginning to realise that they cannot feed as well, from a dead or even balkanised global population. I do also accept that there is nonetheless, a dangerous global apathy and substantial 'fake news force,' to contend with.
I agree with your 'post-scarcity' epoch and hope it ends global hunger and vastly improves peoples lives BUT, it will then result in an increased need for better population control (at least on Earth).

2. Yes, I think 'stepping stone' space habitats, stations etc will become very necessary, before eventual extraplanetary 'large,' probably initially domed settlements, until 'terraforming' can make any kind of impact.

3. :up:
4.

Assuming that "the human identity" is a manifestation of the human condition. Thus, I imagine as technosciences, extraterresrial habitation & AGI —> ASI accelerate the disappearance of the current human condition, "human identity" also will disappear — 180 Proof

I think the human 'first stage (fully natural, organic) life' will change yes, but not in a way that humans alive today would not recognise. I think we will fight hard to make our first, up to around 200 years of existence to be much as it is today. I think the current experiences we have that forms 'who we are' and 'who we might become,' are very much revered by a great number of us.

"human identity" also will disappear. (Re: posthumanity (e.g. body-mods & brain-augments for living in space; AI-mediated-hiveminds; orga-mecha mergers, etc) — 180 Proof

From your link: Today, we examine the possibility that the reason for the Great Silence is that all the aliens have evolved beyond the need to explore!
Your suggestion that any 'changes' in 'humanity,' especially what I would consider human stage 2 life need not become a disappearance of 'human identity' but an 'updating' of it. I know you think I am arguing semantics here but I think it's a valid semantic debate.

The Universe today article you cited was a fun read and it's main proposals were dramatised somewhat in the guise of 'the first ones' in Babylon 5:

But remember the first ones, all went to explore beyond the rim and became 'intergalactic.' The universe is so much bigger and unknown that any AGI or ASI will be able to 'comprehend,' in my 'humble' but still very very very atheist opinion. I don't find the posit of 'beyond the need to explore,' very likely.

5. I like that prediction, I hope it happens that way, I certainly would not advocate for any discovered microbial sized or any sized, biological structures being destroyed to make way for any colony from Earth.

6. Well, there are comments like this, from such as the physics stack exchange:
Gamma rays can be stopped by the few inches of lead shielding nuclear reactors, the Trillions of yotta grams that make up the sun will be absolutely fine for the job.
You also don't need to worry about venus losing it's atmosphere, the worry with a GRB is that it destroys the ozone layer not that it flat out strips away our atmosphere.
The shortest GRB's can be two seconds long so earth could definitely be behind the sun for the entire duration of one.

All I am suggesting is that there seems to have always been many existential threats to the Earth and its 'life' based contents. Despite these, life on Earth endures. The threats you cite are very real and very valid. We will have to pay attention and make very serious, united, global efforts in the future to protect our future selves and our home planet. I think that we are left with nothing stronger at the moment than our individual hope that we will survive, in some form or another. I know that in some posts you have suggested that you are not a big fan of the notion of human 'hopes.'

Yes, I would broadly agree with your analysis. It would be fun to drill more into how much of an individual identity you think could still be maintained, after a merging with future tech. My projected future, or I might even be so bold to say, the future I see currently, slowly emerging, will be very turbulent and may continue to be an 'ever on the precipice, existential risk,' as dangerous as we have faced since the invention of nuclear weapons. But I DO think we will eventually, get to a stage, where the following will be a description of a typical human existence.

1. Birth into a mainly secular humanist, globally united society, where an individual can take their basic needs and personal protections for granted, from cradle to grave.
2. We will become an interplanetary species.
3. Tech will be used initially as physical and mental benevolent medical support, and personal security support, and your 'first stage' of life, will be as a natural human existence, with a lifespan max of around 200 years, based on maintaining and growing and nurturing your 'natural identity,' developed since your birth.
4. Your second stage of life will happen, when your first stage is close to it's natural end or if it ends via accident, but you can be saved via tech. This is the point when an individual human. can CHOOSE to 'merge' with tech to become neo/nova sapien, and gain all those 'biophysical-metacognitive.' options you mentioned, and YES, I think we will fight as much as possible, to maintain as much of the 'human identity,' we had in our 'first stage' of life. Not all anthropomorphising is ill-advised.
5. Artificial lifeforms, biologically engineered lifeforms, mech/orga variants, genetically enhanced animal/ aquatic and insect lifeforms etc, etc will eventually exist along side us. Perhaps we will have encountered some alien life by that time as well. Perhaps all of the lifeforms on Earth (natural and 'created,') will eventually become interplanetary/interstellar.
6. I don't think the threat of extinction will remain the main picture. I think the main picture will consist of an eventual diversification, that will produce variety in a number that will dwarf the number of varieties produced by evolution and natural selection.

The vastness of the universe, can easily accommodate such.

I enjoy your more 'optimistic' posts whenever I come across one. If I need cheered up, I can always write more of my own. If you ever watch the Jeff Hawkins vid above, I would be interested in discussing it's content with you.

I support those atheist evangelists who help people to deconstruct from fundamentalist religion. I think this is a worthy thing to do and I have donated money. — Tom Storm

:clap: Me to. (Although I would replace 'atheist evDEVILists,' with secular humanist. I will continue to support such folks in anyway I can!)

:lol: Well done in finding 3 out of your almost 12,000 posts. :joke:
I am sure you could find more, if you had to.
I won't suggest 6 examples of your less positive comments to 'move in front,' and invite such a race.
The fact that you continue to push back against my accusation that you can be quite pessimistic about the future of humanity, and our ability to be better than our more base 'jungle rules and jungle thinking' style manifestations, such as territoriality, tribalism, theism, capitalism, malevolent hierarchy, xenophobia, etc, etc.
Means that you, imo, are one of those who are part of the solutions and not part of the problems.