"IF you’re so big on local decision making, then you shouldn’t have a problem if Roe is overturned. You shouldn’t be against local governments expecting all medical facilities to meet some minimal standards. You shouldn’t have a problem with all our patient medical facilities being expected to have admitting privileges at hospitals. Do you support those common sense measures?"
"Are you referring to Biden’s attempt to allow biological males unfettered access to bathrooms and locker rooms which have previously been reserved for biological females?"
I'll grant that you attempted to answer the questions above, although you simply did not answer the question as asked. You essentially, said that you only support local decisions as long as they agree with your political views. Clearly, the fact that you had to qualify your response, instead of simply address the items asked about, indicates that your support of local decisions is not as unlimited as you claim. If it was, then you'd support the repeal of Roe.
"In what sense? Do I support the family in deciding where to seek pre natal care? Yes. Do I support the father of the child having an equal say in decisions about the child he's fathered? Yes. Do I support underage children having elective surgery without parental consent? No. Do I support the decision of "the family" to end the existence of the life of a unique human being based on what's convenient?"
"Do you support that "higher authority", addressing the harm to one group, by choosing to inflict harm on another group?"
" Do you understand that by giving biological makes the choice to use whatever restroom or locker room they choose based on how they feel, that you are removing the choice from biological women/girls to feel uncomfortable changing or showering with biological males? Can you explain specifically why the "rights" of an incredibly small group of biological males override the privacy rights of women/girls?"
" In the case of the 2020 violence, do you realize that you have now placed the blame on the local governments of the Twin Cities, Seattle, Portland, Louisville, ATL, DC, etc., all of which are (and have been for decades controlled by the political left?"
" Why are you so obsessed with this being decided at the federal level, NOT at the state or local governments you claim to be so enamored with?"
"1. Doesn’t the fact that you have to add a qualifier to the term
woman simply point out the reality that biological men aren’t women?
2. Are you suggesting that scientific disciplines such as biology and forensic medicine are not science?"
" If by society, you mean the governmental entities that control the city/state/country where the oppression is occurring, then why wouldn't you be all for wholesale replacement of those in power who are actually doing the "oppressing"?"
" Please provide one actual example where police simply walked up to "peaceful protesters" and started shooting rubber bullets at them with absolutely zero provocation."
"Really? Are you sure you want to stick with this hunch of yours?"
"Can you explain specifically why the "rights" of an incredibly small group of biological males override the privacy rights of women/girls?"
"re these experts really suggesting that biological men who have undergone extensive alterations in their quest to appear to be women, are 100% indistinguishable form biological women? Are they suggesting that the forensic science that can identify bodies years after death, will identify these biological males as females"
"If you show a podiatrist the x-rays of the foot of a biological male,
and a biological female, the podiatrist would likely be able to
differentiate between the two with a 90+% degree of accuracy, does that
medical expertise help prove your hunch?"
"If a surgically altered
biological male, and a surgically unaltered biological female were both
being treated for the same form of cancer, would a medical expert give
them the same dosages of the same medicines?"
"How many medical professionals would diagnose a surgically altered biological male with cervical cancer?"
"Would
a medical professional be able to distinguish between a surgically
altered biological male, and a biological female using objective
testing? (X-rays. blood work, etc)"
"You still haven't explained why you think the metaphysical is more real and reliable than the physical?"
" The question then is, which is the more reliable metric. The physical or the metaphysical? Do we really posses enough understanding of the human mind to say with confidence that what we think is more real than what we are?"
" The bigger problem is that this whole notion clashes with those who believe in a materialist/Darwinian worldview. If one accepts that the "mind is a computer made of meat", or that matter is all that there is, then how does one diminish the material in favor of the immaterial?"
" One has to wonder why, if those differences in the physical, material, biological, body are so insignificant why so much effort is expended to remove or alter them?"
" The question is then raised, what makes something a "female body part"?"
"For
example does skin, a nipple, and a bag of silicone actually become a
breast? Or does an actual breast require all of the component parts of a
breast?"
"Does surgically removing the penis, cutting a "hole" in
the body, and refashioning part of the penis into something that gives
sensations similar to a clitoris, turn into an actual fully functioning
vagina, or is it a less capable substitute?"
"Are things like bones, brains, muscles, lungs, DNA and chromosomes considered "body parts"?"
" Where, (quote and link required), have I ever made a scripture bared argument in this thread? Or anywhere else for that matter?"
" Why would I ask people about your claims?"
"Why wouldn’t the burden of proof be on you for claims you’ve made?"
" Why wouldn’t the burden of proof be on you for claims you’ve made?'
" At what age is a person mentally, emotionally, and physically at the
point to determine if they are prepared to make permanent surgical and
biological alterations to their body?"
"If a trans women (presenting as a man)has cancer, should the oncologist prescribe the dosages intended for a male?"
" You realize that you’re arguing for the elimination of women as a unique biological and legal category, don’t you?"
"That
these laws being imposed on the 98.58% (I know you claimed that nothing
was being imposed on anyone) actually render the current protected
classes of women and homosexuals meaningless, don’t you?"
"One of the proudest achievements of the political left had
been Title 9 and the positive affect it’s had in women in sports and
education. Well, if you can’t identify what a woman is, how does one
extend legal protection to that which can’t be identified?"
" Do you realize that your "question" is essentially an unproven claim of fact, disguised as a question?"
" Are you suggesting that it is "WRONG/IMMORAL/UNJUST" to imprison ANY consenting adult for ANY sexual activities, or for "falling in love" with ANY other adult who reciprocates their feelings?"
" Are you suggesting that you know better then the experts?"
" Do you realize that the Bible DOES specifically condemn stealing? Do you realize that you have argued that there are cases in which stealing is appropriate? Are you saying that IF the Bible DID specifically condemn "being a transgender person" or "gay folks getting married", that you would change your position and align your position with what the Bible said? Does this mean that you align your position on issues 100% with the Bible when it contains clear, direct, unambiguous condemnation of behaviors or actions?"
" Do you believe that God encourages (applauds/blesses/allows/cheers on/approves of) either of those?"
" Are you seriously suggesting that cutting of perfectly functioning body parts and replacing them with semi functional facsimiles is not self mutilation?"
" Are you seriously suggesting that cutting of perfectly functioning body parts and replacing them with semi functional facsimiles is not self mutilation?"
" If a woman (after “transitioning to a man) was admitted to a hospital (checked female on the admitted documents), is the hospital required to give “her” the drug dosages for a female or for a male? If it’s the female dosage, is the hospital liable for malpractice?"
" Hell, there’s a worldwide organization dedicated to furthering gay statutory rape, but no harm done there, right?"
" Are you seriously saying that an 8 year old had the ability to make an informed decision about undergoing medical procedure that will take years, make irreparable changes to their bodies, and make them even more different?"
" Do you agree with Biden? Do you think that an 8 year old has the capacity to make an informed decision on a medical procedure of this magnitude? What other medical procedures are 8 year olds capable of informed consent to undergo?"
"Which raises the question. If a woman undergoes extensive surgery to
fashion her vagina into something that resembles a penis, does it
magically become (on a cellular level) a fully functioning penis,
indistinguishable form the penis on a male?"
"If it’s not all about penises, why is surgical alteration necessary?"
"FYI, if sex and gender are unrelated, then what scientific principle declares that “gender” is infallibly correct?"
" What harm did I ever claim there was?"
"Are the Bison and penguins involved in loving monogamous relationships, or are they promiscuous?"
"Wouldn’t that mean that only promiscuous homosexual sex is good?"
"Of course, the implication in this I’d that penguins and humans are morally equal, how do you prove that?"
21 comments:
I thought that this would be an easier and more effective way to make the point that Dan has left plenty of questions unanswered. He's bitched about some, lied about some, and dodged them all. I've tired to skip ones that were asked multiple times, although I'm sure some duplicates got in anyway. Of course, that just means that if I'd included those that I asked as second or third time due to lack of answering the first time, that the list would be longer.
This was a pain in the ass, but worth it to make the point.
Craig... Are you referring to Biden’s attempt to allow biological males unfettered access to bathrooms and locker rooms which have previously been reserved for biological females?"
Also Craig... "I'll grant that you attempted to answer the questions above, although you simply did not answer the question as asked..."
One at a time here. I'll answer your question, again, and point out where you are an error factually. Then you can answer my question. One for one.
You suggest that I did not answer the question as asked. In this case I did not answer the question as asked because the question is based on a faulty presumption. You asked about Biden's allowing " biological males" into women's restroom. Here, you demonstrate your failure to understand biology. You're misusing the word biological males. Transgender women ARE women. Period.
Biology does not call transgender women biological males. That's political words from someone with a first grade understanding of science. But here, we're talkin amongst adults about serious policies about an historically oppressed people that you continue to oppress.
Biden says that women, those born with a vagina and those who identified as women later on, should have access into the women's restroom. Because of course Biden does oh, this is the rational and moral and just position to take. Where else are women going to go to the restroom but the women's restroom?
He has not said anything about biological males. Thus, your question is based on faulty and erroneous words and understanding. That is the most direct and clear and obvious answer to your question. Which I've answered before.
Now, your turn.
Do you recognize the reality the Biden has not referred to letting biological males into women's bathrooms? Biden has never said that. Those are your damned words, not Biden's.
Do you recognize the reality of your error and why your question is fatally flawed?
I've literally and directly answered your question, flawed though it is, with the literal facts of the case. Your turn. You answer my questions on this topic.
"Do you recognize the reality the Biden has not referred to letting biological males into women's bathrooms? Biden has never said that. Those are your damned words, not Biden's."
Yes, I realize that Biden has not used the term "biological males", and I realize that this is merely semantic nitpicking.
"Do you recognize the reality of your error and why your question is fatally flawed?"
If a semantic difficulty is a "fatal" flaw, then I guess so.
"Transgender women ARE women. Period."
With the exception of their genetic makeup, muscular system, skeletal system, lung and heard capacity, brain function, and multiple other factors. Your statement is true, only if one changes what it has historically/genetically/biologically meant to be a woman.
I have to say that the display of hubris in this one comment is quite impressive. The notion that you get to re interpret the questions I've asked to suit your semantic predilections is quite the display of arrogance. The joke that you'll answer my questions "One for one.", has now been demonstrated to simply be a flat out lie. Since this is my blog, and I get to set the rules, how about you go through and answer all of the questions asked, simply and directly first. That way you will be all caught up. then you can ask away.
Dan. Where do you get off trying to dictate anything at the blog of someone else, when you're so damned insistent that visitors (conservative and actual Christian visitors) to your blog abide without deviation of any kind, your rules both posted and not posted? Just answer the questions and I've no doubt Craig will respond in kind once you've established you're no longer willing to dodge, obfuscate and ignore questions.
"In this case I did not answer the question as asked because the question is based on a faulty presumption."
I've had this very problem with questions of yours at your blog. The response didn't fly there, yet you expect Craig to respect it here. How about copy/pasting the question and then explaining where/how it troubles you without the tap-dancing.
"Transgender women ARE women. Period."
This is factually false. Period. You haven't provided ANY evidence that confirms this boldly ludicrous statement, and what's more, it's the very point of contention from which all other arguments flow. Are these people women simply because they insist they are? Where's your evidence to back this up? You've provided nothing but that which indicates abnormalities, defects and variations ASSERTED as proof that their "identity" is enough to accept that they "ARE" women, period. Talk about faulty presumptions! This is the most faulty of faulty presumptions based on nothing more than wishful thinking. But then, you're a liar, so...
"He has not said anything about biological males."
That's because he's a liar like you are (far more egregious in his lying than anything you've ever been able to produce about Trump). "Transgender" women are biological males. That's scientifically factual and true.
"Do you recognize the reality the Biden has not referred to letting biological males into women's bathrooms?"
You're a straight up, inveterate liar. If Biden supports allowing "transgender" women in female facilities, he's saying he supports allowing men into female facilities. You've not provided any "literal facts" which contradicts this truth. You're a hopeless liar.
Art,
I had forgotten Dan’s use of rationales that will get comments deleted at his blog. I guess it really is about exerting control.
Clearly you’re not a scientist or well versed in the amorality of DEMN, but I’ll provide the quotes when I’m not on my phone. I’m sure you’ll tell me that the people I’ll quote are wrong or unqualified.
But you are an idiot. The problem is that homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end. As is removing perfectly functional reproductive systems.
Yes, you idiot, gays can adopt. They just can’t reproduce.
Craig: "The problem is that homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end. "
Science: "“Simple reasoning shows that evolution cannot explain homosexuality – how would a homosexuality gene get selected for?” “Why have the genetic traits predisposing to homosexuality not been eliminated long ago?”
Such arguments are surprisingly common – and completely wrong.
Homosexual behaviour has been observed in hundreds of species, from bison to penguins. It is still not clear to what extent homosexuality in humans or other animals is genetic (rather than, say, due to hormonal extremes during embryonic development), but there are many mechanisms that could explain why gene variants linked to homosexuality are maintained in a population.
A common assumption is that homosexuality means not having children, but this is not necessarily true, especially in cultures other than our own. Until it became acceptable for same-sex couples to live together in western countries, many homosexual people had partners of the opposite sex. In some traditional societies, various forms of non-exclusive homosexuality were common...
Even if homosexuality does reduce reproductive success, as most people assume, there are plenty of possible reasons why it is so common. For instance, gene variants that cause homosexual behaviour might have other, beneficial effects such as boosting fertility in women..."
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13674-evolution-myths-natural-selection-cannot-explain-homosexuality/
I can go on citing actual scientists correcting your first grade understanding of science, but would that matter to you?
Again, that you fail to understand science is not helpful when you make "science" arguments based upon your misunderstandings.
Excellent, your comment echoed my point that homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end.
Further, do you really agree with your quote that homosexuals are equivalent to animals? We know that “homosexual” behavior in animals is simply one male exerting dominance over another. But hey, cows do it so it must be ok. Great argument. Well done.
“ A common assumption is that homosexuality means not having children, but this is not necessarily true, especially in cultures other than our own. Until it became acceptable for same-sex couples to live together in western countries, many homosexual people had partners of the opposite sex. In some traditional societies, various forms of non-exclusive homosexuality were common...”
Actually homosexuality means not reproducing. Homosexuals can rent, borrow, kidnap, adopt, or buy a child, but it’s physically impossible for two homosexuals to reproduce.
Of course homosexuals can reproduce with a person of the opposite sex, but that’s not 2 homosexuals reproducing.
Yes, let’s adopt the Roman model of satisfying our sexual desires.
Absolutely none of that, explained where there is an evolutionary advantage to homosexuality,
I couldn’t find any actual evidence in your magazine article. No peer reviewed studies, no experiments, no actual human scientists referenced, and not one definitive conclusion.
Lots of “we think...”, “homosexuality might...”.
The fact is that the best they could offer is “You and me baby, we ain’t nothing but mammals, Do it like they do on the Discovery Chsnnel”
Are the Bison and penguins involved in loving monogamous relationships, or are they promiscuous?
Wouldn’t that mean that only promiscuous homosexual sex is good?
Like a Bison, baby!
Of course, the implication in this I’d that penguins and humans are morally equal, how do you prove that?
I've cited science. You've cited... well, you've offered your hunches.
Again, that you don't understand or cite science beyond a first grade level is on you, not me. My answers are actual answers to your bad questions. Your answers are... missing.
You've provided a magazine article that didn't cite any peer reviewed studies, any specific scientists, or any proof, but you keep telling yourself that.
My answers are right there, my usual practice is to copy/paste your question, then directly answer it. If you can't figure that out, or understand it, that's not my problem. Perhaps if you'd directly connect your alleged answers with the questions, that would be a good idea.
Dan,
Quick note. My intention is to put in the time to find you the citations and information you have been asking for. Unfortunately, I have a business to run, with some fires flaring up that obviously have a higher priority than researching something as self evident as evolution being amoral, and that being able to reproduce is an evolutionary advantage. I will get to it, but it won't be as quickly as you'd like. I'd suggest that snarky comments about this will not help motivate me to move more quickly, and will likely motivate me to take my time.
Perhaps you could just answer the questions already asked, while you're waiting.
"And you responded, but failed to understand the point, by saying... "Yes, I realize that Biden has not used the term "biological males", and I realize that this is merely semantic nitpicking."It is, of course, NOT semantics."
No, it's semantics. The reality is that there are biological components unique to male physiology, and genetic makeup that can't be erased by some surgery on eternal body parts.
"When YOU say "biological male," what you're clumsily saying is "people born with a penis..." as if a person born with a penis is always a biological male."
No, I'm not. As I've made clear, the biological, physiological, genetic, and chromosomal differences between male and female go much deeper than simply the penis. That you are obsessed with the penis and with using the penis to falsely characterize what I've actually said, isn't my problem. It's yours.
"Science and biology don't say this. As my links have pointed out, as I point to ACTUAL scientists and biologists who are telling you that your first grade understanding is insufficient and incorrect. Do you acknowledge that I've pointed to actual biologists who are literally disagreeing with your claim?"
Again, I'm sure that there are some biologists who don't agree that the differences between male and female, are much more significant that the presence of a penis. Yet, in the multiple links I posted there are biologists that are quite certain that male and female are different on a genetic, chromosomal, physiological, and brain function level. None of these differences has anything to do with the organ you focus on.
If I wasn't so confident Dan will include disordered "transgendered women" who are actually men, I'd ask him to present data indicating how many people born with a penis aren't male. I'd wager the number is so tiny as to be barely distinguishable from zero.
Dan,
I had a little time this morning to spend on this and what I've decided is to try to be focused an simple. To that end I'm going to start with an underlying premise.
The premise is simple. The "success" in evolution is best described as anything the contributes to the survival and propogation of genes. Therefore, any behavior, choice, or condition that doesn't help do so, is an evolutionary disadvantage.
I'm going to start by looking at one author, and primarily one book. I choose to do so, because this particular book has been described in 2017, as "the most influential science book of all time.". It seems reasonable to suggest that "the most influential science book of all time", might be a good place to start laying the foundation.
The book, of course, is The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. In Dawkins words below, I hope to point out two things.
1. That evolution is an amoral, mindless, process, with no regard for anything other than passing on the genes of those best suited to survive.
2. The corollary position that anything that fails to facilitate this process is a disadvantage to achieving #1.
“We are survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment.”
" In true natural selection, if a body has what it takes to survive, its genes automatically survive because they are inside it. So the genes that survive tend to be, automatically, those genes that confer on bodies the qualities that assist them to survive."
"Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish. Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have the chance to upset their designs, something that no other species has ever aspired to do."
" The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."
" Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future."
" DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is."
" Nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent."
" We are machines built by DNA whose purpose is to make more copies of the same DNA. ... This is exactly what we are for. We are machines for propagating DNA, and the propagation of DNA is a self-sustaining process. It is every living object's sole reason for living."
" We are survival machines—robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes."
The reason why I am, at this point, limiting the scope of my efforts is simple. If you can't agree that the "most influential science book of all time", is not arguing that the survival of those genes that most successfully reproduce is the basis for what science knows about evolution, then this entire discussion is pointless.
You can dismiss Pearcy without actually even bothering to do anything but cherry pick some bad reviews, but if you dismiss Dawkins as not representing the primary view on evolution, then I refuse to waste any more time on this effort.
Art,
Of course you are correct. The best number I have found is that the transgendered represent between .3 and ,42% of our population. (Given my contention that the entire trans debate is a first world problem, I'd argue that worldwide the number is significantly less.) The number of intersex (those Dan is trying to use to make his point) is .018. Since Dan has cast this in terms of being born "with a penis", (I'm choosing to take the term "penis" as inclusive of external sexual organs), it doesn't make sense to use the much more inconclusive measurements used by intersex advocates.
So, the reality is that the numbers are very close to zero.
"And so, the problem appears to be that you don't even understand how you're wrongly using words and thus, not actually answering the questions asked of you,..."
1. This is simply factually incorrect. I am answering your questions, or I am asking your for clarification so that I CAN answer your questions. When you don't give clarification, then it's your lack of clarification that prevents answering.
"...while you don't understand my words correctly and thus, are not understanding the answers that I've already given to practically every question you've asked."
If this was true, then you would have gone through the list, and copy pasted your "answers" to go along with the corresponding questions. Instead, you start out by blatantly lying ("One at a time here. I'll answer your question, again, and point out where you are an error factually. Then you can answer my question. One for one."). Then you proceed to simply repeat yourself, without actually demonstrating the accuracy of your claims.
"You're responding, but not answering the questions I'm asking."
In some cases, I'm responding by trying to gain clarity into what you mean. You failing to provide that clarity,, isn't something I can control. When I can answer your questions, I have. When I can't I've asked for clarification you won't give. You've established a "Heads I win, tails you lose' situation where you can bitch no matter what.
"I'm answering your questions, but you fail to understand the answer. And that's the problem. FYI."
Let's start with this is clearly a claim of fact, that you haven't proven. You should start by proving that you've previously answered every question I've asked. If, as you claim, I fail to understand your answer, then one would think that you'd want to do everything in your power to facilitate that understanding.
FYI, when I pulled these questions out, I looked for your answers. If I found an answer, I didn't put the question on this list.
I guess we're at the point where you're looking for excuses, not understanding.
I just want to reiterate a point I tried to make. Perhaps I didn't hit the publish button (I seem to make this mistake quite a bit in my haste). But with regard to Dan's reminder of homosexuality in the animal world, I wonder how Dan knows the animals are even aware they're trying to mate with a same-sex partner. Is Dan capable of reading animal minds so that he can determine they are consciously turned on only by others of the same sex? People, on the other had, are well aware of what they're doing with regard to sex partners. There's no confusion whatsoever. You wouldn't see, say, Dan flirting with the average construction worker only to later say, "Oh, crap! Sorry, dude! I thought you were a chick!"
Wait...I'm talking about Dan, so there's no telling what he would do. No guy...even a homosexual guy, would mistakenly hit on someone who wasn't clearly of the sex he intended to approach. Can the same said of animals and how can we be sure? I'm insisting animals aren't aware of such things, that they don't "choose" in anything like the same way humans do. They're instinctive totally and what seems to be a homosexual union of animals is just a problem with their instinctive, reflexive response. It's not "homosexuality in the animal kingdom".
But again, we're talking about Dan we damned well know he's say anything to protect his indefensible positions as if they were moral.
Art,
I made a similar point. As much as some would like to humanize animals, and ascribe human motivations and emotions to them, there is absolutely zero way to know for sure.
I think that fact that Dan is advocating that we take our sexual mores from animals in and of itself is stunning.
Some animals engage in what we'd call rape, should we emulate them? FYI, there is quite a bit of scientific support for the concept that rape is either good or neutral from an evolutionary perspective.
Monogamy is not the norm in the animal kingdom, should we emulate that behavior? Remember that one argument for gay marriage was that gays needed marriage to have long term, committed, monogamous relationships.
Some animals kill immediately after mating...
I've always thought that this line of reasoning was absurd, but as long as some people try to elevate animals to equality with humans, it'll probably become more prevalent.
Post a Comment