biology, not your subjective "feelings"

[Crucible]

There are males, and there are females. If one does not fit either, they are labeled as disordered by the scientific standard.

It is contrary to the healthy order of man according to science.

Liberals are wrong by both science and biblical dictation to call it some natural, normal thing- it is not, and certainly isn't anything to be embraced :AMR:

 

[Jonahdog]

There are males, and there are females. If one does not fit either, they are labeled as disordered by the scientific standard.

It is contrary to the healthy order of man according to science.

Liberals are wrong by both science and biblical dictation.

The person with XX yet the SRY gene is a female but with male genitalia. Call it what you want but it belies Stripe's claim that XX = female and indicates that biology is a bit more complicated than you understand it to be.
That is the issue, not whether you can label someone or some condition.

 

[Selaphiel]

There are males, and there are females. If one does not fit either, they are labeled as disordered by the scientific standard.

It is contrary to the healthy order of man according to science.

Liberals are wrong by both science and biblical dictation to call it some natural, normal thing- it is not, and certainly isn't anything to be embraced :AMR:

You are profoundly confused.

What scientific standard are you talking about? Show us the science that talks about the healthy order of man?

There is no such thing, because labeling something as disordered is a normative statement. Science is a purely descriptive enterprise, it does not make normative statements by the very definition of its methodology.

 

[Crucible]

You are profoundly confused.

What scientific standard are you talking about? Show us the science that talks about the healthy order of man?

There is no such thing, because labeling something as disordered is a normative statement. Science is a purely descriptive enterprise, it does not make normative statements by the very definition of its methodology.

Where else in science is 'disorder' denoted as something desired, optimal, healthy, etc?

Nowhere
And there isn't some miraculous rainbow sparkling above all the one's dealing with sex and gender, no matter how much you all want to march down the streets with them :wave2:

 

[Selaphiel]

Where else in science is 'disorder' denoted as something desired, optimal, healthy, etc?

Where is the scientific justification for calling it a disorder? Just because some scientists somewhere used the term disorder to label something, does not equal a scientific justification for it. Scientists are just like anyone else when they mirror cultural prejudices by using such labels.

Desired, optimal, healthy according to what objective normative standard? Does science qua science have such a standard? Please give the source for that, that would be interesting to read.

It may be a scientific anomaly, something relatively rare statistically speaking. But rarity does not necessarily mean that something is disordered. In that case, following the same logic, people with an IQ above 150 are extremely disordered.

Whether something is disorderly is a normative statement, and such questions are not answered by the scientific discourse, even if it may be informed by it.

To make it short: You cannot derive an ought from an is. Science deals exclusively with the 'is' part.

And there isn't some miraculous rainbow sparkling above all the one's dealing with sex and gender, no matter how much you all want to march down the streets with them :wave2:

I expect that the majority of them are far more pleasant than you, considering that you are a proud racist anti-semitic misogynist.

 

[Crucible]

I expect that the majority of them are far more pleasant than you, considering that you are a proud racist anti-semitic misogynist.

I am a proud realist, who is tired of you all's charades, and imposing fantasy on others the same as yall accuse others of doing :wave2:

 

[Angel4Truth]

I am miss america because i say so, i demand my crown, you wouldnt want my feelings to be hurt or my self esteem by denying me would you?

I also need 2 dental implants, they should certainly be free instead of a sex change, they would help my self esteem too.

 

[Stripe]

The person with XX yet the SRY gene is a female but with male genitalia.

Male — as your link says. Didn't you read it? They have a messed up Y part.

And you're not engaging with what I've said. This abnormality was set in stone at conception, which is where sex is always determined.

 

[Stripe]

To avoid talking past each other, the Darwinists need to appreciate how the biology discussion is aspected. The breakdown in communication is displayed in Selaphiel's posts. They bring the assumption of a range of sexes, while society functions on the concept of only two.

Darwinists think they have a case, because when things go wrong with reproduction, the XY categorization can get a little murky. However, this muddying of the waters is unjustified in the light of what the left is actually pushing for. The left is chasing a world where people can identify as whatever they please, which is a demand that has no biological basis.

Whenever we come across a case of a person who has problems with their genome, that is not justification for the claim that deviance in behavior is justified.

 

[Tambora]

To avoid talking past each other, the Darwinists need to appreciate how the biology discussion is aspected. The breakdown in communication is displayed in Selaphiel's posts. They bring the assumption of a range of sexes, while society functions on the concept of only two.

Darwinists think they have a case, because when things go wrong with reproduction, the XY categorization can get a little murky. However, this muddying of the waters is unjustified in the light of what the left is actually pushing for. The left is chasing a world where people can identify as whatever they please, which is a demand that has no biological basis.

Whenever we come across a case of a person who has problems with their genome, that is not justification for the claim that deviance in behavior is justified.

:thumb:

 

[quip]

Whenever we come across a case of a person who has problems with their genome, that is not justification for the claim that deviance in behavior is justified.

So?

What's it to you....why exactly the irrational obsession with other's sex practices/preferences?

 

[ok doser]

So?

What's it to you....why exactly the irrational obsession with other's sex practices/preferences?

in what way is it irrational to be opposed to deviance and perversion?

 

[quip]

in what way is it irrational to be opposed to deviance and perversion?

It's private, consensual deviance and perversion...so again, what's the irrational obsession?

 

[ok doser]

It's private, consensual deviance and perversion...so again, what's the irrational obsession?

no quip - it's not private


if it was private, we wouldn't be talking about it

 

[quip]

no quip - it's not private


if it was private, we wouldn't be talking about it

How is it not as private as your sexual exploits?

Why must you feel the need to "talk about it" at all?

 

[ok doser]

How is it not as private as your sexual exploits?

Why must you feel the need to "talk about it" at all?

keep homosexuality out of the public sphere - keep it out of the schools, the media, entertainment, etc

and i guarantee you nobody will talk about it

 

[quip]

keep homosexuality out of the public sphere - keep it out of the schools, the media, entertainment, etc

and i guarantee you nobody will talk about it

Why not keep heterosexuality out of the public sphere..et al.?

I guarantee you that if you'd openly accept homosexuality (i.e. not feel the obsessive need to "talk about it") it'd simply fade into non-description. :idunno:

 

[ok doser]

Why not keep heterosexuality out of the public sphere..et al.?

because it's normal - heterosexual attraction is normal and, withing a Christian marriage, heterosexual sex is normal

 

[ok doser]

I guarantee you that if you'd openly accept homosexuality (i.e. not feel the obsessive need to "talk about it") it'd simply fade into non-description. :idunno:

you could make the same claim for pedophilia

 

[quip]

you could make the same claim for pedophilia

No I can't. Pedophilia causes demonstrable harm.
It's not a mere ideological objection.