Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sculptor1]

When males dogs try to screw each other, they are not thinking about what they are doing, This practice is common enough. GIven the realites of evolution it is a misnomer to say that such practices are "FOR" an purpose, but we may reflect upon what advantages such preactices may have.
Since evolution is the result of practices which are consistent with survival, the only way we moght say that homosexual practices are "confused" or "diseased" is if they have negative consquences on survival.
Dogs screwing do not have any negative effects on reproductive success or survival. There is always an excess of sexual energy available and females are limited to a few litters of pups per year. But male dogs that screw are not fighting and are bonding. It does not take cuh imagination to see how such practices might be of great positive use to the survival of the pack.
Ancient Greek warriors would commonly bond with shared sexual experiences and this was part of a hugely successful military practice of the Phalanx.
So not only are "deviant" practices perfectly natural they may be part of a survival strategy.

That is interesting , and I am a little surprised that the rightly famous TV dog trainer , Graeme, has not explained this .
He must surely know it, and he must be patronising his TV audience that he fails to describe it like you have done regarding the evolution of dogs.
I hope that you will write about the evolutionary advantage ( or otherwise) of specific human ideas such as gender, (or Roman Catholic doctrine for that matter.) This study would have important political implications .
My point is briefly that I hope cultures evolve . If not, then humans are in grave danger and we will take a lot of other species to hell with us.

I think the Dog trainer is interested to getting dogs to behave the way it is acceptible for human society.
Homosexual activity is widespread in nature. Even baby lambs do mock intercourse. But I insist that no behaviour can be deemed to have a purpose; but can have identifyable "Functions". Nature does not know what behaviours can do, and so we cannot say what they are "for". But we can say how they work.
Sexuality in animals is part of play, closeness, competition. All interactions can function to build relationships.

[Lagayascienza]

I find it strange that hetero and homo orientations are not questioned, but transpeople are ruthlessly questioned - but they have existed for a long as gays. It's just something that happens to certain people who manage to win life's booby prize. To top it off, everyone thinks they are mad for it. Poor blighters.

It is not strange at all as I have already addressed. Someone who is gay does not need medical treatment; the suppression of healthy body transformations (puberty), chemical intervention (cross sex hormones), the surgical removal of otherwise healthy body parts (e.g. mastectomy) or even the sterilisation of an otherwise fertile person or the disruption in one's ability to climax, etc.

And when one is considering administering any of the above to children then is it really any wonder why they should be questioned?

Why do some people keep trying to draw parallels between sexuality and gender?

Probably because there are parallels between the way gays used to be treated (and still are in some places) and the way transgender people are still treated today.

I've not heard anyone argue against the idea that treating gender dysphoric children should be approached with extreme caution and that nothing irreversible or surgical should be done until and unless they want it as adults. If children are being so treated then I disagree with it and think it should be stopped.

I have no problem with transgender or transexual or gender dysphoric adults deciding to undergo gender reassignment after appropriate counselling.

[Fried Egg]

JK Rowling has an interesting notion of having great sympathy for people with gender dysphoria. She recommends that they be free to effectively become sidelined freaks without the chance to lead relatively normal lives.

One common motivation for a sex change is to invisibly slip into the other gender role, although there seem to be different "types", be they visible and part of the queer scene, or invisible and blending into mainstream. I would think that being able to lead a relatively normal life would be useful, allowing such people can put their dysphoria behind them and get on with productive life, eg. Wendy Carlos.

However, if transpeople are granted none of services and circumstances of their adopted gender, then there is no way for them to address their gender dysphoria.

It beggars belief that all transpeople would go through all the pain and struggle just to wear dresses and lop off their boy bits. That would assume gobsmacking superficiality on the part of transpeople. One would think that being able to live and interact as the target sex (as much as is possible) would be the goal, rather than them simply destroying their lives for mere outside appearances. Surely appearance is more of a tool for transsexuals than an end in itself??

For an author, JK seems to be surprising superficial and weak at putting herself in others' shoes. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt and guess that this is a blind spot of hers, a hangup.

It's not merely a matter of having (or a lack of) empathy for trans people. The problem is when trans rights come into conflict with women's rights. She doesn't have any objection to trans people doing whatever they want to do until that hurts women.

[Pattern-chaser]

I find it strange that hetero and homo orientations are not questioned, but transpeople are ruthlessly questioned - but they have existed for a long as gays. [...] Poor blighters.

This, IMO, is one of the core issues appertaining to this topic. It refers to our attitudes to any recently-discovered new 'sub-community' we weren't aware of before. Fear of the unknown; it's different, so it is wrong; policing and enforcing 'the norm'...

[Sy Borg]

JK Rowling has an interesting notion of having great sympathy for people with gender dysphoria. She recommends that they be free to effectively become sidelined freaks without the chance to lead relatively normal lives.

One common motivation for a sex change is to invisibly slip into the other gender role, although there seem to be different "types", be they visible and part of the queer scene, or invisible and blending into mainstream. I would think that being able to lead a relatively normal life would be useful, allowing such people can put their dysphoria behind them and get on with productive life, eg. Wendy Carlos.

However, if transpeople are granted none of services and circumstances of their adopted gender, then there is no way for them to address their gender dysphoria.

It beggars belief that all transpeople would go through all the pain and struggle just to wear dresses and lop off their boy bits. That would assume gobsmacking superficiality on the part of transpeople. One would think that being able to live and interact as the target sex (as much as is possible) would be the goal, rather than them simply destroying their lives for mere outside appearances. Surely appearance is more of a tool for transsexuals than an end in itself??

For an author, JK seems to be surprising superficial and weak at putting herself in others' shoes. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt and guess that this is a blind spot of hers, a hangup.

It's not merely a matter of having (or a lack of) empathy for trans people. The problem is when trans rights come into conflict with women's rights. She doesn't have any objection to trans people doing whatever they want to do until that hurts women.

The only valid areas I can think of where discrimination is justified are 1) sport 2) refuges and 3) awards.

[Pattern-chaser]

It's not merely a matter of having (or a lack of) empathy for trans people. The problem is when trans rights come into conflict with women's rights. She doesn't have any objection to trans people doing whatever they want to do until that hurts women.

But does it? Hurt women, that is?

The main issue that TERFs focus on is women's 'rest rooms'. But anyone with a penis, regardless of their sexual or gender-based predilections, can enter these rooms and harm women, although they should not. Happily, it rarely happens, and there are laws in place to punish offenders. It doesn't matter whether the offender has gender issues, but only whether they have threatened women, or harmed them. And banning trans people — most of whom have no intention of harming anyone — from ladies' rest rooms does not protect women from offenders who are not trans people. By concentrating on trans people, we are ignoring another (also very small) group who actually harm women...?

[Lagayascienza]

Should I care if a trans man comes into the men's room? I probably wouldn't even notice.

However, the difficulty with trans women going into ladies' restrooms is that some trans women, even after hormones and surgery, still exhibit male characteristics. I understand that this could be disconcerting for some women - maybe those women would wonder whether the trans person has had surgery. I mean, anyone, even rapists, can throw on a frock and some makeup. I'm not sure what the answer to that is. Maybe we need more of those gender neutral toilets that anyone can use. A lot of cities have gotten rid of the old separate male and female public toilets blocks and changed over to gender neutral ones which lock securely once you're inside and each as it's own hand wash basin. Not sure how to deal with the problem in bars and other venues, especially in older buildings. I do sympathize with trans women. I mean, I don't see how they can use the men's room without embarrassment, and if they can't go into the ladies then what are they supposed to so. Everyone needs to use the bathroom.

[Fried Egg]

I find it strange that hetero and homo orientations are not questioned, but transpeople are ruthlessly questioned - but they have existed for a long as gays. It's just something that happens to certain people who manage to win life's booby prize. To top it off, everyone thinks they are mad for it. Poor blighters.

It is not strange at all as I have already addressed. Someone who is gay does not need medical treatment; the suppression of healthy body transformations (puberty), chemical intervention (cross sex hormones), the surgical removal of otherwise healthy body parts (e.g. mastectomy) or even the sterilisation of an otherwise fertile person or the disruption in one's ability to climax, etc.

And when one is considering administering any of the above to children then is it really any wonder why they should be questioned?

Why do some people keep trying to draw parallels between sexuality and gender?

Probably because there are parallels between the way gays used to be treated (and still are in some places) and the way transgender people are still treated today.

I've not heard anyone argue against the idea that treating gender dysphoric children should be approached with extreme caution and that nothing irreversible or surgical should be done until and unless they want it as adults. If children are being so treated then I disagree with it and think it should be stopped.

I have no problem with transgender or transexual or gender dysphoric adults deciding to undergo gender reassignment after appropriate counselling.

My post was to Sy Borg who commented "it strange that hetero and homo orientations are not questioned, but transpeople are ruthlessly questioned". A perfect example of the parallels between sexuality and gender being taken to far it seems to me.

I read into what he was saying (perhaps unfairly) an argument standing in defence of gender affirmative care, which many people do make. The suggestion is that is transphobic for a parent or doctor to even to question whether someone really has gender dysphoria.

It's not merely a matter of having (or a lack of) empathy for trans people. The problem is when trans rights come into conflict with women's rights. She doesn't have any objection to trans people doing whatever they want to do until that hurts women.

ut does it? Hurt women, that is?

The main issue that TERFs focus on is women's 'rest rooms'. But anyone with a penis, regardless of their sexual or gender-based predilections, can enter these rooms and harm women, although they should not. Happily, it rarely happens, and there are laws in place to punish offenders. It doesn't matter whether the offender has gender issues, but only whether they have threatened women, or harmed them. And banning trans people — most of whom have no intention of harming anyone — from ladies' rest rooms does not protect women from offenders who are not trans people. By concentrating on trans people, we are ignoring another (also very small) group who actually harm women...?

Well, it's not just rest rooms but many women put value in female only spaces such as rest rooms where it is socially unacceptable for a man to enter. Sure, it is still possible that a man could enter a women's rest room, but the fact that it is socially unacceptable and that they will likely be called out is a big disincentive on men doing so. And it has nothing to do with trans women being perceived of as a particular risk to women (above and beyond men in general). Most violence committed against women comes from men and therefore they want spaces free of all men. Not because all or even most men are threats, but because most threats against women come from men.

Note, one of the main reasons this idea is so contentious is wrapped up in the idea of "self identification". i.e. someone being able to simply declare that they identify as a woman and then gaining access to women only spaces. If a trans woman passes well as a women then it is hardly likely that they will have any problem entering a women's only rest room. It's more about stopping normal looking guys just declaring they are females.

Also, note there have been incidents of lesbians being accused of being transphobic because of not wanting to couple off with trans women claiming to be lesbian.

Ultimately, this is simply about freedom of association. If women want to have places they can go with no men around, that is their prerogative. They don't need a "good" reason to justify excluding men.

It's not merely a matter of having (or a lack of) empathy for trans people. The problem is when trans rights come into conflict with women's rights. She doesn't have any objection to trans people doing whatever they want to do until that hurts women.

The only valid areas I can think of where discrimination is justified are 1) sport 2) refuges and 3) awards.

Well, I would add rest rooms and prisons to that list for a start. Ultimately though, it doesn't matter what we think, it's up to women.

[Sy Borg]

If a transwomen is very obvious, that's an issue in bathrooms. Then again, if a transwoman is very obvious, why change over? Isn't the idea to improve one's life rather than to become a talking point? It's all rather messy and multi-causal business. Transwomen men's bathrooms doesn't work either, and is possibly dangerous for the trans.

Really, given that most transpeople are pretty docile (beaten down by life?), I think there would be more danger for male-to-female transpeople in the Gents than dangers to women in the Ladies. Actually, some female-to-males would probably be safer in the Ladies too, but that's just more embarrassment.

Non-gendered toilets can save on the embarrassment, but it's never a great moment when you want to sit down and some bloke with bad aim has spray-painted the seat. Also, troughs are efficient, which is one reason why toilet lines at shows tend to be vastly longer outside the Ladies than the Gents, unless one goes to a prog rock concert, where the situation is reversed (another reason to love that most maligned of genres).

As always, there are no ideal solutions.

[Belinda]

I find it strange that hetero and homo orientations are not questioned, but transpeople are ruthlessly questioned - but they have existed for a long as gays. It's just something that happens to certain people who manage to win life's booby prize. To top it off, everyone thinks they are mad for it. Poor blighters.

It is not strange at all as I have already addressed. Someone who is gay does not need medical treatment; the suppression of healthy body transformations (puberty), chemical intervention (cross sex hormones), the surgical removal of otherwise healthy body parts (e.g. mastectomy) or even the sterilisation of an otherwise fertile person or the disruption in one's ability to climax, etc.

And when one is considering administering any of the above to children then is it really any wonder why they should be questioned?

Why do some people keep trying to draw parallels between sexuality and gender?

Probably because there are parallels between the way gays used to be treated (and still are in some places) and the way transgender people are still treated today.

I've not heard anyone argue against the idea that treating gender dysphoric children should be approached with extreme caution and that nothing irreversible or surgical should be done until and unless they want it as adults. If children are being so treated then I disagree with it and think it should be stopped.

I have no problem with transgender or transexual or gender dysphoric adults deciding to undergo gender reassignment after appropriate counselling.

I agree that children should not be offered surgical or chemical intervention to change their 'genders'. If the child in question has a gender dysphoria then she needs the society of people who can love her just as she feels she is, that is to say , a person not a member of some category or other. The society of people where she has ample opportunities for self expression. I don't mean an exclusive community I mean the company of kindly others who are unbiased and liberal.

Fortunately we are winning against the forces of social control that allocate individuals to categories of all sorts , and do so either by force of law or by force of popular disapproval of out groups.

[Consul]

It's not merely a matter of having (or a lack of) empathy for trans people. The problem is when trans rights come into conflict with women's rights. She doesn't have any objection to trans people doing whatever they want to do until that hurts women.

Do you think trans right should always trump women's rights?

Speaking of hurting women: https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2024/04/ ... -athletes/

[Fried Egg]

It's not merely a matter of having (or a lack of) empathy for trans people. The problem is when trans rights come into conflict with women's rights. She doesn't have any objection to trans people doing whatever they want to do until that hurts women.

Do you think trans right should always trump women's rights?

I don't know what I said that would lead you to think I was suggesting that. I don't think women's hard won rights should be sacrificed in the establishment of trans rights. In so far as trans rights come into conflict with the rights of others, ultimately a balance must be found. As was previously stated, there are no easy solutions and there is no way to fully satisfy all sides.

[Consul]

JK Rowling has an interesting notion of having great sympathy for people with gender dysphoria. She recommends that they be free to effectively become sidelined freaks without the chance to lead relatively normal lives.

No, she doesn't:

"Gender dysphoria is a real and very painful condition and I feel nothing but sympathy for anyone who suffers from it. I want them to be free to dress and present themselves however they like and I want them to have exactly the same rights as every other citizen regarding housing, employment and personal safety." – J. K. Rowling

However, if transpeople are granted none of services and circumstances of their adopted gender, then there is no way for them to address their gender dysphoria.

As far as I can see, Rowling is talking about women-only spaces; and it is not the case that all social spaces are women-only ones, so she doesn't want transwomen to be excluded from social life as a whole, and "to become sidelined freaks without the chance to lead relatively normal lives."

[Sy Borg]

JK Rowling has an interesting notion of having great sympathy for people with gender dysphoria. She recommends that they be free to effectively become sidelined freaks without the chance to lead relatively normal lives.

No, she doesn't:

"Gender dysphoria is a real and very painful condition and I feel nothing but sympathy for anyone who suffers from it. I want them to be free to dress and present themselves however they like and I want them to have exactly the same rights as every other citizen regarding housing, employment and personal safety." – J. K. Rowling

Insincere motherhood statements, coming from the other side of her mouth. If a trans can't slip seamlessly into society, it's most unlikely that they will have any hope of achieving decent housing and employment, or personal safety.

However, if transpeople are granted none of services and circumstances of their adopted gender, then there is no way for them to address their gender dysphoria.

As far as I can see, Rowling is talking about women-only spaces; and it is not the case that all social spaces are women-only ones, so she doesn't want transwomen to be excluded from social life as a whole, and "to become sidelined freaks without the chance to lead relatively normal lives."

What are these magical exclusive woman's spaces, and how do they differ from the reasonable exclusions that I mentioned above, professional sport and DV services, and to keep penis-owners out of women's prisons?

It's only a tiny minority of women who occupy those spaces, and transpeople are only a tiny minority themselves, so let's remember that this issue is a molehill being treated as a mountain. It's pretty clear that we are being cynically and cunningly distracted from a program of mass immigration and quantitative easing (ie. redistribution to the wealthy) as governments make their societies much worse for the average person in order to bolster their power, improving superficial economic data and to providing extra business for their quasi-oligarch allies.

This issue is more about distraction than anything important to society.

[Fried Egg]

What are these magical exclusive woman's spaces, and how do they differ from the reasonable exclusions that I mentioned above, professional sport and DV services, and to keep penis-owners out of women's prisons?

It's only a tiny minority of women who occupy those spaces, and transpeople are only a tiny minority themselves, so let's remember that this issue is a molehill being treated as a mountain. It's pretty clear that we are being cynically and cunningly distracted from a program of mass immigration and quantitative easing (ie. redistribution to the wealthy) as governments make their societies much worse for the average person in order to bolster their power, improving superficial economic data and to providing extra business for their quasi-oligarch allies.

This issue is more about distraction than anything important to society.

You're just diminishing their concerns because it's something you don't care about.

Don't forget that J.K. Rowling first got embroiled into this issue speaking out in defence of Maya Forstater who got fired from her job for making "transphobic tweets" (what were essentially biological facts). There are numerous other famous examples of people losing their jobs and livelihoods for similar reasons and probably many more that we don't know about because it's the unknowns who are most in danger of being "cancelled". Most people just keep silent and don't speak out because they want an easy life.

So, yes, maybe this isn't the most important problem affecting society today but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter or that this is a frivolous distraction from the "real" issues.