Drag Shows

[Oleg]

You are blithely trying to hand wave away recorded history of gender non-conformity.

Gender non-conformity does not mean transgender. Or else a lot of gay guys are really gals.

 

[Bomb#20]

... Biology is complex enough that there are myriad ways things can end up not as intended. ...

I think there is folly in thinking something has gone wrong or using words like "as intended".

There certainly is a baseline, and there is certainly deviation from the baseline. And those deviations seem to be quite inevitable.

Yeah, I'm considering the baseline to be "as intended".

If there is any conceptual difference between a "baseline" and a Platonic Form, it isn't apparent. Do either of you know of some repeatable experiment two scientists can perform that will allow them to empirically determine who is correct in the event that they disagree with each other about what some species' "baseline" is?

 

[Bomb#20]

Design may have been a poor word choice. Certainly human evolution has created us the way we are. Metaphor has rejected the way evolution has made us.

That's ridiculous. Humans were made by evolution. Everything about us is the way evolution made us. There is no Platonic Form of the Human Essence that human evolution was making, while something else was making actual humans to be pale cave shadows who fall short of that essence. No, evolution made Metaphor gayer than most of us every bit as much as it made him larger than most of us. You're making the same kind of mistake a Christian makes who says gays aren't following God's Will, as though anybody could possibly be different from however his omniscient and omnipotent Creator willed him to be.

You're saying about the same thing I said in my second sentence above. But disputing it and the same time. ???

I'm disputing your third sentence above, not your first or second. I took your claim that he rejected the way evolution has made us to be a reference to his seeking out same-sex partners while being of a species that relied on opposite-sex copulation to evolve, i.e., that you were tacitly assuming humans evolved to be heterosexual. If that's not what you meant, sorry to misunderstand. What is your evidence that "Metaphor has rejected the way evolution has made us"?

If humans weren't primarily heterosexual we would have died out long ago. Of course evolution made us that way.

Oh, so I didn't misunderstand you after all. Evolution didn't make Metaphor that way. It made him exactly the way he is. If you meant to exclude Metaphor from "us" -- if "us" means "us heterosexuals", then no, Metaphor hasn't rejected the way evolution made "us" -- it's perfectly okay with him if heterosexuals go on acting heterosexual. If you meant for "us" to include Metaphor -- if you mean to say evolution made the human race heterosexual -- then that's just wrong, a sweeping generalization fallacy. It isn't any sort of rejection of evolution for somebody to behave the way evolution made him. To argue otherwise is to argue for Platonic Forms.

Probably the most primal function of our being is the desire to reproduce. Metaphor has rejected the way we were made to reproduce. I have no problem with that. I made a similar choice when I decided I didn't want children.

Same here. Obviously not the most primal function of our being. The most primal function of our being is the desire to have sex. Whether sex leads to reproduction is our selfish genes' problem, not ours, and not evolution's. That's why god gave man contraceptives.

Metaphor has rejected for himself the way we heterosexuals were made to reproduce. That is no more a rejection of evolution than when a mouse rejects helping a cat to reproduce.

What is it that trans people do that you're calling "do the same as him"? Do trans people also "reject the way evolution has made us"? If that's what you mean, what does that refer to?

I'm saying evolution made Metaphor gay. I'm saying evolution made trans people trans. I have no problem with either of them. But Metaphor has a problem with trans people.

Not sure what attitude on Metaphor's part you're describing as "has a problem with trans people"; it looks to me like he has a problem with the impositions on others that some trans people and some self-appointed "trans allies" keep making on other people. I don't recall any posts from Metaphor indicating he has a problem with trans people per se, or with those trans people who don't try to use their transness as grounds for "Your right to your nose ends where I swing my fist".

In any event, having a problem with trans people in no way involves rejecting the way evolution has made them. All of us have a problem with some other people, even though all the people we have a problem with were made the way they are by evolution.

No. Evolution made Met gay. Evolution made trans people trans. Metaphor rejects the second statement. Thus the double standard.

Not sure if you're counting "No." as one of the statements. Be that as it may, what evidence do you have that Metaphor rejects either the statement "Evolution made Met gay." or the statement "Evolution made trans people trans."?

Did you not read his posts. He constantly put trans people down as being trans only because of the "thoughts in their heads". He specifically rejected that they could have been that way because of their brain states. We've all seen it numerous times.

What is so hard about understanding this?

Dude! You're an atheist! Why the heck are you writing arguments that take Cartesian Dualism for granted?!? Thoughts in people's heads are brain states! You know it. I know it. Metaphor's an atheist too; he knows it. Of course I've read his posts. What we have all seen numerous times is Metaphor saying being trans is only because of the "thoughts in their heads". Where have any of us ever seen him specifically reject that they could have been that way because of their brain states? Where have any of us ever seen him contend that it being thoughts in their heads conflicts with it being brain states? I recall him explicitly stipulating somewhere that thoughts are neurological.

Is this along the lines of that whole Richard Carrier catechism -- if you aren't on board with woke progressivism then you aren't "one of us", so you don't count as a real infidel? Metaphor isn't a trans ally, therefore he's just a Pinocchio imitation of a real live boy atheist, therefore he must believe in immaterial souls, therefore we get to assume that about him when we're interpreting his arguments? Richard Carrier is an idiot.

 

[Jarhyn]

... Biology is complex enough that there are myriad ways things can end up not as intended. ...

I think there is folly in thinking something has gone wrong or using words like "as intended".

There certainly is a baseline, and there is certainly deviation from the baseline. And those deviations seem to be quite inevitable.

Yeah, I'm considering the baseline to be "as intended".

If there is any conceptual difference between a "baseline" and a Platonic Form, it isn't apparent. Do either of you know of some repeatable experiment two scientists can perform that will allow them to empirically determine who is correct in the event that they disagree with each other about what some species' "baseline" is?

The statistical method is to look at the sum total of states within the population, every member, and calculate what the modes are of the system.

As a result one will see peaks on the multidimensional graph of quanta, and their expression.

To actually identify this, someone would need to do an absurd amount of work and carefully dissect every thing in existence on a cellular or even chemical level to establish a single momentary baseline on the instantaneous shared properties of groups.

So, while it's something that can be described, I don't think it's a thing that can be done.

I don't recall any posts from Metaphor indicating he has a problem with trans people per se,

I see a lot of posts claiming gender is not real and that transmen are "women", and that transwomen are "men" coming from Metaphor.

They have a fundamental issue with demanding trans people abandon the core of their gender identity. This is "having a problem with trans people" with regards to "their gender identity expression".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In the roman world, people didn't carry cards that proclaimed them men or women, and have to identify themselves as such before leaving and going somewhere else, for the most part.

You could just go somewhere, live quietly, and nobody would ask questions about social role changes or personal representation, and generally take people at face value. For the most part. I suspect some people such as yourself existed even then.

As can be seen in documents about eastern culture, though, we can clearly see many instances of social transition. It's a common archetype throughout history.

And we have plenty of examples of women choosing to live as men to overcome discrimination even though they aren't actually trans.

So long as it is not for malicious purpose what difference does it make what gender someone presents as?

https://www.redbubble.com/i/t-shirt/It-s-a-Kilt-If-I-Wore-Underwear-It-Would-Be-a-Skirt-by-mintytees/16060308.FB110

 

[ZiprHead]

Metaphor's an atheist too; he knows it.

I don't think he does. He constantly used that phrase,"thoughts in their heads", to put down trans people. If you couldn't see it, that's your problem. Most of the rest of us here have seen it quite clearly.

 

[ZiprHead]

I’m writing this as someone who is pretty comfortable with nudity. But I’d still prefer not to encounter someone with a penis in the ladies locker room at the Y.

Our Y has individual changing rooms with showers along with the large shower room.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

All of which has nothing to do with drag shows, being transgendered, and what not. Bomb#20 and TSwizzle must mock the Downs Syndrome "trainer" on the football team bench too, belittling his actual talent.

That is correct.

That is incorrect. What I was mocking was the previous poster's implication that beauty is not in the eye of the beholder.

You were mocking what? TSwizzle's derail? Asking TSwizzle what his point was?

Mocking what I said, the "stolen valor" of objectivity. As for the derail/point bit, TSwizzle can clarify if he wants, but it looks to me like his post was neither a derail nor a mockery of the contestant -- it looks to me like his point was to criticize the beauty contest judges for choosing to pick the winner of a beauty contest by virtue signaling instead of by judging beauty, and to criticize this type of choice for the effect it has on women. Which brings us to point 2, which is...

...wait... slow down. So every other girl in that photo was a 10 to TSwizzle? I mean, you are accepting his premise that the Pageant was exclusively about looks. We know nothing of any of those people or the basis for their selection for winning whatever portions of the pageant they won. So again, what was the point? Trans won but was fat and ugly? That it has to be "virtue signaling" despite neither of you knowing a thing about the person, judges, competition, etc...

Was she valedictorian of her high school, 4.0 in college? Is her father or mother in charge of the competition? Does she do a lot of community service? Is she a lazy slob? It could be virtue signaling, it could be pageant politics, it could be because they are a great young person, quite possibly it is a mixture of things. Neither of you gives a care about who she is and what she's done, but instead what she is.

Bomb#20 and TSwizzle must mock the Downs Syndrome "trainer" on the football team bench too, belittling his actual talent.

Oh for the love of god, did you seriously analogize beauty contest performance to "actual talent"?!?

It isn't just a beauty contest anymore. Remember how liberals thought the concept was stupid and demeaning?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

... Biology is complex enough that there are myriad ways things can end up not as intended. ...

I think there is folly in thinking something has gone wrong or using words like "as intended".

There certainly is a baseline, and there is certainly deviation from the baseline. And those deviations seem to be quite inevitable.

Yeah, I'm considering the baseline to be "as intended".

If there is any conceptual difference between a "baseline" and a Platonic Form, it isn't apparent. Do either of you know of some repeatable experiment two scientists can perform that will allow them to empirically determine who is correct in the event that they disagree with each other about what some species' "baseline" is?

Yeah, its called a bell curve and measuring the distribution of gender traits. I had no idea you'd find statistics to be controversial.

 

[Toni]

I’m writing this as someone who is pretty comfortable with nudity. But I’d still prefer not to encounter someone with a penis in the ladies locker room at the Y.

Our Y has individual changing rooms with showers along with the large shower room.

And that would be enough. But can I suggest that any pre or non surgical trans woman would be very considerate to utilize such individual showers and changing rooms? I'm not certain if all gyms have such spaces but honestly they should.

 

[Politesse]

Not sure that verse of Matthew has anything to do with the contemporary concept of gender. That’s quite a stretch; like the folks saying Joan of Arc was trans or non-binary because she wore male clothes.

That's funny, because the anti-trans crowd usually has no compunctions whatsoever about imposing their binary perspective on past cultures.

 

[Toni]

Fuzzier side of the lollipop?

 

[Oleg]

I mean, why are you even here? It is just one hyperbole, one strawman, one goalpost shift after the other. You seem to be allergic to discussions in good faith.

Well, that’s what they want. I just prefer that we be specific rather than employ disingenuous euphemisms.

 

[Bomb#20]

I don't recall any posts from Metaphor indicating he has a problem with trans people per se,

I see a lot of posts claiming gender is not real and that transmen are "women", and that transwomen are "men" coming from Metaphor.

They have a fundamental issue with demanding trans people abandon the core of their gender identity. This is "having a problem with trans people" with regards to "their gender identity expression".

So does that mean if you see a post from me claiming God is not real and saying "the Chosen People" are regular folks just like you and me, and they weren't "chosen" by anyone but themselves, then you're going to claim I'm "demanding" Jews "abandon the core of their religious identity"? Are you going to write scurrilous posts about me falsely accusing me of "having a problem with Jews"? Where the bejesus do you see a post from Metaphor "demanding" trans people do anything? How the heck did you conclude that disagreeing with other people and refusing to tell them they're right amounts to a demand on them? Over and over we see this exact inference from the so-called trans allies. What happened to make progressives en masse become so bad at basic reasoning?

 

[Bomb#20]

Metaphor's an atheist too; he knows it.

I don't think he does. He constantly used that phrase,"thoughts in their heads", to put down trans people. If you couldn't see it, that's your problem. Most of the rest of us here have seen it quite clearly.

Most of the rest of you here are adherents of an ideology that trains the people it entraps to filter input through ideological blinkers, and to take for granted that unbelievers really are the cartoon characters it paints them as in order to discourage its believers from applying critical thought to arguments unbelievers make when we're trying to help believers break out from the conceptual limits it imposes on them. Being sexually attracted to other men is just a thought in Metaphor's head and he'd be the first to stipulate that it is. He constantly used that phrase, "thoughts in their heads", not to put down trans people, but to put down the ideological beliefs about trans people that gender ideologues have been trying to McCarthyize the public into believing in, or at least into keeping quiet their disbelief in.

You guys perceive that as "putting down trans people", to all appearances, because progressivism has a stack instead of having principles, and trans people outrank infidels. The commoners are expected to tug our conceptual forelocks at whatever the aristocrats tell us to believe, and if we dispute it that's an offense against progressivism's aristocratic social order. I guess pointing out that aristocrats are no better than the rest of us is "putting down aristocrats", from aristocrats' point of view. But nobody has a right to have the thoughts in his head be agreed with by the rest of us.

 

[lostone]

When I was in the Navy, visiting the Philippine Islands, back in the 1960s, we horny sailors naturally sought out the local hookers. We were told to beware of so-called 'Benny Boys', cross dressing men who did a very good job of posing as attractive women, who would rob and even sometimes kill unwary sailors when they got you alone.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Metaphor's an atheist too; he knows it.

I don't think he does. He constantly used that phrase,"thoughts in their heads", to put down trans people. If you couldn't see it, that's your problem. Most of the rest of us here have seen it quite clearly.

Most of the rest of you here are adherents of an ideology that trains the people it entraps to filter input through ideological blinkers, and to take for granted that unbelievers really are the cartoon characters it paints them as in order to discourage its believers from applying critical thought to arguments unbelievers make when we're trying to help believers break out from the conceptual limits it imposes on them.

Odd thing to say right after Oleg did exactly that.

 

[ZiprHead]

GOP Lawmakers Aim to Criminalize Drag Shows Where Children Could Be Present

Republicans in multiple states are taking aim at drag shows as inherently sexual or obscene.

www.pewtrusts.org

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — It was trivia night at Tribe, an LGBTQ club in Nashville, and drag queen Tracey Ottomey was quizzing the crowd on pop music, Christmas movies and Queen Victoria. At the same time, pop music videos — widely available on YouTube and other platforms — played on screens around the bar.

One audience member couldn’t help comparing the two forms of entertainment on offer: The music videos were “much more sexual” than the drag trivia night, he said.

Minors aren’t allowed in bars, but Republicans in multiple states are deeming drag shows as inherently sexual or obscene, pushing measures that would make it a crime to perform them anywhere children might be present.

Supporters say enacting such restrictions is just common sense, a way to ensure that kids are not exposed to material that isn’t appropriate for them. “My bill just says you can’t do sexually suggestive or explicit entertainment where kids are going to be present,” said Tennessee Senate Majority Leader Jack Johnson, a Republican and one of the most powerful elected officials in the state. “It boggles my mind that we're even having to have this conversation.”

But LGBTQ advocates say attacks on drag shows are the latest salvo in a yearslong effort by GOP legislators to marginalize them. They point to recent bans on transgender girls playing on sports teams; restrictions on classroom discussions of gender; and prohibitions on gender-confirming health care for minors, among other examples.

 

[Bomb#20]

Metaphor's an atheist too; he knows it.

I don't think he does. He constantly used that phrase,"thoughts in their heads", to put down trans people. If you couldn't see it, that's your problem. Most of the rest of us here have seen it quite clearly.

Most of the rest of you here are adherents of an ideology that trains the people it entraps to filter input through ideological blinkers, and to take for granted that unbelievers really are the cartoon characters it paints them as in order to discourage its believers from applying critical thought to arguments unbelievers make when we're trying to help believers break out from the conceptual limits it imposes on them.

Odd thing to say right after Oleg did exactly that.

I lost you. Are you arguing that since Oleg painted somebody on the pro-self-id side as a cartoon character it follows that Metaphor really is the cartoon character some posters here have painted him as? Or do you just find it odd for there to be a debate in which insulting stereotypes are used by people on both sides, because in the debates you're accustomed to one side always shows an infinitely higher level of respect for the opposition than the other side shows?

 

[Bomb#20]

...wait... slow down. So every other girl in that photo was a 10 to TSwizzle?

Um, yeah, that totally follows from what I said.

Oh for the love of god, did you seriously analogize beauty contest performance to "actual talent"?!?

It isn't just a beauty contest anymore.

Is that what Playboy said to you when you were totally reading it for the articles?

Remember how liberals thought the concept was stupid and demeaning?

I was today years old when I found out we didn't think it was stupid and demeaning anymore. So what? Different strokes for different folks.