Mississippi Passes "More Dead Kids Please" bill. Texas responds w/ "hold my beer"

[Emily Lake]

My lack of testosterone is NOT what makes me "not a man".

This is where we run into a language problem. You're only figuratively "not a man". You're still literally a man, regardless of whether you have testosterone in your system or not. You're an adult male human being - thus, from a literal sense, you are a man. Because that's the literal meaning of the term man.

Look, we use the term "stallion" figuratively all the time. We use it to refer to someone who is very masculine and aggressive, a bit wild even. That's figurative language. Humans aren't equines, therefore not a single human is literally a stallion. The only thing that is literally a stallion is an adult male equine.

 

[Emily Lake]

And every once in a while you hand the kid a book that starts with the third chapter, the kid taking blockers, that states "the rules are made up and the points don't matter. Here's the all the goals that do not generally constitute valid reasons for tinkering with hormones. These cannot be decoupled reliably in any way we know of. Also, here are some warnings. Now here's the manual on tinkering responsibly."

What "rules" are you talking about here?

Because the "rules" of how a female body responds to estrogen during puberty are entirely different from how a male body responds to estrogen... ever, regardless of whether it's during puberty or not.

 

[Emily Lake]

I would like to note that you're assuming that the differences in behavior are caused by differences in the brain...

We've been over this: the final arbiter of behavior is the brain.

Period.

All differences in behavior, every last one, is caused by a difference in the brain.

Is it your position that we must accommodate the behavior of serial killers, because their behavioral differences are a result of differences in their brain? Must we accommodate and accept the behavior of racists, because their behavioral differences are a result of differences in their brain?

I will ask again: Is this actually the end result that you're seeking? Or are you special pleading?

 

[laughing dog]

I would like to note that you're assuming that the differences in behavior are caused by differences in the brain...

We've been over this: the final arbiter of behavior is the brain.

Period.

All differences in behavior, every last one, is caused by a difference in the brain.

Is it your position that we must accommodate the behavior of serial killers, because their behavioral differences are a result of differences in their brain? Must we accommodate and accept the behavior of racists, because their behavioral differences are a result of differences in their brain?

I will ask again: Is this actually the end result that you're seeking? Or are you special pleading?

Nice use of the fallacy of the excluded middle. Really, one could pilot the largest container ship on the planet through the excluded middle of your examples.

 

[Emily Lake]

I would like to note that you're assuming that the differences in behavior are caused by differences in the brain...

We've been over this: the final arbiter of behavior is the brain.

Period.

All differences in behavior, every last one, is caused by a difference in the brain.

Is it your position that we must accommodate the behavior of serial killers, because their behavioral differences are a result of differences in their brain? Must we accommodate and accept the behavior of racists, because their behavioral differences are a result of differences in their brain?

I will ask again: Is this actually the end result that you're seeking? Or are you special pleading?

Nice use of the fallacy of the excluded middle. Really, one could pilot the largest container ship on the planet through the excluded middle of your examples.

If Jarhyn's position is "Every single difference in behavior is caused by a difference in the brain" taken in context with his position that gender identity is far more important than the material reality of sex, and therefore, we should honor and accommodate gender identity while ignoring and dismissing sex...

What exactly is the "excluded middle" of Jarhyn's position that I'm missing? How is that not acknowledged by recognizing his special pleading?

 

[laughing dog]

I would like to note that you're assuming that the differences in behavior are caused by differences in the brain...

We've been over this: the final arbiter of behavior is the brain.

Period.

All differences in behavior, every last one, is caused by a difference in the brain.

Is it your position that we must accommodate the behavior of serial killers, because their behavioral differences are a result of differences in their brain? Must we accommodate and accept the behavior of racists, because their behavioral differences are a result of differences in their brain?

I will ask again: Is this actually the end result that you're seeking? Or are you special pleading?

Nice use of the fallacy of the excluded middle. Really, one could pilot the largest container ship on the planet through the excluded middle of your examples.

If Jarhyn's position is "Every single difference in behavior is caused by a difference in the brain" taken in context with his position that gender identity is far more important than the material reality of sex, and therefore, we should honor and accommodate gender identity while ignoring and dismissing sex...

Accommodating the behavior or wishes of people who engage in non-violent social behavior because of _________ (you fill in the blank) does not imply that the behavior of violent or anti-social people should be accommodated for the same reason. Your question about serial killers or racists excludes the large middle of social peaceful behavior.

 

[Jarhyn]

I would like to note that you're assuming that the differences in behavior are caused by differences in the brain...

We've been over this: the final arbiter of behavior is the brain.

Period.

All differences in behavior, every last one, is caused by a difference in the brain.

Is it your position that we must accommodate the behavior of serial killers, because their behavioral differences are a result of differences in their brain? Must we accommodate and accept the behavior of racists, because their behavioral differences are a result of differences in their brain?

I will ask again: Is this actually the end result that you're seeking? Or are you special pleading?

Nice use of the fallacy of the excluded middle. Really, one could pilot the largest container ship on the planet through the excluded middle of your examples.

If Jarhyn's position is "Every single difference in behavior is caused by a difference in the brain" taken in context with his position that gender identity is far more important than the material reality of sex, and therefore, we should honor and accommodate gender identity while ignoring and dismissing sex...

Accommodating the behavior or wishes of people who engage in non-violent social behavior because of _________ (you fill in the blank) does not imply that the behavior of violent or anti-social people should be accommodated for the same reason. Your question about serial killers or racists excludes the large middle of social peaceful behavior.

I am starting to think Emily just believes everyone born with a dick is automagically a sociopath killer rapist.

I pointed out exactly the cases where sex matters: where sperm can easily be exposed to egg.

That isn't a behavior, it's an absolute material reality of physical security concerns.

I think it's even more fucked up, sadly, what Emily is saying. It took me a couple read-throughs to fully parse and pick out the issue here even was and it wasn't even the excluded middle.

She's actually stepping in what I think is a pure non-sequitur.

It does not follow that because I wish to see the brains of women accommodated as women, that I wish to see serial killers accommodated as people with normal thought patterns.

We have discussed the reality that there is something completely "of the brain" that causes the differences in gendered behavior, and when there is no overriding material concern (ie no sperms), this MUST be sufficient to accept someone as "across the barrier".

It is either a pure function of the brain's microstructure, a pure function of hormones, or some combination of them which must drive the actual behavioral differences, and when the hormonal differences are sorted and there are no sperms, there's no meaningful differences between a woman who was born without ovaries and without testicles, and a woman who was born without ovaries, but with testicles.

If the microstructures of the brain are the same and the hormonal pressures are same, there is no real grounds to declare them meaningfully different.

I however have plenty of grounds to declare a serial killer as meaningfully different from, for example, Emily Lake. [removed]

There are some consistent and meaningful microstructural difference between her brain and the brain of a serial killer. [removed]

It is not that all brain differences must be accommodated but rather that we must acknowledge differences in behavior derive from differences in our brains, and differences in the pressures put on our brains by chemical influences, and that when a brain shares a particular differentiation and chemical environment, that it will necessarily share a particular behavior driven by those things.

This says nothing about accepting all people because "brains". It is specifically about treating like as like, particularly as exposed by the no-ovaries/yes-testicles edge case. She simply has no argument against a little girl running track using her bathroom, unless she wants to propose the nonsensical notion of dick-brains.

 

[Jarhyn]

And every once in a while you hand the kid a book that starts with the third chapter, the kid taking blockers, that states "the rules are made up and the points don't matter. Here's the all the goals that do not generally constitute valid reasons for tinkering with hormones. These cannot be decoupled reliably in any way we know of. Also, here are some warnings. Now here's the manual on tinkering responsibly."

What "rules" are you talking about here?

Because the "rules" of how a female body responds to estrogen during puberty are entirely different from how a male body responds to estrogen... ever, regardless of whether it's during puberty or not.

Bodies are bodies, testosterone is testosterone, estrogen is estrogen, and your claim will require a great deal of evidence if you wish to take it further than the specific effect those hormones have on the development of any part of the body beyond the urogenital tract itself.

You have made a bold claim and there is a bold and deep requirement for a massive pile of evidence concerning your claims.

"The rules" are simply a reference to all of the fucked up, wrong, essentialist assumptions about who has to be what, do what, adopt whatever reason...

Boys don't have to like slugs and snails.

Girls don't have to give a flying fuck about the sugar and spice.

Girls don't need to want or have breasts.

Boys don't need to have or want flat chests.

Kids don't have to decide to be boys.

Kids don't have to decide to be girls.

Those are made up rules.

 

[Playball40]

There are sexual organs, then there is sexual identity and behavior. Some are completely obsessed over the floppy bits when our gender is seemingly more controlled by our central nervous system.

In this thread, Jimmy Higgins suggests that social gender roles and sex-based behavioral expectations are a result of our central nervous system. Jimmy thereby supports the conservative notion that women belong in the kitchen and tending babies, that's their natural role, it's what their central nervous systems make them want. And of course, real men are decision makers and leaders, because that's how their central nervous systems make them behave.

What in the hell are you talking about?

 

[Toni]

And every once in a while you hand the kid a book that starts with the third chapter, the kid taking blockers, that states "the rules are made up and the points don't matter. Here's the all the goals that do not generally constitute valid reasons for tinkering with hormones. These cannot be decoupled reliably in any way we know of. Also, here are some warnings. Now here's the manual on tinkering responsibly."

What "rules" are you talking about here?

Because the "rules" of how a female body responds to estrogen during puberty are entirely different from how a male body responds to estrogen... ever, regardless of whether it's during puberty or not.

Bodies are bodies, testosterone is testosterone, estrogen is estrogen, and your claim will require a great deal of evidence if you wish to take it further than the specific effect those hormones have on the development of any part of the body beyond the urogenital tract itself.

You have made a bold claim and there is a bold and deep requirement for a massive pile of evidence concerning your claims.

"The rules" are simply a reference to all of the fucked up, wrong, essentialist assumptions about who has to be what, do what, adopt whatever reason...

Boys don't have to like slugs and snails.

Girls don't have to give a flying fuck about the sugar and spice.

Girls don't need to want or have breasts.

Boys don't need to have or want flat chests.

Kids don't have to decide to be boys.

Kids don't have to decide to be girls.

Those are made up rules.

There is a very wide gap between societal stereotypes/expectations and biological processes that lead to secondary sex characteristics.

In almost every case, girls will develop breasts and begin to menstruate, their hips will broaden and they will begin to grow hair in their armpits and groin area.

In almost every case boys will get broader shoulders, their voices will deaden, their penis will increase in size and they will grow hair in their armpits, groin and on their face—possibly eventually on their neck and back. Their muscle mass will increase.

These things will happen unless there is significant hormonal and surgical intervention, which is desirable and necessary for some girls and for some boys. And sometimes for individuals who are neither boy nor girl.

These are typical scenarios. It is not wrong to acknowledge that these are typical developments as bodies become adult. It’s wrong to suggest that this is not the path for the vast overwhelming majority of people. It is also wrong to suggest or to enforce that this is NOT normal or natural for some individuals and that some of us may want to proceed down different paths. As all of us do, they need and deserve counseling and support, including medical support as they figure out what they want for themselves and help to achieve that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I have no problem giving that information to kids who will undoubtedly share it amongst themselves no matter what the shittier parents have to say about their kid not being given a book by the teacher.

Yup, it's going to get shared. By providing it directly you avoid most telephone errors.

 

[Jarhyn]

In almost every case, girls will develop breasts and begin to menstruate, their hips will broaden and they will begin to grow hair in their armpits and groin area.

And this is a product of hormones.

Different hormones, different result.

Emily wants to pretend that the results are unpredictable when that happens, as if there is a major difference in how bodies process those secondary sex hormones. There's not.

The one difference is that of the reproductive system and as has been discussed, that opens the door to some, but not all, of what Emily Lake might want.

People do have a right to know what will probably happen to their body if they don't do anything about it and should be told this is a normal thing, and should be aware it's an uncommon but also observed thing that some people take different routes to get to places that are harder for them to go.

Your mistake is in thinking surgical intervention is required for the majority of goals, assuming someone evaluates their intentions early, and has that opportunity.

I'm not suggesting that the path most.people.find themselves on is wrong, but because it is wrong for some people every person needs to know all the paths.

Besides, there is an important aspect of empathy here that comes from reading every chapter of that book.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There are sexual organs, then there is sexual identity and behavior. Some are completely obsessed over the floppy bits when our gender is seemingly more controlled by our central nervous system.

In this thread, Jimmy Higgins suggests that social gender roles and sex-based behavioral expectations are a result of our central nervous system. Jimmy thereby supports the conservative notion that women belong in the kitchen and tending babies, that's their natural role, it's what their central nervous systems make them want. And of course, real men are decision makers and leaders, because that's how their central nervous systems make them behave.

Curious, I didn't dick around with your positions and have tried to respond to your statements without misrepresentation.

In kind you apparently wanted to do the exact opposite. WTF?!

I wasn't intentionally dicking around with your position. I'm pointing out the logical conclusion to your position.

Quite possibly the worst conclusion one can draw. It isn't remotely related.

Suggesting that gender (the social construct of roles and expectations that are built upon sex, and which confine each sex to a limited set of behaviors and presentations) is controlled by our central nervous system, is effectively suggesting that those social constructs are built-in.

WTF?

I said our CNS defines a lot of who we are, not that there are defaults. I have expressed this more deeply throughout this thread, so it is befuddling to see how in the world you can come to the conclusion you came to.

 

[Bomb#20]

You know you just contradicted yourself, don't you?

Please attempt one more time to read the statement. "Evolved to produce" does not imply goals, just the actual product. It evolved (reproduced and mutated over generations), and the result produced, without any intent, that product.

Correct. The trouble is, Emily didn't assume evolution has goals. You accused her of assuming it has goals because she made claims about what our anatomy evolved to produce, even though, as you note, "evolved to produce" does not imply goals. That was the self-contradiction.

Every intersex person who produces both gametes "evolved to produce" both gametes.

Wrong. No intersex person who produces both gametes "evolved to produce" both gametes. Every species evolved. Every gene evolved. Individuals did not evolve.

Read my above statement to your inability to parse.

Oh for the love of god! The fact that mammals and our anatomy evolved (reproduced and mutated over generations) without any intent in no way supports your claim that "every intersex person" who produces both gametes evolved to produce both gametes. You committed a category error. You're fond of syllogisms, aren't you? Evolution is changes in genetic material over time. But a person has the same genes when he dies as when he's born. Therefore no person evolved. Every intersex person is a person. Therefore no intersex person evolved. Therefore no intersex person evolved to produce both gametes. Evolution is something that happens to populations, not to persons.

Biological elements of reality have functions even when carrying out that function is nothing's goal, simply because long ago genes that made something nonfunctional didn't reproduce and left a niche open for genes that made something functional

This is still descriptive, not prescriptive. They do what they do, they are not required to do it except by sheer momentum of what they are, the accident of their absurd configuration.

There is no prescription, no goal there, just raw behavior.

And? Where the heck did you see me prescribe? I was explaining what "evolved to produce" means, because when Emily said it you erroneously deduced goals.

And it is perfectly wysiwyg to observe that a heart's function is to pump blood.

Except that it isn't. The heart's function when connected will be contracting it's muscles. When those muscles are connected in a way, it will accomplish pumping fluid, but that has nothing to do with the function of the systems of the heart. When that system is connected to a vascular system full of blood, it will accomplish pumping blood.

But what it accomplishes and what it's function is are two different things.

Yes, they are; and its accomplishment depends on what it's connected to and its function is to pump blood. The whole reason a heart will accomplish pumping fluid when connected in the usual way is because that is the function of the systems of the heart. If the animal's ancestors had not had vascular systems full of blood that they would benefit from the pumping of, there would be no heart in the animal contracting its muscles and accomplishing pumping fluid. You cannot come up with an explanation for why the animal's heart exists in the first place without talking about the vascular systems full of blood that hearts are typically connected to, short of goddidit or some other fanciful Kiplingesque just-so-story. None of biology makes sense without evolutionary adaptation.

Normal typical objects in the abiotic world of physics do what they do because they are what they are. An ocean grinds rocks into sandy beaches because it's a viscous liquid sloshing around under the forces of wind and tide, sloshing which it would equally do whether or not there were rocks to grind. But biological objects are what they are because they do what they do. An animal has a heart only because hearts pump blood; if there were no blood to pump then no animal would have a heart. This reversal of the normal direction of causality is one of the hallmarks of biology.

Um, reducing the set of all goals to the set of ethical goals necessarily involves identifying some goal as unethical

And I have, repeatedly, discussed this boundary of what makes unethical goals unethical, namely unilateral imposition. If you want to discuss ethics in terms of goals I will,

Well then, how does unilateral imposition make an unethical goal unethical?

but this is not the thread for that. That belongs in M&P.

You don't need post a complicated discussion; this is a multiple choice question. Is the answer:

(a), if someone has the goal of preventing unilateral imposition then he ought not to unilaterally impose,

or (b), unilateral imposition categorically makes goals unethical regardless of what goals the person has?

But if you think that's too much discussion for PD, feel free to start an M&P thread and discuss the answer there.

There is no such infinite regress as you claim because the concept stops at a point of consent but again, that's a M&P topic, not a PD topic.

Why does the concept stop at a point of consent? Because you have a goal of avoiding nonconsent? Feel free to start an M&P thread and answer there.

Unilateral actions which create goal conflicts are an intrinsic characteristic of the very mechanism that brought ethics into existence: sexual reproduction

No, sexual reproduction does not inform ethics. Sexual reproduction informs solipsism.

I didn't say it informs ethics; I said it created ethics. And ethics most likely will not survive without sexual reproduction.

(That said, of course sexual reproduction informs ethics. Everything informs ethics.)

Memetic reproduction informs ethics.

And if your "No unilateral actions which create goal conflicts" meme wins the meme reproduction contest and becomes generally prevalent, the consequence will be that the genetic predisposition of humans to give a rat's ass about what's ethical will lose the gene reproduction contest, and H. sapiens will evolve into a species of sociopaths. I submit that humans becoming sociopaths is a bad outcome. Ethical memes that foreseeably bring about bad outcomes have an extra level of burden-of-proof to meet in order to deserve memetic reproduction.

You seem to be laboring under the impression that ethics is part of philosophy. Ethics is part of ethology.

 

[Jarhyn]

You accused her of assuming it has goals because she made claims about what our anatomy evolved to produce, even though, as you note, "evolved to produce" does not imply goals. That was the self-contradiction.

The assumptions ABOUT what we evolved to produce, as in assumptions "around", as in the essentialism that she imposes constantly as to what is "around" the egg.

The fact that mammals and our anatomy evolved (reproduced and mutated over generations) without any intent in no way supports your claim that "every intersex person" who produces both gametes evolved to produce both gametes

Yes it does. That is what evolution is. To say that is not is to impute intent on evolution, the idea that it totally "intended" one or the other and not the example of "both".

And? Where the heck did you see me prescribe? I was explaining what "evolved to produce" means, because when Emily said it you erroneously deduced goals

Emily deduces that the existence of some situation implies that we should leave that situation as it was without further intervention.

That implies a "correctness of goal", which itself implies a goal.

You are not going to be able to divorce her statement's ties to the Naturalistic Fallacy, because they stand on the naturalistic Fallacy.

I didn't say it informs ethics; I said it created ethics

Social darwinism is not ethics, not for anything more capable of communication than inflected grunts.

If you think sexual reproduction creates ethics, you are fairly well lost.

Why does the concept stop at a point of consent?

Because at that point, people are getting what they want.

If you are about violating people's consent, you belong in jail.

You are at this point wholesale endorsing the very core of what people call "evil".

It's nice that you took the mask off so we can all see it, and now you can focus on how everyone who sees it will counter you at every step in winning the meme reproduction game.

 

[Emily Lake]

I would like to note that you're assuming that the differences in behavior are caused by differences in the brain...

We've been over this: the final arbiter of behavior is the brain.

Period.

All differences in behavior, every last one, is caused by a difference in the brain.

Is it your position that we must accommodate the behavior of serial killers, because their behavioral differences are a result of differences in their brain? Must we accommodate and accept the behavior of racists, because their behavioral differences are a result of differences in their brain?

I will ask again: Is this actually the end result that you're seeking? Or are you special pleading?

Nice use of the fallacy of the excluded middle. Really, one could pilot the largest container ship on the planet through the excluded middle of your examples.

If Jarhyn's position is "Every single difference in behavior is caused by a difference in the brain" taken in context with his position that gender identity is far more important than the material reality of sex, and therefore, we should honor and accommodate gender identity while ignoring and dismissing sex...

Accommodating the behavior or wishes of people who engage in non-violent social behavior because of _________ (you fill in the blank) does not imply that the behavior of violent or anti-social people should be accommodated for the same reason. Your question about serial killers or racists excludes the large middle of social peaceful behavior.

Should I be required to accommodate the behavior or wishes of exhibitionists who wish to display their genitals in public? Should I be required to accommodate the behavior or wishes of a voyeur who wants to look naked women against their will?

Neither of those are "violent". And by Jarhyn's definition, those behaviors are caused by their brains... with the added implied judgement that because it's caused by their brain, it must be accommodated.

 

[Emily Lake]

We have discussed the reality that there is something completely "of the brain" that causes the differences in gendered behavior

Per Jarhyn here: Girls are just naturally suited to being submissive and to be caregivers, and to be focused on pleasing others. Boys are just naturally leaders and decision makers. This is because the brain causes gendered behavior.

... And that's why women shouldn't be allowed to be CEOs or politicians, and why they really don't need the vote, their brains just aren't suited to that kind of weighty decision making, it's just not in their nature.

Your premise is built on the sexist paradigm of "natural roles" within society, the kind of paradigm that rules the middle east.

Seriously...
Traditionalist: The women do the dishes.
Feminist: Anyone can do the dishes.
Trans Activist: Whoever does the dishes is the woman.

 

[Emily Lake]

In almost every case, girls will develop breasts and begin to menstruate, their hips will broaden and they will begin to grow hair in their armpits and groin area.

And this is a product of hormones.

Different hormones, different result.

Sure. But NOT THE SAME RESULTS FOR THE SAME HORMONES IN EVERYONE.

The effect of estrogen on a female is different from the effect of estrogen on a male. The effect of testosterone on a female is different from the effect of testosterone on a male.

Giving a pubescent female testosterone is NOT EVER going to result in her growing a penis or having wet dreams. It's also NOT EVER going to result in male ligament joins, nor is it going to make her organs more fixed in place. Giving a pubescent male estrogen is NOT EVER going to result in him starting his period and developing more lactation glands. It's also NOT EVER going to result in his pelvis widening and tilting.

Emily wants to pretend that the results are unpredictable when that happens, as if there is a major difference in how bodies process those secondary sex hormones. There's not.

I don't think they're unpredictable. I think they're entirely predictable. I also think they're largely deleterious, and that the health risks should not be underestimated or hand-waved away.

The one difference is that of the reproductive system and as has been discussed, that opens the door to some, but not all, of what Emily Lake might want.

You don't know what I want.

People do have a right to know what will probably happen to their body if they don't do anything about it and should be told this is a normal thing,

Being locked into a permanent juvenile state is NOT a normal thing.

 

[Emily Lake]

Emily deduces that the existence of some situation implies that we should leave that situation as it was without further intervention.

Absolutely false.

 

[Toni]

Evolution happens because of genetic mutations. The vast overwhelming number of mutations are deleterious: they are fatal outright or inhibit the fitness of the individual for survival and the opportunity to pass on its genes. The vast overwhelming majority of mutations are not passed on to subsequent generations.

Those mutations that are passed on to offspring confer some type of advantage, generally with respect to the environment under which the organism is living.