The left eats JK Rowling over transgender comments

[Metaphor]

I used to be one of the cynical 'bisexuals are just gay' crowd.

I always leaned more toward the "bisexuals are just horny" side of things, myself.

Well, I read yesterday about 'demisexuality' - being attracted to somebody only after you get to know them - which is claimed to be an additional qualifier to gay, straight or bisexual. If anything, bisexuals make themselves out to be less horny than average. I've heard more often from bisexuals "I'm attracted to people, not genitals" as if they were somehow more spiritually enlightened than the rest of us monosexuals.

 

[Jokodo]

No. Transwomen are adult human males, therefore they are men.

You're arguing a strict "biological category."

I'm arguing that mammals cannot change sex, which is a biological fact.

The only biological purpose for an orgasm--for ejaculation--is to drive you to impregnate women. Your penis serves only one biological imperative, so if you are not sticking it in a woman's vagina, you are acting outside of your biological category in the exact same way that you are bizarrely arguing transgendered people are doing.

Every single sex act with an infertile woman, or a woman on the Pill, or a woman post menopause, or a penis with a franga on it, or a penis that is withdrawn before ejaculation, or an oral sex act, or a jerking off, is 'acting outside of your biological category' if that's what you imagine 'acting outside your biological category' to mean or why it's important to you.

I don't care if you or anybody 'acts outside your biological category' and I never have. What I do care about is the cultural and legal proscriptions trans activists have wielded to criminalise or cancel somebody who "misgenders" somebody else, to bully lesbians into having sex with men with penises who call themselves women, to invade single-sex spaces as if single-sex spaces were single-gender spaces, to give puberty blockers with unknown long-term effects to children, to make a mockery of women's and girl's sport.

There are "transwomen"--biological men with penises--who are in relationships with women--actual women, and they call themselves a lesbian couple. So when this man has penis-in-vagina sex with his girlfriend, he thinks: this is so lesbian and she thinks: this is so lesbian and they want me to think the same thing.

What a poor tortured soul you are!

 

[Metaphor]

No. Transwomen are adult human males, therefore they are men.



I'm arguing that mammals cannot change sex, which is a biological fact.



Every single sex act with an infertile woman, or a woman on the Pill, or a woman post menopause, or a penis with a franga on it, or a penis that is withdrawn before ejaculation, or an oral sex act, or a jerking off, is 'acting outside of your biological category' if that's what you imagine 'acting outside your biological category' to mean or why it's important to you.

I don't care if you or anybody 'acts outside your biological category' and I never have. What I do care about is the cultural and legal proscriptions trans activists have wielded to criminalise or cancel somebody who "misgenders" somebody else, to bully lesbians into having sex with men with penises who call themselves women, to invade single-sex spaces as if single-sex spaces were single-gender spaces, to give puberty blockers with unknown long-term effects to children, to make a mockery of women's and girl's sport.

There are "transwomen"--biological men with penises--who are in relationships with women--actual women, and they call themselves a lesbian couple. So when this man has penis-in-vagina sex with his girlfriend, he thinks: this is so lesbian and she thinks: this is so lesbian and they want me to think the same thing.

What a poor tortured soul you are!

Thank you for your contribution.

 

[Politesse]

Oh, hey!

If we're all bisexual, that solves everything!

Not true, people treat bisexuals like crap also.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Transwomen are adult human males, therefore they are men.

Repeating vacuity does not fill its void. Speaking of which, testicles serve only to impregnate women, therefore you are heterosexual.

You're arguing a strict "biological category."

I'm arguing that mammals cannot change sex, which is a biological fact.

Even among humans, you know that isn't true. All zygotes are female and change sex in utero and now, due to medical science, ex-utero.

The only biological purpose for an orgasm--for ejaculation--is to drive you to impregnate women. Your penis serves only one biological imperative, so if you are not sticking it in a woman's vagina, you are acting outside of your biological category in the exact same way that you are bizarrely arguing transgendered people are doing.

Every single sex act with an infertile woman, or a woman on the Pill, or a woman post menopause, or a penis with a franga on it, or a penis that is withdrawn before ejaculation, or an oral sex act, or a jerking off, is 'acting outside of your biological category' if that's what you imagine 'acting outside your biological category' to mean or why it's important to you.

Not ME, to you according to your own insistence of making up the idiotic "biological category" red herring.

I don't care if you or anybody 'acts outside your biological category' and I never have.

Says the heterosexual who then goes on to demonstrate the exact opposite here:

What I do care about is the cultural and legal proscriptions trans activists have wielded to criminalise or cancel somebody who "misgenders" somebody else

Hey, just like all of the anti-discrimination lawsuits gay men--sorry, biologically heterosexual men who have chosen to ignore their biological imperative--wielded for the past forty or so years.

to bully lesbians into having sex with men with penises who call themselves women

Who are these moron lesbians so easily bullied that you pretend exist?

to invade single-sex spaces as if single-sex spaces were single-gender spaces

Hey, just like gay men--sorry, biologically heterosexual men who nevertheless are attracted to other men in a sexual way--being allowed to just walk right into any of our bathrooms, locker rooms, or public showers. Emily, are you reading this? And since we know all gay men are amoral, sin-filled, deviant, pedophile rapists--said everyone legally opposing their existence for centuries--how could you possibly invade our single-sex space with your evil choices?

to give puberty blockers with unknown long-term effects to children

You mean, hormones?

to make a mockery of women's and girl's sport.

OH MY GOD!!!! NOT A MOCKERY OF WOMEN'S AND GIRL'S SPORT! How many hundreds of millions of these degenerate scumbags are trying to MOCK women's and girls' sport!!!!?????

Or is more along the lines of 0.0001%?

There are "transwomen"--biological men with penises--who are in relationships with women--actual women, and they call themselves a lesbian couple.So when this man has penis-in-vagina sex with his girlfriend, he thinks: this is so lesbian and she thinks: this is so lesbian and they want me to think the same thing.

KILL THEM ALL IMMEDIATELY AND SEND THEM BACK TO HELL WITH THE HOMOSE....

Well, thank goodness this is all just a choice and therefore all such deviants can simply choose to stay in their proper biological category.

 

[Arctish]

I used to be one of the cynical 'bisexuals are just gay' crowd.

I always leaned more toward the "bisexuals are just horny" side of things, myself.

Well, I read yesterday about 'demisexuality' - being attracted to somebody only after you get to know them - which is claimed to be an additional qualifier to gay, straight or bisexual. If anything, bisexuals make themselves out to be less horny than average. I've heard more often from bisexuals "I'm attracted to people, not genitals" as if they were somehow more spiritually enlightened than the rest of us monosexuals.

I don't know where you get the idea that when bisexuals say they are attracted to people, not genitals, they are expressing anything as snotty as that.

I know a bisexual woman who thought she was a lesbian for decades and then found herself unexpectedly attracted to a man. It was his personality that attracted her, not his secondary sexual characteristics. In fact, she confided in me she found handling a penis bewildering and secretly wished her boyfriend had a vagina.

From what I understand, when a bisexual person finds someone attractive that person's features become sexy in their view, whatever those features are - manly chest hair, wide hips, deep voice, soft cheeks, whatever.

 

[Metaphor]

Repeating vacuity does not fill its void. Speaking of which, testicles serve only to impregnate women, therefore you are heterosexual.

Haha okay luv.

Even among humans, you know that isn't true. All zygotes are female and change sex in utero and now, due to medical science, ex-utero.

No, they can't. Every single cell in a transwoman's body is XY. A transwoman does not grow ova. A transwoman takes female hormones to ape the internal chemistry of actual women. A transwoman can have his penis sliced and shaved and fashioned into a pseudovagina but it does not become a vagina.

Says the heterosexual who then goes on to demonstrate the exact opposite here:

Non. I care when I am compelled to believe and utter nonsense, or lose my livelihood and face State sanction.

Hey, just like all of the anti-discrimination lawsuits gay men--sorry, biologically heterosexual men who have chosen to ignore their biological imperative--wielded for the past forty or so years.

Show me a lawsuit brought by a gay man requiring people to pretend he is heterosexual.

Who are these moron lesbians so easily bullied that you pretend exist?

Visit any message board or website that discusses these issues.

Hey, just like gay men--sorry, biologically heterosexual men who nevertheless are attracted to other men in a sexual way--being allowed to just walk right into any of our bathrooms, locker rooms, or public showers. Emily, are you reading this? And since we know all gay men are amoral, sin-filled, deviant, pedophile rapists--said everyone legally opposing their existence for centuries--how could you possibly invade our single-sex space with your evil choices?

Because I qualify, luv.

You mean, hormones?

I mean what I wrote. Try to keep up.

OH MY GOD!!!! NOT A MOCKERY OF WOMEN'S AND GIRL'S SPORT! How many hundreds of millions of these degenerate scumbags are trying to MOCK women's and girls' sport!!!!?????

Nothing like hundreds of millions. What planet are you living on?

KILL THEM ALL IMMEDIATELY AND SEND THEM BACK TO HELL WITH THE HOMOSE....

Well, thank goodness this is all just a choice and therefore all such deviants can simply choose to stay in their proper biological category.

Kill them? You are unhinged. Seek psychiatric help.

 

[Metaphor]

I know a bisexual woman who thought she was a lesbian for decades and then found herself unexpectedly attracted to a man. It was his personality that attracted her, not his secondary sexual characteristics. In fact, she confided in me she found handling a penis bewildering and secretly wished her boyfriend had a vagina.

I don't want to tell your friend her business, but if she doesn't like dick it doesn't seem to me she's bisexual.

 

[Arctish]

I know a bisexual woman who thought she was a lesbian for decades and then found herself unexpectedly attracted to a man. It was his personality that attracted her, not his secondary sexual characteristics. In fact, she confided in me she found handling a penis bewildering and secretly wished her boyfriend had a vagina.

I don't want to tell your friend her business, but if she doesn't like dick it doesn't seem to me she's bisexual.

She was inexperienced with that body type. She knows a lot more about it now.

Anyway, there's a lot more to being attracted to a man than liking dick.

 

[Jokodo]

Haha okay luv.



No, they can't. Every single cell in a transwoman's body is XY. A transwoman does not grow ova. A transwoman takes female hormones to ape the internal chemistry of actual women. A transwoman can have his penis sliced and shaved and fashioned into a pseudovagina but it does not become a vagina.

Says the heterosexual who then goes on to demonstrate the exact opposite here:

Non. I care when I am compelled to believe and utter nonsense, or lose my livelihood and face State sanction.

Hey, just like all of the anti-discrimination lawsuits gay men--sorry, biologically heterosexual men who have chosen to ignore their biological imperative--wielded for the past forty or so years.

Show me a lawsuit brought by a gay man requiring people to pretend he is heterosexual.

Who are these moron lesbians so easily bullied that you pretend exist?

Visit any message board or website that discusses these issues.

Hey, just like gay men--sorry, biologically heterosexual men who nevertheless are attracted to other men in a sexual way--being allowed to just walk right into any of our bathrooms, locker rooms, or public showers. Emily, are you reading this? And since we know all gay men are amoral, sin-filled, deviant, pedophile rapists--said everyone legally opposing their existence for centuries--how could you possibly invade our single-sex space with your evil choices?

Because I qualify, luv.

You mean, hormones?

I mean what I wrote. Try to keep up.

OH MY GOD!!!! NOT A MOCKERY OF WOMEN'S AND GIRL'S SPORT! How many hundreds of millions of these degenerate scumbags are trying to MOCK women's and girls' sport!!!!?????

Nothing like hundreds of millions. What planet are you living on?

KILL THEM ALL IMMEDIATELY AND SEND THEM BACK TO HELL WITH THE HOMOSE....

Well, thank goodness this is all just a choice and therefore all such deviants can simply choose to stay in their proper biological category.

Kill them? You are unhinged. Seek psychiatric help.

In case you didn't notice, Koy was ironically replying to a totally unhinged post.

If only I remembered who that was by...

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Of course my rights are removed, because trans activists have commanded the power of the State to stop free speech. My friend isn't female even if he says he is. Nor would I call him white if he asked me to, because he isn't.

Which rights? If you call your friend something other than white, are you going to be arrested? If you insist that your trans-activists are not the gender (or sex) that they say they are, do you get a fine or taken to the back of the gulag?

Of course, trans activists already have extreme cultural power as well. Deadnaming is already forbidden. Wikipedia doesn't give birth names of trans-identified people, even though that is clearly historical information (it gives the birth names of anyone else, though). If somebody perceives that you have misgendered them on Twitter, you can be suspended or banned for life.

None of those are associated with any government. Should we include in your personal space the freedom to post whatever you want on Twitter and Facebook and Wikipedia without concern for any other business matter at hand? Perhaps most of the problem is that you do "news" from social platforms and misinterpret that as a limitation on your freedoms. Here's a solution: Earn as much as Amazon and HBO and donate as much to those platforms as those advertisers do and you will have all the freedom to speak your mind as they attempt to remove.

No. "Male" and "female" are biological categories, and somebody insisting they are one when they are the other may be their preference, but I do not and cannot partake in their delusion.

That's the freedom piece. No one is demanding you partake in any delusions - legally. That you (or others) suffer below average social consequences as a result of your decisions is entirely a choice of your making. It seems more-so that you prefer to say and do what you will without any consequence. I hate to break this to you, but you have never lived in that world.

What somebody does to alter their appearance and internal chemistry does not obligate me to believe something I do not believe.

Correct, no obligation.

As for "male" with "all the parts" … that does not happen. A pseudopenis doesn't look or function like a real penis. Surgery does not turn ova into sperm.

In any case, that isn't what trans activists demand. Trans activists demand that one's gender is accepted as one's sex with no surgery, no hormones, no work at all to pass as the opposite sex. Indeed, trans activists now say even gender dysphoria is not necessary for somebody to be trans, and women can use he/him pronouns if they want, and if you think there should be any bureaucratic or medical barriers at all you are truscum.

What is the sentence in Australia for truscum? Or not acquiescing to trans activists' demands?

How do you define the difference between a real problem and a perceived one? Is it a real problem if females don't want males in their changing rooms, or is that merely a perceived problem that does not need to be recognized or addressed?

Is it a problem if the facilities at a public space are based on sex and not gender? Would that pose a real problem or a perceived one?

Well I have a problem with leprechauns sitting at the end of rainbows stealing gold. But until it happens it is perceived. There is a real problem with black men getting killed by police here in the US. I don't think this danger to women in restrooms needs to reach those levels, but how often has this happened in Australia? Once? 7 times? or does it happen regularly enough to warrant protests against the transgender community?

aa

 

[Metaphor]

Which rights? If you call your friend something other than white, are you going to be arrested? If you insist that your trans-activists are not the gender (or sex) that they say they are, do you get a fine or taken to the back of the gulag?

Trans activists are not necessarily trans people. The 'trans' part is a descriptor of the focus of activism, not the trans status of the person.

I have no reason to doubt trans people are the gender they say they are, because gender is a feeling in your head. Gender is fluid, gender is a spectrum, you can be any gender or no gender at all. In that sense, I have almost zero interest in your gender, in the same way I rarely ask people what their favourite colour is.

Now, if I call a transwoman 'he', I would certainly face strong social censure. If trans activists have their way, it will also endanger my employment (it would be considered sexual harassment or hate speech). Courts already order people on the witness stand to use the preferred pronoun of a defendant. Men with penises already get allocated to women's prisons if these men are transwomen.

None of those are associated with any government. Should we include in your personal space the freedom to post whatever you want on Twitter and Facebook and Wikipedia without concern for any other business matter at hand? Perhaps most of the problem is that you do "news" from social platforms and misinterpret that as a limitation on your freedoms. Here's a solution: Earn as much as Amazon and HBO and donate as much to those platforms as those advertisers do and you will have all the freedom to speak your mind as they attempt to remove.

On the contrary, the government regulates employment and workplace relations law. But I'm not just interested in the power of the State to censure me, but also the power of non-State actors to make dissent a livelihood limiting move.

That's the freedom piece. No one is demanding you partake in any delusions - legally. That you (or others) suffer below average social consequences as a result of your decisions is entirely a choice of your making. It seems more-so that you prefer to say and do what you will without any consequence. I hate to break this to you, but you have never lived in that world.

"Below average social consequences"?

Non. I am not prepared to accept legal consequences for "misgendering". I am also appalled at the social consequences people face for truth-telling, but of course I am willing to face those consequences and try to change a culture I consider to have lost its mind.

Correct, no obligation.

Except when it becomes an obligation, as trans activists want.

What is the sentence in Australia for truscum? Or not acquiescing to trans activists' demands?

There isn't a 'sentence', because these things are not yet crimes, though Australia has precedent for criminalising free speech.

Well I have a problem with leprechauns sitting at the end of rainbows stealing gold. But until it happens it is perceived. There is a real problem with black men getting killed by police here in the US. I don't think this danger to women in restrooms needs to reach those levels, but how often has this happened in Australia? Once? 7 times? or does it happen regularly enough to warrant protests against the transgender community?

aa

Why is 'danger' the relevant variable? Why is it simply not enough to say that women's and girl's toilets are a single-sex space, and transwomen are not welcome there, for any reason or no reason at all?

 

[Bomb#20]

What belief do I have in my head that conflicts with reality?

Your penis is primarily for impregnating women via sexual intercourse. That's a biological reality.

Your penis is primarily for urination. That's a biological reality. Impregnating women via sexual intercourse is something the average penis does two or three times in seventy-odd years.

And in the final analysis, your orientation or strong preference to the contrary is essentially a belief that you hold, whatever the neurological or other explanations for it.

That's ridiculous. You sound like a Christian reacting to atheism with "How can you want God not to exist?". Why would you think beliefs and preferences are the same thing?

In other words, even though you may agree in principle that penises are, biologically, usually or mainly for sexual intercourse with women, to better ensure the survival of the species,

This is a regrettably common unscientific teleological way of thinking about evolution. Biological features do not function to better ensure the survival of the species. Better ensuring the survival of the species tends to happen as a result of evolved features, just as planets tend to grow larger as a result of gravitationally pulling in meteorites, but it would be incorrect to say planets exert gravity to grow larger.

your personal orientation/belief/strong preference can be said to be counter to that reality.

You calling yourself a man is arguably a bit like someone calling themselves a golfer because they own golf clubs even though they never use them for actually playing golf.

That's a form of argumentation you use a lot. "So, arguably and by the same token, is being gay, albeit in a slightly different way. There's a mismatch. Some might even say you're not actually, fully or properly a man.", for instance.

It's a form of argumentation that doesn't serve to help make your case. Everything is arguably true; some might say anything. The question at hand isn't whether Metaphor calling himself a man is arguably like X; the question is whether you would argue it's like X. The question isn't whether his orientation can be said to be counter to reality; the question is whether you say it's counter to reality. You appear to be trying to get some rhetorical mileage out of the circumstance that certain arguments exist even though you're hedging your bets as to whether they're sound arguments. If you think those arguments are sound, why do you distance yourself from them with "Some might even say"? Contrariwise, if you think those arguments are not sound, why do you present them at all? Some might say unreasonable things.

What 'some might say' doesn't alter the fact that I am an adult human male, and therefore, a man.

Maybe. Maybe not. Depends on what definitions are used.

I think he meant going by common usage definitions; the existence of alternate definitions isn't really germane. According to some definitions, to be a man he has to be able to keep his head when all about him are losing theirs and blaming it on him. (Come to think of it, this thread shows Metaphor's a man even by that definition.)

Or, one could hypothetically agree on a compromise and say that you are a man, but less of a man, or less fully or properly a man, than a typical straight man.

I wouldn't agree to such a one-sided "compromise". Neither would Metaphor. Would you?

 

[repoman]

Treasury is getting drained and the oligarchs are loving this divide and conquer...

Where the fuck is the the already very rare talk about poor and working class people that is not immediately prefaced with minority and immigrant? Then adding in LGBTQ as another distraction for massive income inequality.

These large oligarch owned media companies would love for this trans issue linger on for years longer. If the real economy rates an 8 on the concern scale and global warming a long term 9 this trans stuff is about a 3. It will be worked out soon anyway. But in the meantime they will have stolen all of our money!

Dammit

Anyway, I think that this newer transgender issue touches a lot more on "positive rights" than for mostly hammered out gay issues that involves more negative rights.

https://medium.com/@meholstein/a-primer-on-positive-vs-negative-rights-89d9f75b8425


Metaphor compared to global warming, social security, Blackrock having some direct influence on the Fed

https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/06/05/blackrock-is-bailing-out-its-etfs-with-fed-money-and-taxpayers-eating-losses-its-also-the-sole-manager-for-335-billion-of-federal-employees-retirement-funds/

and so on, what rating of concern do you actually give these topics? 1-10 for trans issues what is your rating?

Not trying to do a "what about", but I think you need perspective.

 

[Arctish]

Your penis is primarily for urination. That's a biological reality. Impregnating women via sexual intercourse is something the average penis does two or three times in seventy-odd years

Sorry, no.

You don't need a penis for urination. Urine comes out just fine without one.

A penis exists in order to deposit sperm in, or close to, a cervix, oviduct, or similar opening to a female reproductive organ. If it didn't do that it would serve no purpose at all.

 

[ruby sparks]

Speaking as a cis man, I don't like the idea that I should necessarily have to use a certain descriptor (eg a pronoun) for someone (including when addressing or referring to them) or face censure or some sort of punishment. In theory, it doesn't have to be about sex or gender. It could be a title for example (Mr, Mrs, Ms, Dr, etc). It could be just a name (people have preferences for different or abbreviated versions of one of their formal names for example). It could even, hypothetically, be any number of things. I think the issues will vary depending on particular types of circumstance.

In principle, I'm good with the idea that gender pronouns may refer to (be descriptors for) gender at least as much if not more than sex, rather than being only one or the other exclusively. So in principle I'm good with addressing or referring to a person as a 'he' or a 'she' if that is their actual gender.

Ok so that's pronouns.

As to other descriptors, if I, say, know (or meet) a person who has overtly transitioned (I think the word is 'passed') and for instance they have renamed themselves Angela, I am not going to insist on calling them Jim (or 'he' for that matter). Why would I do that? It seems to get trickier when I consider instances of when it's not visibly clear, when the visual cues don't match the preferred descriptors (eg when I'm talking to someone who looks like, physically is, male, but would like to be referred to as female).

As to whether a trans woman is or isn't a woman, as I've said, I'm good with trans woman, as in 'validly a woman by gender'. But I'm not in favour of people with male physiology necessarily getting to use cis women's changing rooms or competing against cis women in sports.

 

[ruby sparks]

Your penis is primarily for urination.

Er, no, as Arctish points out, it isn't, actually.

I wouldn't agree to such a one-sided "compromise". Neither would Metaphor. Would you?

It wasn't a serious suggestion, and was used only to try to make a related point.

One thing I am suggesting is that we allow as much validity to 'the feeling in a person's head' that they are a certain gender (including allowing use of words like 'he/she' and 'man/woman' for example) as we do for 'the feeling in a person's head' that they are a certain orientation. I accept that the two things are not the same.

As to beliefs, I would argue that in the end, even preferences are essentially beliefs, psychologically and philosophically-speaking (both are arguably propositional attitudes) but I realise it may be stretching a point to equate or not distinguish between them.

As to my preference for sometimes using the word 'arguably', I do that when I'm not entirely certain whether an argument, or a counter-argument, is better, although when I do it, I am leaning towards the former, yes, as in the previous sentence above.

 

[Bomb#20]

Your penis is primarily for urination. That's a biological reality. Impregnating women via sexual intercourse is something the average penis does two or three times in seventy-odd years

Sorry, no.

You don't need a penis for urination. Urine comes out just fine without one.

And in an alternate universe,

r' wrote: a car is primarily for having sex with hot women in the backseat of.

B' wrote: a car is primarily for transportation.

A' wrote: Sorry no. You don't need a car for transportation. People get around just fine without one.

Do you think the argument of A' is valid?

A penis exists in order to deposit sperm in, or close to, a cervix, oviduct, or similar opening to a female reproductive organ.

And a lung exists in order to prevent its owner from having negative buoyancy and sinking to the bottom of the sea. Do you think this implies that oxygenating its owner's blood isn't what lungs are primarily for? The reason something evolved in the first place does not automatically get to be what it's primarily used for.

If it didn't do that it would serve no purpose at all.

Why would you believe something so ridiculous? In the first place, I've often heard women complaining about the inconvenience of having to sit down to pee; some of them have even invented or purchased technological penis substitutes to make it feasible for them to pee standing up without making a mess. In the second place, have you been living under a rock, that you've never heard of masturbation? In the third place, there are more purposes in heaven and earth and other people's minds, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

And in the fourth place, what the bejesus does purpose have to do with what natural biological entities are for, anyway? What are you, a creationist? Do you think God made penises for the purpose of making women in pain bring forth children? Evolution has no purpose for anything it does. Whatever accidentally causes more of itself to exist tends to accumulate in the universe. That's all.

 

[Arctish]

And in an alternate universe,

r' wrote: a car is primarily for having sex with hot women in the backseat of.

B' wrote: a car is primarily for transportation.

A' wrote: Sorry no. You don't need a car for transportation. People get around just fine without one.

Do you think the argument of A' is valid?

Let's stick with this universe.

All one needs to pee is a urethra connecting the urinary bladder to the outside of the body. It doesn't have to go through a penis. Even having a penis doesn't mean the urethra has to go through it. Some guys have urinary tract openings on their scrotums.

A penis exists in order to deposit sperm in, or close to, a cervix, oviduct, or similar opening to a female reproductive organ.

And a lung exists in order to prevent its owner from having negative buoyancy and sinking to the bottom of the sea. Do you think this implies that oxygenating its owner's blood isn't what lungs are primarily for? The reason something evolved in the first place does not automatically get to be what it's primarily used for.

If it didn't do that it would serve no purpose at all.

Why would you believe something so ridiculous?

It's not ridiculous. It's true.

You don't need a penis to pee. Women, girls, and men who've had their penises removed (for whatever reason) urinate quite easily without one.

A penis is primarily a sex organ. It contains structures that allow it to become erect to facilitate the delivery of sperm to the uterus or oviduct or mantle cavity or whatever reproductive organ the females of the species possesses. If it didn't do that it would be a total waste of muscle tissue and blood vessels.

In the first place, I've often heard women complaining about the inconvenience of having to sit down to pee; some of them have even invented or purchased technological penis substitutes to make it feasible for them to pee standing up without making a mess.

It's easy for women to pee without making a mess. All it requires is a semi-squat or a wide legged stance. But that's not 'lady-like" so no one talks about it.***

In the second place, have you been living under a rock, that you've never heard of masturbation?

I have, and I'm glad you brought that up. You don't need a penis to masturbate. Have you ever heard of a clitoris? Not only can you masturbate with one, it's separate from the urethra so you don't need it to pee, either.

In the third place, there are more purposes in heaven and earth and other people's minds, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

And in the fourth place, what the bejesus does purpose have to do with what natural biological entities are for, anyway? What are you, a creationist? Do you think God made penises for the purpose of making women in pain bring forth children? Evolution has no purpose for anything it does. Whatever accidentally causes more of itself to exist tends to accumulate in the universe. That's all.

Hey, you guys are the ones pretending your sperm delivery systems aren't for sperm delivery.

** You should check out scene in the movie The Full Monty where one of the women uses a urinal. It's based on real events.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

This thread cracks me up at times.

A definition provided by Oxford:

The male genital organ of higher vertebrates, carrying the duct for the transfer of sperm during copulation. In humans and most other mammals it consists largely of erectile tissue and is used also for urination.

While 'used also' doesn't necessarily mean secondary, the definition certainly seems to place emphasis on it's function in reproduction.

Merriam-Webster:

a male erectile organ of copulation by which urine and semen are discharged from the body and that develops from the same embryonic mass of tissue as the clitoris

'Organ of copulation' certainly places emphasis on reproductive function.

Wikipedia opted for this introduction to the human penis:

The human penis is an external male intromittent organ that additionally serves as the urinal duct.

I'm not a believer that dictionaries (or wikipedia) are the the best tools for defining biological terms, but even some common and abridged definitions seem to focus more on the procreative aspect. Which makes sense. The human penis houses a portion of the urethra, so it ends up playing a role in expelling urine. But the urethra fulfills that role even in the absence of the penis. The form and function of a penis fits more with specialized structures selected for their function in reproduction. Even the inclusion of the urethra in the structure is at least in part due to the urethra's function in carrying sperm.

I suppose the most frequent use of penises is acting as urethra extenders. But primary function? That feels an awful lot like saying the primary function of my phones for he last two decades has been to tell time. Incidentally, with the right knowhow, some penises can be used as sundials, but no penises can be used as phones... at least not without technological augmentation.

Another notable (but not primary) function of the human penis is the ability to derail conversations.