Gay activist calls for teen's parents to be prosecuted

[Selaphiel]

The basic problem with atheists and modern liberals is that they have no conception of nature or physis in the Aristotelian sense. The atheist is a materialist of the basest variety. For him, all the world is matter, and it is utterly immaterial (pun intended) how that matter is to be shaped and organized. Male? Female? Dog? Cat? Just as though biological lego-pieces, it's just a matter of how the basic stuff is put together.

I'm not an atheist, nor am I a materialist. The problem is that you assume a false dichotomy between Aristotelean metaphysics and materialism, as if there are not other positions. Our understanding of nature has drastically progressed since Aristotle. There are underlying assumptions behind statements like there being clear delineations between different species and genders of each species, they assume a far more static picture of the world where pre-existent forms unite with primal matter to create a thing of a particular nature. That is an antiquated understanding of nature.
Modern understanding of the relationship between species and genders of each species is one of biological continuum, there is not a clear delineation between species and sexes, at least not in the absolute sense you want. The modern understanding is one of biological continuum and emergent complexity, an evolving universe which is in far more fluctuation than the ancients ever imagined.

That does not mean that one is a reductionist materialist. It means that I recognize modern scientific knowledge that says that the world is not easily separatable into easily defined and delineated forms and natures.

 

[PureX]

If a man thinks he is a lizard, should anyone encourage his delusions by mutilating his body and using chemicals on him that would make him look like a lizard?

Or should they discourage his delusions by telling him he is crazy for thinking such nonsense?

This guy doesn't think he's a lizard. He's using his body as his own personal 'work of art'. In our culture he's free to do so if he is otherwise not a danger to himself or to others. Also, I presume he's more or less happy with his decisions (not suicidal).

So, really, this isn't analogous to the discussion at hand.

 

[Traditio]

You do know you began life as a female, right?

False.

 

[Selaphiel]

Equivocation on "naturally." Being cancerous isn't the natural/healthy state of the animal body.

How so? Cancerous cells is something you have a chance of developing due to entirely natural processes. They are no different than the other processes that take place in your body. It is not an equivocation, it is you arbitrarily using the word natural, when it is really your own subjective judgment.

 

[rexlunae]

The basic problem with atheists and modern liberals is that they have no conception of nature or physis in the Aristotelian sense.

The problem with your understanding of "nature" is that it's little more than subjective special pleading in drag. You are more than happy to tell people what's natural when it suits you, and to insist upon it binding others, but when there's something natural that you don't care for, you readily drop the pretense.

You can publish all the encyclicals you want, but that doesn't elevate your preferences to the status of natural law.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I noticed that you didn't even acknowledge my link about the XY woman.

What makes you believe an extremely rare chromosomal abnormality is useful in a discussion about gender normalcy?

 

[PureX]

I was including that in the "etc." Transgender/gender identity disorder is in the DSM?

Oh, save the snark. :nono:

You we're trying to lump homosexuality in with the disorder as if they were the same things, and they aren't. Most people who refer to themselves as 'transponders' are not homosexual. Hence, the 'snarky' response.

 

[annabenedetti]

False.

Your father's XY chromosome didn't activate until you were a couple months gestational age.

There are a number of biological, genetic reasons why a small percentage of people struggle with gender identity. Those reasons begin in the womb. Things aren't always "a certain way."

 

[rexlunae]

What makes you believe an extremely rare chromosomal abnormality is useful in a discussion about gender normalcy?

It demonstrates the necessity of the distinction between being genetically XY and being male or female. Gender is more of a phenotype than anything else.

 

[genuineoriginal]

This guy doesn't think he's a lizard. He's using his body as his own personal 'work of art'. In our culture he's free to do so if he is otherwise not a danger to himself or to others. Also, I presume he's more or less happy with his decisions (not suicidal).

So, really, this isn't analogous to the discussion at hand.

“It reminds me of that old joke- you know, a guy walks into a psychiatrist's office and says, hey doc, my brother's crazy! He thinks he's a chicken. Then the doc says, why don't you turn him in? Then the guy says, I would but I need the eggs. ”
~ Woody Allen​

 

[Traditio]

How so? Cancerous cells is something you have a chance of developing due to entirely natural processes. They are no different than the other processes that take place in your body. It is not an equivocation, it is you arbitrarily using the word natural, when it is really your own subjective judgment.

By "natural" I understand what belongs to a thing in virtue of what it is. It is natural for (at least most species of) dog to have 4 legs. It is not natural to a dog to have cancer. Whatever is natural to a thing constitutes a perfection of that thing, and if the thing lacks it, then this constitutes a defect. It is a perfection for a dog to have 4 legs, a defect for it to be missing a leg. In fact, it's precisely because cancer is a defect (and not a perfection) of the animal that medicine treats it with chemotherapy, etc.

If cancer were natural to an animal, then cancer would be a perfection, not a defect or disease. In fact, cancer disrupts the natural harmony/health of the animal. Therefore, cancer is, at least in a sense, contrary to the nature of an animal. Medicine corrects this.

 

[Traditio]

Your father's X chromosome didn't activate until you were a couple months gestational age.

There are a number of biological, genetic reasons why a small percentage of people struggle with gender identity. Those reasons begin in the womb. Things aren't always "a certain way."

Matter vs. form.

 

[PureX]

“It reminds me of that old joke- you know, a guy walks into a psychiatrist's office and says, hey doc, my brother's crazy! He thinks he's a chicken. Then the doc says, why don't you turn him in? Then the guy says, I would but I need the eggs. ”
~ Woody Allen​

Freedom includes the freedom to be crazy, (and amoral, if we choose) so long as we don't endanger ourselves or others.

 

[rexlunae]

If cancer were natural to an animal, then cancer would be a perfection, not a defect or disease. In fact, cancer disrupts the natural harmony/health of the animal. Therefore, cancer is, at least in a sense, contrary to the nature of an animal. Medicine corrects this.

SRS and HRT is likewise a "perfection" of a person with gender dysphoria. They harmonize their mental and physical genders.

 

[Selaphiel]

By "natural" I understand what belongs to a thing in virtue of what it is.

Cancer can develop in virtue of what cell division is.

You really need to open a biology book that was written after the middle ages.

Your judgments about what constitutes perfections are arbitrary in an evolutionary perspective. We aren't talking about perfections, but adaptations. What constitutes a good change is relative to the environment of the organism in question. A dog having four legs is not perfect in an absolute sense, it is an adaptation that is good relative to the environment and life of the dog.

 

[annabenedetti]

Matter vs. form.

AIS

CAH

intersex

 

[genuineoriginal]

It demonstrates the necessity of the distinction between being genetically XY and being male or female. Gender is more of a phenotype than anything else.

If it were a phenotype, I am sure there would be reports of dual sex monozygous twins being born (one male and one female).

 

[Traditio]

SRS and HRT is likewise a "perfection" of a person with gender dysphoria. They harmonize their mental and physical genders.

1. General comment: it's a good idea to write out the acronyms, at least in the first occassion in which you use them. I wasn't immediately sure what those terms meant. For anyone reading, SRS means soemthing to the effect of "surgical (gender) reassignment," and HRT means something to the effect of "hormone (gender) therapy." He's referring to snipping vs. injecting a gender-confused individual.

2. You are mistaken. There's a number of ways that I could go with this, but here are a couple of thoughts:

A. Even you would have to admit that SRS and HRT are used to treat a healthy patient. If I were to ask you if the patient is sick, you would, perhaps, say "yes" for ideological (as opposed to medical) reasons. If I ask you what the sickness is, I won't accept "he has healthy male organs" or "she has healthy female organs" as an answer. Those aren't diseases.

B. Your answer demonstrates a failure to understand nature (in the Aristotelian sense). Note, I'm not faulting you with this: this is, of course, something which is, at least nowadays, fairly obscure. For Aristotle, nature is an intrinsic principle of motion and rest. Things develop in the way that they develop because of what they are.

Dogs naturally grow with four legs. Why? Because they are dogs.

So here, you'll perhaps tell me that it is unnatural for the patient to have male or female organs.

I'll ask you: are these organs healthy or unhealthy?

You'll have to say "healthy."

Why, then, did the patient develop healthy organs of that gender?

Because the patient is of that gender.

C. Finally, your answer presupposes a Cartesian splitting of mind and body as completely separate, autonomous substances (which you, as an atheist and a materialist, cannot grant). If it be granted that the intellectual soul directly informs the body and makes it what it is, then your answer becomes unintelligible.

 

[Traditio]

AIS

CAH

intersex

With all due respect, my same answer still applies.

 

[annabenedetti]

With all due respect, my same answer still applies.

So if you were a parent and your baby was diagnosed as intersex, with ambiguous sexual organs, would you choose the sex for your baby and take the necessary surgical steps to enforce your choice?

Or would you wait to see how your child identifies over time?