Gay activist calls for teen's parents to be prosecuted

[rexlunae]

Genetically XY women don't menstruate, nor do they give birth, as they have no uterus or ovaries.

http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/androgen-insensitivity-syndrome

That is generally the case. But it appears that this woman's mutation is more unique even than ordinary androgen insensitivity. Her mutation caused what seems to be a completely ordinary female phenotype with all the bells and whistles to emerge naturally from an XY individual.

I would argue that naturally-occurring androgen insensitivity to any degree ought to refute the notion of direct genetic definition of gender. But this case appears to be the strongest yet.

 

[Traditio]

Additional thought directed at Selaphiel, rexlunae, etc:

A standard scholastic maxim: agere sequitur esse ("'to act' or 'to do' follows upon 'to be'). Every act or operation is determined by or according to the form of the operator. In other words: the way that things act or operate is conditioned by what those things are.

You will want to tell me that the gender-confused person can do or be whatever he or she wants. I'll ask: what's doing the wanting or the doing? A human being of such and such a gender.

 

[Traditio]

One further thought: Selaphiel, if you reject my arguments, you are left with the position that horses are not horses, which is, of course, a contradiction and blatant nonsense.

 

[rexlunae]

A standard scholastic maxim: agere sequitur esse ("'to act' or 'to do' follows upon 'to be'). Every act or operation is determined by or according to the form of the operator. In other words: the way that things act or operate is conditioned by what those things are.

As long as you hold to that view, you will fail to accurately describe the world as science has revealed it in the past few hundred years. Aristotelian forms aren't real. Even fundamental particles break down to a quantum description of their states. Macroscopic items like horses are similar for genetic reasons, but there is no idealize "horseness" that they aspire to.

You will want to tell me that the gender-confused person can do or be whatever he or she wants.

No. They aren't confused, and it isn't a matter of what they want.

I'll ask: what's doing the wanting or the doing? A human being of such and such a gender.

Just for the sake of argument, how do you know that a person who has a male body IS in fact male? What if they are a female form person trapped in a male body? How can you rule that you even in Aristotelian terms?

 

[rexlunae]

One further thought: Selaphiel, if you reject my arguments, you are left with the position that horses are not horses, which is, of course, a contradiction and blatant nonsense.

No, that's just you not understanding how language works. Language generalizes.

 

[Traditio]

As long as you hold to that view, you will fail to accurately describe the world as science has revealed it in the past few hundred years. Aristotelian forms aren't real. Even fundamental particles break down to a quantum description of their states. Macroscopic items like horses are similar for genetic reasons, but there is no idealize "horseness" that they aspire to.

Did you read my "long" answer to Selaphiel? Post number 118?

I'm wondering whether you are, perhaps, working on a mistaken view of what an "Aristotelian form" is?

What I am saying is pretty common sense. To say something similar: In any description: "F is doing y," a description of F necessarily precedes any description of the y that F is doing, and the description of F must be open to the doing of y. For example, fire isn't the sort of thing to cause things to freeze.

Just for the sake of argument, how do you know that a person who has a male body IS in fact male? What if they are a female form person trapped in a male body? How can you rule that you even in Aristotelian terms?

Aristotle's account of soul (see especially De Anima I and II) was tailor-made to rule out the "x soul trapped in a y body" account, as he understood people like Pythagoras and Plato to be espousing it. He expressedly attacks the view that any kind of soul can go into any kind of body. If it be granted that the soul directly informs the body, and a body is a living body of such and such a kind because of the soul that it has, then the aforementioned view necessarily is ruled out. Whatever formal actuality the body has is received from its substantial form, which is the soul.

In another words, males have male bodies because they're male. Females have female bodies because they're female.

It's really that simple.

 

[Traditio]

No, that's just you not understanding how language works. Language generalizes.

With or without a basis in reality? If you say "with," then you grant my point. If you say "without," then all language is vacuous and false. If you actually believe the latter, then you probably shouldn't talk. Ever.

 

[rexlunae]

Did you read my "long" answer to Selaphiel? Post number 118?

I did.

I'm wondering whether you are, perhaps, working on a mistaken view of what an "Aristotelian form" is?

Well, perhaps. I'm mostly working from the Traditio-en metaphysical model.

The universal comes later. The universal is based on the recognition that different individuals really are alike each other, independently of our cognition. Note, this is not the same as saying that x, y and z really share in some F. No, I don't think that. That's one of the big points about St. Thomas' doctrine of the analogy of being. Every instance of being is unique. The horseness of this horse is the horseness of this horse. It's not "shared in common," as a reality, with any other horse. This is why your objections really don't affect my position. I was already presupposing that each horse is unique. As St. Thomas says in the De Ente et Essentia (On Being and Essence), "there is nothing common in Socrates. Everything in him is individual."

What you're describing is not "horseness" at all, but rather horseness[this one] or horseness[that one]. Which in turn undercuts your earlier reasoning about maleness[all of them] or femaleness[every one]. If you allow forms to be completely individual, you must simultaneously grant the possibility of difference in any given instance. Universals then must be descriptive, not proscriptive, and thus susceptible to error and potential correction. The fact that you have identified something as a horse doesn't mean that you won't later be proven wrong.

What I am saying is pretty common sense. To say something similar: In any description: "F is doing y," a description of F necessarily precedes any description of the y that F is doing, and the description of F must be open to the doing of y. For example, fire isn't the sort of thing to cause things to freeze.

And likewise, a swan isn't the sort of thing that could be black.

Aristotle's account of soul (see especially De Anima I and II) was tailor-made to rule out the "x soul trapped in a y body" account, as he understood people like Pythagoras and Plato to be espousing it. He expressedly attacks the view that any kind of soul can go into any kind of body. If it be granted that the soul directly informs the body, and a body is a living body of such and such a kind because of the soul that it has, then the aforementioned view necessarily is ruled out. Whatever formal actuality the body has is received from its substantial form, which is the soul.

Explain to me again, then, how it is that cancer is bad. You think hylomorphism abolishes the possibility of a discrepancy between mind and body? Then explain how some things are allowed to be considered "bad" and others are mandatory.

In another words, males have male bodies because they're male. Females have female bodies because they're female.

It's really that simple.

And cancerous people have cancerous bodies. That's simple too.

 

[rexlunae]

With or without a basis in reality? If you say "with," then you grant my point.

I would say "with" without granting your point.

If you say "without," then all language is vacuous and false. If you actually believe the latter, then you probably shouldn't talk. Ever.

Well, good thing I avoided that dichotomy then, huh?

 

[Traditio]

I would say "with" without granting your point.

That's impossible. If the universality of language has a basis in reality, it's only in and through the fact that the terms truly and equally designate different like individuals. "Horse" refers to x, y and z, each of which equally and truly is a horse.

 

[rexlunae]

That's impossible.

No, quite possible. I just did it. Look back if you don't believe me.

Language draws generalizations from a whole bunch of examples. That's its basis in reality. But it is also an imperfect process prone to error.

If the universality of language has a basis in reality, it's only in and through the fact that the terms truly and equally designate different like individuals.

Language isn't universal, but it is reality-based. It is consensus-driven.

"Horse" refers to x, y and z, each of which equally and truly is a horse.

You yourself abolished the notion that there is a form called "horse". Forms are individual, remember? "Horse", then, is a generalization drawn from encountering many individuals and noticing similarities between them.

 

[drbrumley]

And yet, if you were diagnosed with cancer, I'd bet you would go in for chemotherapy. Or at least you probably wouldn't disparage others for doing so.

I would....does more harm than good.

 

[annabenedetti]

I'm

I would....does more harm than good.

I have a friend and a neighbor who underwent chemo in the last year. Both have regained their hair and their health for at least the near future, since one of them has a cancer that's considered incurable and he can only go from one remission to another. But they both look good, are in good spirits and I couldn't imagine disparaging either for making the decisions that they thought best for themselves when faced with a life-threatening disease. Every cancer patient's situation is personal and for some chemo may make their remaining days miserable and I wouldn't disparage someone for choosing not to have it or to stop treatment either.

 

[resodko]

One further thought: Selaphiel, if you reject my arguments, you are left with the position that horses are not horses, which is, of course, a contradiction and blatant nonsense.

is this a horse?

'cause it used to be :idunno:

 

[GFR7]

is this a horse?

'cause it used to be :idunno:

:chuckle: :chuckle: