The Republican War on Transgender People, Drag Queens, and Queerness in General

[Murphy]

What would be your favourite Red State to move to when Europe falls @mixed_biscuits ?

 

[Murphy]

Utah @mixed_biscuits ?

Mississippi @mixed_biscuits ?

Florida @mixed_biscuits ?

Wyoming @mixed_biscuits ?

South Dakota @mixed_biscuits ?

(hint - whether they’d accept your reasons for wearing heels as a being vertiginously challenged, dunno, moot point for Dept of Homeland Security questioning personnel)

 

[?!..!?]

At this point we're acting out a farce. Think of bees, ants, cows, crows, magpies, apes. What is the presumably theological reason you have for humans qualitative difference from the animal kingdom within which he has evolved.

Ok you've changed my mind. Non-human animals do have genders, cultures, and societies. None of this changes the fact that a species of animal is not itself a gender. You yourself said gender categories apply to non-human animals. If a non-human animal such as a guinea pig is itself a gender, as you claimed, then a guinea pig can not have a gender, since a gender cannot have a gender. The notion of second-order genders is non-sense. But you claimed guinea pigs do have genders. So "guinea pig" does not refer to a gender category.

Language is a socially constructed web of meaning that means through comparison and difference (see Saussure and Derrida).

Of course Judith Butler, one of Derrida's greatest followers, knew this! I've probably read more Derrida than you.

There is no meaningful private language. You may have non-limguistic sensations but you are expressing them through a social language...

Right and what I'm saying is "I identify as a feminine man." Other people can understand what it means for me to be a feminine man. So I can express the feeling of my gender in very public language. My argument requires no appeal to private language.

The issue again, is that we are discussing my authentic gender, not my true gender. There is no such thing as a true or false gender. There is only my authentic gender, the gender I feel most truly expresses my identity. I might change my mind about what my authentic gender is, but that's on me to stay true to myself. We need to trust the experiences other have of their own gender identities.

I find your distrust of trans experience morally feeble.

why are you choosing one label for a sensation rather than another?

Because I feel that way. Put it this way, how do you know you're a man? If other people know your gender better than you do, why don't we all just start calling you trans? If you don't appeal to an authentic experience of your gender, then I might know you're trans better than you do.

And how can you be sure that you know what it feels like to be X?

Because only I can know what it feels like to be my gender. No one can tell me what it feels like for me to be a man. First-person experience must ground our gender identifications. That's definitional.

After all, you contend that people can be wholly mistaken in identifying their feelings in the cases of otherkin and transethnicism.

Right, and I explained why. There's no need for me to apply the same logic to race and species of animal. The fact that you think there is seems to me to show you're trolling.

 

[?!..!?]

Was Jesus a Male Lesbian? I think so.

 

[?!..!?]

@malelesbian on your last point, you seem to be content as long as you can give an administrative rule to deal with superficial social interactions i.e. to construct an etiquette. But in doing so you restrict your definitions to a surface level also: knowledge can only be conscious, the person does not include their unconscious (our thinking is mainly unconscious), and you also have yet another inconsistency as a result.

First, I don't see how the unconscious is relevant to the current discussion.
Second, I see no inconsistency in my argument.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Ok you've changed my mind. Non-human animals do have genders, cultures, and societies. None of this changes the fact that a species of animal is not itself a gender. You yourself said gender categories apply to non-human animals. If a non-human animal such as a guinea pig is itself a gender, as you claimed, then a guinea pig can not have a gender, since a gender cannot have a gender. The notion of second-order genders is non-sense. But you claimed guinea pigs do have genders. So "guinea pig" does not refer to a gender category.

Otherkin is not a gender obviously but the formal structure of the sex/gender pair can apply to other pairs.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Because I feel that way. Put it this way, how do you know you're a man? If other people know your gender better than you do, why don't we all just start calling you trans? If you don't appeal to an authentic experience of your gender, then I might know you're trans better than you do.

I don't feel like a man. How could I possibly feel otherwise? Could you describe what it feels like not to be what you are? You can't because that would still be from the position of being what you are. All that you're doing is ascribing certain sensations as being feminine from external cultural cues. I might feel like running after a ball sometimes but I'm not thereby a dog. By the way, I'm arguing within your framework here; within the dualist framework the situation is different but you can't consider that framework so I'm sticking to your premises most of the time.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Because only I can know what it feels like to be my gender. No one can tell me what it feels like for me to be a man. First-person experience must ground our gender identifications. That's definitional.

So when you don't have conscious experience you don't at those moments have a gender, presumably...when you're asleep, when your mind has wandered, in fact when you're not introspecting on the matter of identity...so that would be most of the time you have a sex but not a gender.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Right, and I explained why. There's no need for me to apply the same logic to race and species of animal. The fact that you think there is seems to me to show you're trolling.

You're right, there's no need for you to apply any logic to anything if what you're actually doing is just optimising for etiquette within your social circle. But dogmatic matters of etiquette are not convincing to people outside of that circle.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Was Jesus a Male Lesbian? I think so.

He identified as son of God and presumably you are obliged to agree!

 

[mixed_biscuits]

First, I don't see how the unconscious is relevant to the current discussion.
Second, I see no inconsistency in my argument.

The problem for your argument is that, as one's unconscious thoughts and feelings are part of one's personality, that one can identify without being consciously aware of it...you already have a sceptical attitude to most identifications; this further degrades the confidence that you should have in anybody's statements.

Another big problem with your selectively trusting attitude to others' statements is that you assume they are telling the truth, in that what they consciously believe is what they are telling you.

 

[Murphy]

when you're asleep

 

[?!..!?]

This one's a real juicy one, guy, meant to be savored, flavorful.

Otherkin is not a gender obviously but the formal structure of the sex/gender pair can apply to other pairs.

Why should it? I hate to draw on analytic philosophy, but it's called a "category error", dude. Why would you transpose the logic of a binary pair to a second pair when the logic of the first is unique to that pair? You still don't understand: you talk about the unconscious, but the male lesbian hides away in the cultural unconscious! Would that we reach the day where you understand the collective unconscious (I haven't yet read Jung's essay on the collective unconscious.)

I don't feel like a man. How could I possibly feel otherwise?

You could be a transwoman. You can't deny that this is true in atleast one possible world LMAO.

Could you describe what it feels like not to be what you are?

Yes, dude, that's what closeted queer people do everyday. They hide their true identity using stealth. You have the luxury of being accepted for who you are in public, you should cherish that Mr. Straight (Cishetero?) Man.

You can't because that would still be from the position of being what you are.

LOL Yes this is why we should be authentic, meaning true to ourselves.

All that you're doing is ascribing certain sensations as being feminine from external cultural cues.

Right but unfortunately for you that means my theory does have empirical content. Your essentialism lacks empirical evidence, and indeed I have identified some counter examples that support my anti-essentialism. Do not try to hide from the fact that essentialism is so outdated that it is literally ancient: the main essentialist was Aristotle, and just about everyone after Darwin knew essentialism about species was wrong.

I might feel like running after a ball sometimes but I'm not thereby a dog.

Right, because behavior can't define the species of animal you are. But behavior does define your gender. So, yes, following Iris Marion Young, "throwing like a girl" can be a definitive part of being a girl, depending on the girl.
But just because I throw like a girl doesn't mean I'm a girl, I'm still a man because I identify as a femboy.

So when you don't have conscious experience you don't at those moments have a gender, presumably...when you're asleep, when your mind has wandered,

LMAO you don't understand what the unconscious is.
Did you know I'm a Freud scholar as well? I believe Freud was a great literary philosopher and I have read nearly 2000 pages of Freud. Currently I am reading the Interpretation of Dreams for my own sinister purposes.

in fact when you're not introspecting on the matter of identity...so that would be most of the time you have a sex but not a gender.

This claim is even worse. No one said you have to reflect on your identity to persist as a member of your gender! Lol, you persist as a man for as long as you act like a man...And as a...cishet man...I'm sure you'll agree that you constantly act like a man, right? You never act feminine or gay... nudge nudge, wink wink...
Atleast with me you know I'll always act like a femboy!

You're right, there's no need for you to apply any logic to anything if what you're actually doing is just optimising for etiquette within your social circle. But dogmatic matters of etiquette are not convincing to people outside of that circle.

Your confusing norms with mores which I suppose is why you think I'm talking about ettiquette.
I'm actually talking about the behaviors that define your gender.
The things you must do to be a man. You must pick one, but you can't do what woman do. Such is the norm for being a cishet man.
Or is it?
What if there was another way?
A sissier way....
A way that would avoid the pesky overgeneralization that all men and women are the same which characterizes essentialism....
And there is an alternative
It's called male lesbianism mothafucka
I can refute Jordan Peterson in my sleep (when I dream)

The problem for your argument is that, as one's unconscious thoughts and feelings are part of one's personality, that one can identify without being consciously aware of it...

This makes no sense. It totally ignores the obvious empirical fact that gender is performative, meaning when I identify as a man, that very much does count as an act that defines me as a man. Obviously there are many more manly traits I could perform, but the point is that an identification is a public utterance, a speech act. And that turns out to be one of the minimal speech acts we must perform in order to be whatever gender we are. There's no such thing as an unconscious speech act.
More evidence you don't know what the unconscious actually is.

you already have a sceptical attitude to most identifications;

I'm naive as fuck when it comes to identifications. I trust everybody. If a person wants to change their gender, that's their business.

Another big problem with your selectively trusting attitude to others' statements is that you assume they are telling the truth, in that what they consciously believe is what they are telling you.

Nope, I'm not selective at all. I trust everyone's gender identifications, because learned many years ago other people have no right to tell you what your gender is. Be whoever you want to be, when it comes to gender and gender alone.
Furthermore, the process of figuring out whether or not a person is lying about their gender is of no interest to me. Who cares? An individual's gender is their own personal lifestyle in and perspective on the world, who are you or anyone else to delegitimize that?
Are you sure your assumption that people identify as queers inauthentically doesn't cover so few people as to be so unimportant such that your very interest in the topic shows a basic lack of empathy for others that I characterize as toxic masculinity. But that's none of my business.

On your continual misunderstanding of the unconscious (Butler is a Lacanian, remember, she knows more about the unconscious than both of us), I will leave my audience here to ponder what in the world it means for a belief to be unconscious. Like an atheist acts like they believe in God? How? They go to church? How do you know they don't just do it for the feeling of collectivity.
But even if we accept that people CAN have unconscious beliefs....
...what in the world would it mean for me to an identify as a man while holding the unconscious belief that I am a woman and not being in the closet (because for a person in the closet, their mind state about the closet is VERY conscious)?
The only person who doesn't believe they are the gender they identify as are people who fall for transphobes like YOUUUUUUUU (Soulja Boy Voice.)
!

By the way, I'm arguing within your framework here; within the dualist framework the situation is different but you can't consider that framework so I'm sticking to your premises most of the time.

Bruh, do not try to argue dualism with me. I will roast you when it comes to Descartes. I know that guy up and down. Every 20th century philosopher knows dualism is wrong except Sartre for idiosyncratic reasons. Butler and I know that Heideggerian anti-representational anti-dualism beats dualism anyday!

He identified as son of God and presumably you are obliged to agree!

Actually I believe he literally identified as a "son of man", but yes I am obligated to agree.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Why should it? I hate to draw on analytic philosophy, but it's called a "category error", dude. Why would you transpose the logic of a binary pair to a second pair when the logic of the first is unique to that pair? You still don't understand: you talk about the unconscious, but the male lesbian hides away in the cultural unconscious! Would that we reach the day where you understand the collective unconscious (I haven't yet read Jung's essay on the collective unconscious.)

You're going to have to show why it's unique rather than just assert it.

Yes, dude, that's what closeted queer people do everyday. They hide their true identity using stealth. You have the luxury of being accepted for who you are in public, you should cherish that Mr. Straight (Cishetero?) Man.

The case of closeted queer people is different: they don't feel that they're not what they are; they are just hiding something about them from other people. To make that equivalent to trans one would have a situation in which closeted queer people say that they feel they were born into the wrong sexual orientation.

LOL Yes this is why we should be authentic, meaning true to ourselves.

Again, here you are referring to public presentation...what I want you to justify from your premises (which I can justify through past experiences remembered by reincarnation) is the feeling of being mismatched with one's own self regardless of any social aspects.

Right but unfortunately for you that means my theory does have empirical content. Your essentialism lacks empirical evidence, and indeed I have identified some counter examples that support my anti-essentialism. Do not try to hide from the fact that essentialism is so outdated that it is literally ancient: the main essentialist was Aristotle, and just about everyone after Darwin knew essentialism about species was wrong.

If you're against species essentialism why are you so suspicious of otherkin? Surely the only quibble you would have with otherkin is the 'other' prefix that implies a definitive interspecies gap.

Your use of feminine is still essentialist. If women didn't exist or if all women identified as male then how would you describe these feelings that you take to be ill-fitting?

Right, because behavior can't define the species of animal you are. But behavior does define your gender. So, yes, following Iris Marion Young, "throwing like a girl" can be a definitive part of being a girl, depending on the girl.
But just because I throw like a girl doesn't mean I'm a girl, I'm still a man because I identify as a femboy.

There is no good reason to bar other ontological forms from having a culturally mediated form; this is the whole logic behind otherkin, part of the progressive canon. You can be less progressive if you want to but don't expect to hold everyone else back with you.

LMAO you don't understand what the unconscious is.
Did you know I'm a Freud scholar as well? I believe Freud was a great literary philosopher and I have read nearly 2000 pages of Freud. Currently I am reading the Interpretation of Dreams for my own sinister purposes.

That doesn't address my point at all. You had said earlier that gender is only realised in the moment of self-identification. Some companies are giving their employees two lanyards to account for gender identifications that alternate unpredictably even within the span of 8 hours at work. In this case they are redolent of 'moods'. It is plausible to surmise that the person with a changing identity is more sure of their current identity on questioning themselves than they were of it some moments beforehand. Therefore, they can be said to be more clearly gendered at some points than at others.

This claim is even worse. No one said you have to reflect on your identity to persist as a member of your gender! Lol, you persist as a man for as long as you act like a man...And as a...cishet man...I'm sure you'll agree that you constantly act like a man, right? You never act feminine or gay... nudge nudge, wink wink...
Atleast with me you know I'll always act like a femboy!

LOL There is no such thing as acting like a man, woman, straight or gay as there is no one action which is the exclusive preserve of one of those categories (as long as the physical body does not constrain any of those identities).

Your confusing norms with mores which I suppose is why you think I'm talking about ettiquette.
I'm actually talking about the behaviors that define your gender.
The things you must do to be a man. You must pick one, but you can't do what woman do. Such is the norm for being a cishet man.
Or is it?
What if there was another way?
A sissier way....
A way that would avoid the pesky overgeneralization that all men and women are the same which characterizes essentialism....
And there is an alternative
It's called male lesbianism mothafucka
I can refute Jordan Peterson in my sleep (when I dream)

LOL Essentialist positions don't normally say that men and women are all the same; they say the opposite! That's why Simon Baron Cohen's book extrapolating autism from sex differences is called The Essential Difference!

This makes no sense. It totally ignores the obvious empirical fact that gender is performative, meaning when I identify as a man, that very much does count as an act that defines me as a man. Obviously there are many more manly traits I could perform, but the point is that an identification is a public utterance, a speech act. And that turns out to be one of the minimal speech acts we must perform in order to be whatever gender we are. There's no such thing as an unconscious speech act.
More evidence you don't know what the unconscious actually is.

a) some people can't make speech acts
b) the unconscious still performs, influencing both behaviour and identification. It is the ever-present substratum for everything that we do.

By your lights the common expression 'to come out as trans' makes no sense, as before the moment of identification there would have been no trans identity.

I'm naive as fuck when it comes to identifications. I trust everybody. If a person wants to change their gender, that's their business.

And yet you would accept only one of these identifications, perhaps none of them because in rejecting the others you would presume the person to be susceptible to delusory thinking.

Nope, I'm not selective at all. I trust everyone's gender identifications, because learned many years ago other people have no right to tell you what your gender is. Be whoever you want to be, when it comes to gender and gender alone.
Furthermore, the process of figuring out whether or not a person is lying about their gender is of no interest to me. Who cares? An individual's gender is their own personal lifestyle in and perspective on the world, who are you or anyone else to delegitimize that?
Are you sure your assumption that people identify as queers inauthentically doesn't cover so few people as to be so unimportant such that your very interest in the topic shows a basic lack of empathy for others that I characterize as toxic masculinity. But that's none of my business.

You are contradicting yourself because you had elsewhere said that the gender identification is a speech act and unless the speech act is equivocal there can be no mismatch.

On your continual misunderstanding of the unconscious (Butler is a Lacanian, remember, she knows more about the unconscious than both of us), I will leave my audience here to ponder what in the world it means for a belief to be unconscious. Like an atheist acts like they believe in God? How? They go to church? How do you know they don't just do it for the feeling of collectivity.
But even if we accept that people CAN have unconscious beliefs....
...what in the world would it mean for me to an identify as a man while holding the unconscious belief that I am a woman and not being in the closet (because for a person in the closet, their mind state about the closet is VERY conscious)?
The only person who doesn't believe they are the gender they identify as are people who fall for transphobes like YOUUUUUUUU (Soulja Boy Voice.)

Have you heard of the implicit bias test? This demonstrates that people can be racist unconsciously - there are subconscious processes running which affect their perception, thinking and behaviour and of which they are not consciously aware. For instance, most people consciously claim that they are not racist but everyone fails the test.

Bruh, do not try to argue dualism with me. I will roast you when it comes to Descartes. I know that guy up and down. Every 20th century philosopher knows dualism is wrong except Sartre for idiosyncratic reasons. Butler and I know that Heideggerian anti-representational anti-dualism beats dualism anyday!

When it comes to controverting things like this showing is far more effective than telling.

Actually I believe he literally identified as a "son of man", but yes I am obligated to agree.

But being divine is not a gender!

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

Never heard anyone sincerely saying 'cis' in real life but I reckon I'd find it hard not to burst out laughing if I did.

ladies and gentleman, here we are faced with a typical representation of the truly uncouth bourgeois democrat. someone with the hubris to assume that not only are his opinions worth having, not only that they matter and are consequential, but even more ignominiously, are actually worth sharing as the profound insight of the product of genius.

it's just the blithe ignorance and total lack of basic empathy that define TERFs, or GCs or whatever name they want to call themselves

for people whose social media bios almost invariably list bullshit like "reality enthusiast" or whatever they almost always practice intense selective blindness

"I'd treat any person or organization that practices inclusivity with derision based on my intense bigoted beliefs" like cool man no one cares

it's the same thing as when rando RW bros on Twitter say "you'll always be a man" in response to literally anything any trans woman posts. like cool man, you think the 8000th time is going to be the charm? the cruelty is the point

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

I saw a tweet a couple weeks ago actually about the amount of casual cruelty not only trans people but anyone who doesn't conform to the gender binary is just expected to endure on a daily basis, a problem that has only become worse as rampant transphobia as expanded the reach of transvestigators both online and irl to basically anyone for anything (literally - you can find these idiots transvestigating everyone from Margot Robbie to Taylor Swift to fucking Andre the Giant) and it's leading to irl violence against not just trans people but any cis woman some Pizzagate type idiot thinks is insufficiently feminine. but yeah the random cruelty people are supposed to just endure for not meeting arbitrary gender norms cannot be underestimated.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

I just visit the thread to see if anyone else has anything to say. Once biscuits linked Alex Byrne and Helen Joyce as "evidence", what little interest I had in their argument dissipated completely.

anyway subvert is correct

I may stop by here occasionally if there's some overwhelming piece of news but like, half the U.S. is stripping trans people of rights at breakneck speed, I could not care less about biscuit's stupid otherkin bullshit or whatever

 

[?!..!?]

You're going to have to show why it's unique rather than just assert it.

No, the burden of proof falls on you to show why the logic of one binary pair should apply to other pairs.

You're defending the classically bigoted slippery slope argument against queers. I goes like this: first we accept queers, then we accept animals. It almost always goes to beastiality. It's a plainly fallacious argument that only bigots defend.

The case of closeted queer people is different: they don't feel that they're not what they are; they are just hiding something about them from other people. To make that equivalent to trans one would have a situation in which closeted queer people say that they feel they were born into the wrong sexual orientation.

That people feel different from their authentic identities just means they want to change themselves to be more like the person they want to be. So yes, just about everyone does feel that their actual self differs from they person they want to be. But this is even worse for transfolk. A transwoman doesn't want to be a woman, she is a woman, it's just her actual body differs from her the body she feels would display her authentic self (no dualism needed to make this claim). People want to change to improve themselves. But then again you never seem to change.

Also, lots of straight women feel they were born into the wrong sexual orientation LOL.

Again, here you are referring to public presentation...what I want you to justify from your premises (which I can justify through past experiences remembered by reincarnation) is the feeling of being mismatched with one's own self regardless of any social aspects.

Why do I need to do this? I am a social constructionist culture theorist. Literally none of the feelings I discuss can be understood independent of any social aspects. What would even be the point of discussing non-social human feelings? For you, even an ant's feeling are social in relation to ant society. So even the natural sciences wouldn't understand any feelings as independent of any social aspects. Furthermore, I do culture theory, not natural science. I don't need to maintain the same level of disinterest a natural scientist does. Humans interest humans. That's an undeniable fact.

If you're against species essentialism why are you so suspicious of otherkin? Surely the only quibble you would have with otherkin is the 'other' prefix that implies a definitive interspecies gap.

No, see, like just about every biologist, I maintain that we can make distinguish between multiple species while still affirming species anti-essentialism. No one ever said that an animal could change species during its lifetime. Nor did any biologist ever say a person could be born in the wrong species. You're the one rejecting natural science here.

Your use of feminine is still essentialist. If women didn't exist or if all women identified as male then how would you describe these feelings that you take to be ill-fitting?

I see no reason for me to entertain your conceivability argument based on an imaginary hypothetical. My argument concerns the actual empirical world. Not some fantasy-land where no women exist.

There is no good reason to bar other ontological forms from having a culturally mediated form; this is the whole logic behind otherkin, part of the progressive canon.

But this is exactly my point: even biological sex does have a culturally mediated form. All knowledge is culturally mediated in the sense that all knowledge is conceptually mediated. Humans think up concepts and so all concepts are in that way cultural, in other words, human-made. But the fact that human-made concepts mediate our natural scientific biological knowledge makes biology no less natural. For in my view, natural knowledge is just knowledge concerning entities of non-human origin.

But the fact that we use concepts to understand non-human animals in no way allows for humans to be born in the wrong species of animal. That sort of thing doesn't happen in science.

Why do you even think cultural mediation supports otherkin? It's very unclear.

You had said earlier that gender is only realised in the moment of self-identification.

Incorrect. Again, I said only that we should respect each and every person's self-identification as their gender for MORAL, NON-ONTOLOGICAL reasons. I never made any claim about metaphysical realization. My behavior realizes my gender, if anything does.

Some companies are giving their employees two lanyards to account for gender identifications that alternate unpredictably even within the span of 8 hours at work. In this case they are redolent of 'moods'. It is plausible to surmise that the person with a changing identity is more sure of their current identity on questioning themselves than they were of it some moments beforehand. Therefore, they can be said to be more clearly gendered at some points than at others.

No, they just have clearer knowledge of their gender at some point than others. On an ontological level, a person's gender cannot vary by degrees.

LOL There is no such thing as acting like a man, woman, straight or gay as there is no one action which is the exclusive preserve of one of those categories (as long as the physical body does not constrain any of those identities).

But doesn't gay sex count as acting gay? Also, now you're denying that behavior defines gender at all, despite having agreed with me about this earlier. If I can't act like a man, then being a man just means having a male sex, so you've reduced gender to sex and thus denied they distinct existence of gender.

LOL Essentialist positions don't normally say that men and women are all the same; they say the opposite! That's why Simon Baron Cohen's book extrapolating autism from sex differences is called The Essential Difference!

You misread me. I said that essentialism claims that all men are the same in that they all share atleast one essential property, and all women share the same womanly essence too.

a) some people can't make speech acts

...I cannot imagine a scenario in which a functional human being would be incapable of identifying their own gender.

b) the unconscious still performs, influencing both behaviour and identification. It is the ever-present substratum for everything that we do.

Right but why does this matter to the current discussion?

By your lights the common expression 'to come out as trans' makes no sense, as before the moment of identification there would have been no trans identity.

Nope! For a trans-person to come out as trans they would have to have self-identified as cis earlier.

You are contradicting yourself because you had elsewhere said that the gender identification is a speech act and unless the speech act is equivocal there can be no mismatch.

I don't see how I said there was a mismatch though. If someone lies about their gender, they know their authentic gender they're just deceiving us about it.

Have you heard of the implicit bias test? This demonstrates that people can be racist unconsciously - there are subconscious processes running which affect their perception, thinking and behaviour and of which they are not consciously aware. For instance, most people consciously claim that they are not racist but everyone fails the test.

I don't know the social science behind implicit bias testing. But why is implicit bias relevant? It's not clear to me that the notion of unconscious bias requires us to accept that unconscious beliefs exist

When it comes to controverting things like this showing is far more effective than telling.

Give your dualist argument then. We'll see how it fares against a century worth of anti-dualist arguments.

But being divine is not a gender!

That's why I accept his identification as a "son of man" but not the "son of God."

 

[mixed_biscuits]

@malelesbian you missed something out

Here are two fallacies to edit out too before I point them out: argumentum ad populum, begging the question

 

[luka]

probably not what padraig haad in mind when he started the thread o well