Put your unpopular opinions here and someone who disagrees will debate you

Author: AceDebatesStuff

Posts

Total: 499
#211
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@Reece101
That is a very uncharitable interpretation of what I am saying. I used those as examples as they are the easiest to imagine (and see why your bimodal model doesn't work).

Gametes (and the 'plumbing') are primary, secondary would be other traits like secondary sex characteristics, and tertiary would be characteristics like height differences, average body temperature differences, etc.

More variation exists in tertiary traits than secondary, which has more variation than in primary. There is literally zero dispute on this in biology and the philosophy of biology when it comes to non-human species, why is it such an issue the moment we treat humans the same?

Also, you are the one advocating for a bimodal model, so what, precisely, would you use as a definition about what constitutes a mana and a woman then? What are the traits that are on a spectrum if you want to take issue with the examples  of traits on a bimodal spectrum that I gave?
#212
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@TheMorningsStar
That is a very uncharitable interpretation of what I am saying.
Tell me about it. 

The same issues you bring up to ague against bimodal, effect the binary system more.
Or are you saying they don’t count when it comes to your arguments? I could say the exact same thing. 



#213
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@Reece101
The same issues you bring up to ague against bimodal, effect the binary system more
How does it get close to impacting the binary system?
#214
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@TheMorningsStar
By you stating there are primary, secondary, etc traits. But how does that fit into a binary system better than a bimodal? 

#215
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@Reece101
Because there are traits that are more central to defining what the 'kind' (man/woman) is. Gametes, for example, don't exist on a spectrum from one gamete to another while height does, but height is still a trait associated with men and women (as the average height is different between the two sexes).

But even with certain traits existing on a spectrum there is still a particular common pattern which can be used to define men and women, but variation/atypical traits within a member is not enough to say said member is of a different kind or any less of said kind than any other member.

The moment you place the entirety of man and woman as a spectrum the concept of atypical traits becomes an issue of where on the spectrum you fall as a man or woman. Even if you can still try to use the concept of 'kinds' it would be different because men can be more of a man than other or less of a man than others based on their 'atypical' traits.

A taller man would not just have a trait that is on a spectrum that is more on the "masculine" side than an average man (while both would still be equally a man), they are now more of a man than the average heighted man (even if they are both still men).
The smaller the breasts of a woman the less of a woman she now is based on the bimodal model, because these traits are now inherently tied to what sex category you are (thus the smaller your breasts the more you shift towards the male side of the spectrum).

Atypical traits do not cause an issue with the sex binary, they do if sex is defined as bimodal.

Binary - traits can fall on a spectrum but atypical traits don't change your categorization as a man or woman
Bimodal - your sex is on a spectrum and your traits determine where on said spectrum you fall as a man or woman (with atypical traits potentially meaning you are more/less of a man/woman than another).
#216
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Man this is Freudian. You’re placing pre-existing insecurities people have onto a system that you’re making a strawman out of. 
What’s considered more man or more woman is often in part culturally driven.
 

#217
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@Reece101
You’re placing pre-existing insecurities people have onto a system that you’re making a strawman out of.
How is it a strawman?

A bimodal model is inherently a spectrum. Bimodal sexual identity is a spectrum of men on one end and women on the other, with most people falling on the two ends of the spectrum.

But just because most people fall on the two ends does not mean that everyone does.
Let's visualize this a bit

F - - - - - - - - - - M

Let this represent the spectrum of sexual identity. Women (F) are the left, men (M) are the right. Most people fall right where the F and the M are, but what about someone that falls here (at the 'X'):

F - - - - - - - - - x M

Such a person would be less of a man than someone that falls directly on the M, this is necessary by definition when you want to use a bimodal model of sexual identity.

So, you must ask what is it that constitutes where on the spectrum you fall. That would necessarily have to be traits associated with one's sex (as if it was primarily based around gametes then there is no spectrum).

So, what are some traits associated with one's sex? Secondary sex characteristics are among them, like breast size. So, a woman that has an extremely flat chest would now be further to the right than the F, even if not by much, and thus they are less of a woman than someone with larger breasts.

Height is one, so a really short man would be further to the left than the M and would then be less of a man as a result.

This is a natural consequence of the bimodal model, the fact that you are taking issue with this and trying to call it a strawman (when it isn't) should be enough to see why putting sex itself (rather than just traits associated with sex) on a spectrum, even if it is a spectrum with bimodal distribution.

I feel like the reason you didn't answer my question on 'What are the traits that are on a spectrum (of sexual identity)' might very well be because you can't answer it without the exact issue I am pointing out coming up.
#218
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Can we get back to biological female and male, instead of woman and man. We’re meant to be talking about biological sex.

This is a natural consequence of the bimodal model, the fact that you are taking issue with this and trying to call it a strawman (when it isn't) should be enough to see why putting sex itself (rather than just traits associated with sex) on a spectrum, even if it is a spectrum with bimodal distribution.
I’ll strawman your strawman to see if you’re actually principled. Wouldn’t obese people be the most man and woman?


#219
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@Reece101
I’ll strawman your strawman to see if you’re actually principled. Wouldn’t obese people be the most man and woman?
No, and there is no possible method for that to be interpreted based on the definitions I am using. You also once again failed to address the question on  'What the traits that are on a spectrum (of sexual identity)' are. At this point I am convinced that you don't actually know how to argue for a bimodal model without creating the issues that you claim are a strawman of the position.
#220
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@TheMorningsStar
No, and there is no possible method for that to be interpreted based on the definitions I am using. You also once again failed to address the question on  'What the traits that are on a spectrum (of sexual identity)' are. At this point I am convinced that you don't actually know how to argue for a bimodal model without creating the issues that you claim are a strawman of the position.
You were using size and development as your strawman weren’t you? Well how about obese people?  
#221
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@Reece101
You were using size and development as your strawman weren’t you?
It literally isn't a strawman, it is how the bimodal model works if it is to be coherent. Just because you don't like the consequences of the position you favor doesn't mean those consequences are fallacious. You also seemed to miss the point about how various traits about size relate to the bimodal model, which is strange as it isn't something difficult to understand with a close reading of what I said.

Honestly, the fact that I have had to repeat myself as often as I have without you even attempting to make your own case makes this discussion a waste of time at this point.
#222
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Be honest, you are essentially saying adult males and females would be the most male and female, correct? Due to development/size.
#223
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@Reece101
Be honest, you are essentially saying adult males and females would be the most male and female, correct? Due to development/size.
No, not within either a binary or bimodal model would that make sense because certain traits (secondary sex characteristics, as an example) wouldn't become relevant until certain times and certain traits are relative to one's age (someone that is tall for their age might still be short).

Have you seriously not understood anything I have said so far?
#224
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@TheMorningsStar
And the elderly, where would they fit?

#225
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
Modern Monetary Theory is to economics what being woke is to philosophy.
#226
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Tri-Modals.

Viable Sperm Producer........................Developmental Anomalies.................Viable Egg Producer.


VSP with a penchant for lingerie..................Typical Presentation...................VEP with a penchant for short back and sides.



Just emphasizing the point, that anyone can make up this sort of COHERENT waffle.





#227
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Reece101
The Elderly will inevitably, eventually fit into a coffin.

Is this an unpopular but helpful opinion?
#228
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
Unpopular opinion: evil exists as a metaphysical reality and it has a conscious will 
#229
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
-->
@thett3
I've met the devil, thett. Few times actually. 
#230
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
-->
@thett3
The truth is you and I are probably just a little bit schizo.
#231
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
Consider every reform "progressives" have made, with respect to all matters form the 20th century forward.  

On average, the reforms have made things more worse than better. 
#232
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
So called "gender affirming care" is a conversion therapy more egregious than that practiced by "psychiatrists" before homosexuality was removed from the DSM-IV.
#233
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@badger
I've met the devil, thett. Few times actually. 
I have too. Not directly but when I came to the opinion I said above it definitely felt real. Seeing how evil is so corrupting and eventually all consuming…I wish I could put it in a more compelling way. It’s a personal realization I feel like 

The truth is you and I are probably just a little bit schizo
For sure, if you aren’t a little crazy you miss out on a lot. I actually did have a voice in my head when I was a child lol that told me to do bad things. It went away after about a year but it didn’t sound like my internal monologue at all. Creepy stuff 
#234
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@coal
So called "gender affirming care" is a conversion therapy more egregious than that practiced by "psychiatrists" before homosexuality was removed from the DSM-IV.
Despite the left winning almost every cultural battle in a long time I’m fairly certain they’re going to lose this one and it will discredit a lot of people for a long time. When I was against gay marriage way way back at the beginning of me thinking about politics I was dismayed at how I would have to twist my logic like a pretzel to justify my position. From a secular perspective (which is what th government is) the argument against it just wasn’t very strong. When I try to mentally model support for “gender affirming care” I experience the same kind of dissonance. At the very least you have to share so many assumptions that most people don’t 
#235
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@thett3
You are correct.  

There is a big difference between gay rights as such and the current "trans-related" issues, such as gender affirming care.  On the one hand, gay rights were about treating people equally under the law and in society, without regard to their sexual orientation.  On the other hand, "trans-related" issues are about treating people differently under the law and in society, based solely on their purported "gender expression."

Another difference relates to at what level the harm at issue is manifested.  Those who opposed gay marriage did so based on an abstract harm to their conception of the "institution of marriage" as such.  Those who oppose so called "gender affirming care" do so based on their cognizance, often first hand observance, of the concrete harm associated with giving Depo Provera to twelve year old boys and cutting off the breasts of eleven year old girls.  

People have such short memories, which is why history repeats itself time and time again. 

  • Then, and within living memory, actual castration (i.e., surgically performed orchiectomy) was similarly regarded as "therapeutic" for "treatment" of the "condition" then known as "homosexulity."  That practice began around the late 19th century at the dawn of the so called field of psychiatry and continued well into the late 1980s and even beyond the time that "homosexuality" was removed from the DSM-IV.  
  • Now, and at present, both chemical castration and surgically performed sexual mutilation are regarded as "therapeutic" for "treatment" of the "condition" now known as "gender dysphoria."  The practice began around the late 1980s, although has been practiced for longer in countries like Iran.  Just today, the Washington Post published an op-ed of a survivor of such "therapy," who laments his (not her) life devoid of sexual experience, because he was "transitioned" before he was old enough to appreciate what that meant.  
Every lie we tell ourselves as a society incurs a debt to the truth that will, in the end, be collected.  The current balance on that account is denial of what has been true --- at least according to evolutionary theory --- about almost all living things since before life emerged to land: the difference between male and female.  It is ingrained in every aspect of our being.  

We will pay for this, as a society. 

May God have mercy on us.  And I mean that seriously.  We are lost as a people. 
#236
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
-->
@thett3
I actually did have a voice in my head when I was a child lol that told me to do bad things. It went away after about a year but it didn’t sound like my internal monologue at all. Creepy stuff 
That's fucked up tbh lol. And surprising.
I remember having full on conversations with god when I was a kid. And like it felt like it wasn't just me talking looking back. And then it seems to have just went away. Felt like a hole for a bit. 

Honestly, I would say I believe in god and I think I'm just generally hopeful about things. But I also feel like there's just absolutely no reason to believe. It's a funny position to be in tbh.

I've seriously met the devil though. And had all sorts of fucked up, straight religious experiences besides. Funnily, there was always some substance abuse involved. I think it's just in us dude. If you're listening for whispers, you'll hear whispers. Same shit as phantom vibrations on your phone. 
#237
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
Not to rain on your parade or anything. Who the fuck knows what's going on tbh. World is bendy. People who think they know anything need to take more drugs. Whole world opens up a Cheshire cat smile sometimes. What is even real lol. 
#238
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
Muhammad Ali got Parkinson's. Freddy Mercury got AIDS. Don't hope for too much. That's the lesson. 
#239
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
I think about this shit and it feels like I want to cry but instead I'll laugh. 
#240
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@coal
So called "gender affirming care" is a conversion therapy more egregious than that practiced by "psychiatrists" before homosexuality was removed from the DSM-IV.
Have to agree. Gender dysphoria is the only body dysphoria treated by telling people their self-perceptions are valid. Every other one is non-affirming, and they work. It took me forever to find a therapist willing to do non-affirming therapy, and it absolutely helped me out. I honestly feel like if I had gone through an affirming therapy that I would have likely offed myself as I would never have felt right in my body.