Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

This Canadian beauty was born as a man and still possesses XY set of chromosomes. However i doubt that anybody can claim that she represents a metaphysical assault.

Jenna+Talackova+2.jpg

I might not be a doctor nor play one on TV, but I do know a women when I see it.

Damn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About at what point one ceases to be a human, I think there's already a pretty satisfactory answer in science to where to draw the line. A new species comes about when (supposing one has a functional reproductive system) an animal can no longer create offspring which are capable of reproducing through mating with others of the species one descended from. Until or unless that happens, it's just more of humans being humans, adapting things for our various purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About at what point one ceases to be a human, I think there's already a pretty satisfactory answer in science to where to draw the line. A new species comes about when (supposing one has a functional reproductive system) an animal can no longer create offspring which are capable of reproducing through mating with others of the species one descended from. Until or unless that happens, it's just more of humans being humans, adapting things for our various purposes.

This is a good point.But what about people who for some reason unable to procreate ? What about those who never attempted it? How do we know they are still humans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A new species comes about when an animal can no longer create offspring which are capable of reproducing through mating with others of the species one descended from, but can still reproduce with those animals having compatible DNA. No reproductive ability means if they're a species at all, they're limited to 1 generation - and I don't think that qualifies - so no, getting a sex change doesn't make them a new species.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A new species comes about when an animal can no longer create offspring which are capable of reproducing through mating with others of the species one descended from, but can still reproduce with those animals having compatible DNA. No reproductive ability means if they're a species at all, they're limited to 1 generation - and I don't think that qualifies - so no, getting a sex change doesn't make them a new species.

Also, technically different species can reproduce; what they cannot do is produce offspring which are themselves capable of reproduction. An example would be donkeys and horses mating to produce mules.

Although, now that I'm looking it up, on very rare occasions mules can actually have offspring. Nature's a complicated thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, technically different species can reproduce; what they cannot do is produce offspring which are themselves capable of reproduction. An example would be donkeys and horses mating to produce mules.

Although, now that I'm looking it up, on very rare occasions mules can actually have offspring. Nature's a complicated thing.

And don't forget the Liger.

In any case, proper respect for Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff (and anyone!) does not require you to agree with all their statements. I disagree with Ayn Rand on homosexuality and the whole "woman president" thing. I disagree with Dr. Peikoff on a number of topics. If Dr. Peikoff is going to be publicly rude while expressing what he thinks, I don't have any problem with people reacting as though he's behaving like a rude jerk, because, well, he is. Rudeness isn't in itself immorality. Like politeness, it's a type of behavior which has certain consequences. If he's fine with those consequences, that's his business.

As for me, I wouldn't call anyone an Objectivist who doesn't stand 100% on their own judgment when it comes to applying principles to particular cases. I don't care WHO said WHAT. I use my OWN reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And don't forget the Liger.

In any case, proper respect for Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff (and anyone!) does not require you to agree with all their statements. I disagree with Ayn Rand on homosexuality and the whole "woman president" thing. I disagree with Dr. Peikoff on a number of topics. If Dr. Peikoff is going to be publicly rude while expressing what he thinks, I don't have any problem with people reacting as though he's behaving like a rude jerk, because, well, he is. Rudeness isn't in itself immorality. Like politeness, it's a type of behavior which has certain consequences. If he's fine with those consequences, that's his business.

As for me, I wouldn't call anyone an Objectivist who doesn't stand 100% on their own judgment when it comes to applying principles to particular cases. I don't care WHO said WHAT. I use my OWN reason.

That is very well said. You nailed the thoughts I have been working through but failed to say so succinctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes.

This "need" to defend Dr. Peikoff against those who disagree with him--sometimes even to the point where refusing to defend boorish behavior is used as a touchstone for deciding someone is not an Objectivst--is simply incomprehensible to me.

Seriously: Is Objectivism about using your own judgment and never, ever evading, or is it about defending prominent Objectivsts against people who disagree with them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, right...I am not supposed to defend a position that I agree with, and that makes me boorish and incomprehensible...while some of you guys can go around saying Dr. Peikoff is impolite and rude for coming straight out and saying what is on his mind. Is he supposed to say, "pretty please agree with me because I am right," or is he supposed to come out and tell it like it is? Some of you have no problem blasting his positions, and yet, when he blasts yours, all hell breaks loose. What the F...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I might not be a doctor nor play one on TV, but I do know a women when I see it."

Actually, you are only responding, on a very basic, instinctual level, to some common and superficial characteristics of the female human: slim waist and limbs, large mammary glands, etc. (tastes in these particular characteristics being largely determined by the prevailing cultural preferences). On the evolutionary progression, your attraction to this man would be sterile (and thus useless) as no amount of body alteration makes a man a woman or a woman a man, and natural selection is only interested in the survival of the species as a whole, which means offspring. So while you as a man might find this particular man very desirable, I would guess that most males, upon learning of the essential nature of the individual versus his projected nature, would be very turned off. This is nature asserting its primary goal -- survival of the species. This primary goal probably explains why the number of homosexuals is so small (under 5%).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I might not be a doctor nor play one on TV, but I do know a women when I see it."

Actually, you are only responding, on a very basic, instinctual level, to some common and superficial characteristics of the female human: slim waist and limbs, large mammary glands, etc. (tastes in these particular characteristics being largely determined by the prevailing cultural preferences). On the evolutionary progression, your attraction to this man would be sterile (and thus useless) as no amount of body alteration makes a man a woman or a woman a man, and natural selection is only interested in the survival of the species as a whole, which means offspring. So while you as a man might find this particular man very desirable, I would guess that most males, upon learning of the essential nature of the individual versus his projected nature, would be very turned off. This is nature asserting its primary goal -- survival of the species. This primary goal probably explains why the number of homosexuals is so small (under 5%).

You are putting way to much thought into what is largely a toss away comment that was a fun jab at those who claim a person who gets a sex change is mutilating their body. She doesn’t look mutilated to me and she certainly doesn’t look like a man.

I have to disagree however with your claim that I’m just mindlessly bound to act through some evolutionary desire; I have free will and can choose to focus on my life at will. I’m not a billiard ball getting hit into the corner pocket of procreation determinism. My wife and I get another version of this all the time from family and friends because we don’t have children. Everyone seems to think that we are supposed to have kids because God or Mother Nature said so. They don’t seem to get the concept of “Because we choose to” as if free will was alien to them.

“Nature”, which is existence, does not have a conscious mind let alone the ability to set goals. Only rational living entities can conceive of values and the goal directed action to achieve them. Evolution is the process of non-rational life conforming to its environment to insure its survival. Man adapts nature to him to survive since he is rational and he uses that tool to alter his environment for his survival. Nature asserts itself on animals, man asserts himself on nature. Mindless animals conform to their environment, a process that is a death sentence to humans. Yes, the universe must be understood according to its nature (i.e. identity) as existence is a primary but beyond conceptual understanding nature is ours to command. Animals reflexively fear and obey nature while man makes nature sit obediently at his side while he reads his Sunday paper and drinks his morning coffee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The responsibility to propagate one's culture, race, or specie runs completely

counter to rational egoism. Essentially, the notion is collectivist-altruist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I might not be a doctor nor play one on TV, but I do know a women when I see it."

Actually, you are only responding, on a very basic, instinctual level, to some common and superficial characteristics of the female human: slim waist and limbs, large mammary glands, etc. (tastes in these particular characteristics being largely determined by the prevailing cultural preferences). On the evolutionary progression, your attraction to this man would be sterile (and thus useless) as no amount of body alteration makes a man a woman or a woman a man, and natural selection is only interested in the survival of the species as a whole, which means offspring. So while you as a man might find this particular man very desirable, I would guess that most males, upon learning of the essential nature of the individual versus his projected nature, would be very turned off. This is nature asserting its primary goal -- survival of the species. This primary goal probably explains why the number of homosexuals is so small (under 5%).

Procreation is not a define characteristic of the human being and his goal is happiness, not serving of his species as a stud.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×