Leaderboard

I would be interested in a comprehensive reply to FeatherFall's preceding post. This is not such a reply. It is obviously unnecessary to know the scientific basis for some specific man's observed effeminate behavior. That behavior is certainly the result of some is - i.e., the result of the environment and circumstances under which he developed. A boy is not a man - his mind and body are still growing and developing years after leaving the womb. Depending on the environment in which he grows, his behaviors, tendencies, and preferences will develop and become ingrained. It's up to you to not only show why he should want to change them, but also why he should be morally condemned for not changing them.

Empirical evidence suggests that physical, mental and psychological differences are bigger between individuals than between groups. Differences in genetics, exposure to varying levels of hormones during gestation, and even diet after birth are biological factors that influence the emotional centers of the brain. These factors affect psychology in ways we are only beginning to understand. Dispite our lack of knowledge it is fair to assume that these factors will influence the conscious/unconscious mechanisms that determine sexuality. A male is a male only in so much as he has an XY chromosomal pair. Please consider a man who's had an abnormally large exposure to estrogen (I'm no expert, my example is probably laughable, but it illustrates my point just fine). This man was awash in estrogen while in the womb and drank soy milk as a child (his parents were vegan). His emotional responses were feminized because of this, and as a result he internalized some premises that lead him to be excited by wangs instead of vajayjays. This situation has implications for the "is" which necessarily change the "ought." Wouldn't it be immoral for him not to pursue wildly satisfying sexual encounters with guys like Alcide from True Blood? Your position drops individual context. Your decision to recoil from this widely understood context looks a lot like rationalization: You conclude men ought to chase women. You tailor your is by cutting away context, creating the flawed premise that all men and all women are the same, respectively. The unhappy result is that you use an ought statement to reach moral conclusions about real (untailored) is's. It appears that Rand may have been unaware of the endocrine system's role in human psychology - no context dropping there, just a best guess with the knowledge at hand. What's your excuse?

Sorry, but there is no "thou shalt" that comes with having a penis or a vagina.

Egoism is the ethical base of Objectivism. As such, it is based on what each individual chooses as a value for themselves, why they choose to value it, and to delegate the effort to achieve it. Every individual must do this for themself. The application of reason to the problem of survival results in production. DDT nearly eliminated malaria on the planet. When individuals choose something other than reason to guide their activities, causality dictates the results. Can the basis for the banning of DDT be fully and objectively validated? Capitalism is the system of abundance. Do those who use poverty to generate tears for their support advocate capitalism or socialism as their proposed solution? Empathy is something that is earned. The price is friendship and loved ones. For the rest of the world out there, the price of reducing needless suffering is simple. Think.