Frankenstein monster is kinda like Trans folks or people

[Sheldon]

A guy trying to play God for fame (Money)

So I often find it helpful to recap, as I am not an intellectual giant fully versed in Aristotelian philosophy...

Now whilst I am a middling intellect, with a fairly mediocre formal education:

That opening assertion, seems like a straw man fallacy to me, in that the thread author / troll, who rather predictably never returned to defend their bigotry, makes an assertion about the motives of others, without even the pretence of evidencing this claim. 

Makes something hideous, 

Note the tone set right from the start, the attempt to demonise, using lazy unevidenced stereotypes.

the public dont like it. 

So no attempt again to evidence this claim, and of course even were that not true, it would be a bare appeal to numbers. The public once liked bear baiting and dog fighting, fuck the public, are we not able to measure the consequences of actions without irrationally clinging to the bleating of the sheeple...

Monster goes on a rampage. 

subjective bigotry, and of course a straw man...

Monster wants sympathy, 

Again a lazy bigoted stereotype using the word monster, and so what if someone wants sympathy instead of persecution, why is that wrong?

monster kills girl. 

False equivalence fallacy, no one is being "killed" by a minority being granted equal rights. 

Mob kills monster. I say thats a interesting morale of the story.

Well now this is telling, the bigoted "mob" certainly want to "kill" what they have decided is a "monster". The morale (sic) of the story is that haters really are going to hate hate hate...

The best reason for this hate seems to be "they're different from us, we can't allow that..."

Talk about trying to turn back the tide...

[Belacqua]

I can see that my argument on this thread was not well structured, so I’ll summarize and reiterate it here.

I appreciate the feedback of the substantive posts which were made in reply.

So my initial thesis, which I stand by, is that we know about sexuality through subjective means. This includes both our own sexuality and others’.

Thump very kindly made this point for me when he described how he knew that he is straight. He knew, from a young age, because he JUST KNEW. He didn’t take a blood test at a clinic or undergo any other objective examination. He just knew. This is subjective knowledge. The description he gave is subjective testimony, and we all have no reason to think that he’s lying.

Just as I said, what we know about other people’s sexuality comes through their subjective testimony, and we should believe what they say.

Then he was right to say that it is reasonable for us to assume that the same is true for most people. No one made a decision one day to be gay — they just knew. We have testimony on this from enough people by this time that the intersubjectivity of it is persuasive. This is how it works.

Unfortunately, there may be stubborn people who demand objective proof. So for example if someone said “I was identified male at birth but I’m really a woman,” some terrible MAGA-type person might say, “Oh yeah, prove it. Where is the objective evidence? Show me your chromosomes or shut up.” I don’t think this is reasonable.

There were a few suggestions that there are, or might be in the future, biological methods to determine if a person is really trans. This reminds me of years ago when they started mapping the human genome, and people speculated that they might find a “gay gene.” Of course it didn’t turn out to be so simple. The causes of homosexuality, if it’s even reasonable to speak of causes, turn out to be a very complicated blend of genetics, hormones, environmental factors, etc. I suspect there are cultural factors as well, because if we lived in a society where there was no prejudice against gay people, more people would be comfortable being bisexual. Even the categories we use — homosexual or heterosexual — are fairly recent inventions. Before this people spoke about who puts it in and who gets it put in, but the idea of orientation never came up.

The mix of genetic, etc., factors is complicated enough that even weighing lots of such data in balance is insufficient to say with confidence whether a person will be gay or straight. As hard as scientists try to find objective proof, such findings will always be overridden by the individual’s subjective knowledge of himself. So if a scientist would say “I have measured all the factors and I know you are straight,” a gay person could respond with “no I’m not,” and we would have to accept the gay person’s testimony.

I am grateful to Architect of Fate for agreeing with me that the individual’s sincere testimony is more important than any given test.

Earlier Paleo suggested that if a psychologist wanted to determine someone’s gender she could look at that person’s behavior. I don’t think that such behavioral observation would be definitive. In the bad old days people might have thought that men naturally behave one way and women another, but we no longer accept this. There are no behavioral patterns which are intrinsically, inevitably linked to gender. A psychologist who looked at behavior in this way wouldn’t be determining gender, they would be determining the degree to which the subject conformed to social norms. And as we all know, social norms can change.

So I was grateful that someone posted the drawing (or caricature) of French pre-Revolutionary fashion. The fact that in those days the men wore frills and lace reinforces my argument that such customs are determined by custom and not by nature. We can’t say that only women want to wear frills and lace, so this removes another fake-objective bit of evidence — it’s not reasonable to say that because someone dresses in a certain way that this is proof of gender.

Overall, again, I am in favor of listening to what individuals say about their sexuality and gender, taking them seriously, and not attempting to shoehorn objective tests in where they are not appropriate.

And that’s enough of that.

[Paleophyte]

Earlier Paleo suggested that if a psychologist wanted to determine someone’s gender she could look at that person’s behavior. I don’t think that such behavioral observation would be definitive. In the bad old days people might have thought that men naturally behave one way and women another, but we no longer accept this. There are no behavioral patterns which are intrinsically, inevitably linked to gender. A psychologist who looked at behavior in this way wouldn’t be determining gender, they would be determining the degree to which the subject conformed to social norms. And as we all know, social norms can change.

You misunderstand. A manly man is a man. An effeminate man is a man. A gay, cross-dressing man is a man. A man who expresses the need to be a woman is a trans woman. The converse is true for women. That is the only behavior that you need to observe and it is intrinsically linked to being trans. Once that behavior has been observed you'll want a professional to winnow away a few alternatives, but typically you're dealing with gender dysphoria.

As for objective, quantifiable data, it's pretty trivial to measure stress levels. We have a depressingly large amount of objective, quantifiable data on how homosexuals respond to conversion therapy. People who are treated as if they are one gender when they are actually the other react just as poorly. Both are cases of trying to alter a fundamentally immutable aspect of a person's identity, with predictably disastrous outcomes.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Thump very kindly made this point for me when he described how he knew that he is straight. He knew, from a young age, because he JUST KNEW. He didn’t take a blood test at a clinic or undergo any other objective examination. He just knew. This is subjective knowledge. The description he gave is subjective testimony, and we all have no reason to think that he’s lying.

What I didn't say is that that is the only means we have for determining a person's sexuality. Don't use me to make your point when I haven't agreed with your false dichotomy.

[Sheldon]

my initial thesis, which I stand by, is that we know about sexuality through subjective means. 

We know about everything through subjective means, the question is can we support it with anything approaching objective evidnece, and from this thread it has been made clear that we can. 

This includes both our own sexuality and others’.

Thump very kindly made this point for me when he described how he knew that he is straight. He knew, from a young age, because he JUST KNEW. He didn’t take a blood test at a clinic or undergo any other objective examination. He just knew. This is subjective knowledge. The description he gave is subjective testimony, and we all have no reason to think that he’s lying.

Except you are again ingoring the fact we don't need to rely solely on subjective testimony, and that in this context even were someone lying, it wouldn't mean straight people do not exist, anymore than your hypothetical about someone lying they sufferred gender dysphoria, means gender dyshpria isn't objectively real. I am not convinced you even understand what it means tbh. 

Just as I said, what we know about other people’s sexuality comes through their subjective testimony, and we should believe what they say.

Nope, we know this from objective evidence, but denying the claim prima facie makes no more sense than denying a claim they were straight, and that their gender matched their biological gender, prima facie. 

Then he was right to say that it is reasonable for us to assume that the same is true for most people. No one made a decision one day to be gay — they just knew. We have testimony on this from enough people by this time that the intersubjectivity of it is persuasive. This is how it works.

You still seem to be ingoring the fact that we can objectively evidnece the existence of gay straight and trans people, beyond the subjective claim they make. 

Unfortunately, there may be stubborn people who demand objective proof. So for example if someone said “I was identified male at birth but I’m really a woman,” some terrible MAGA-type person might say, “Oh yeah, prove it. Where is the objective evidence? Show me your chromosomes or shut up.” I don’t think this is reasonable.

Sigh, you are again erroneously conflating biological sex with gender, and again we can objectively evidnece gender dysphoria, though we duly note the moving goal posts, to the misnomer of objective proof. No one here I believe suggested an absolute, straw manning again? 

There were a few suggestions that there are, or might be in the future, biological methods to determine if a person is really trans. This reminds me of years ago when they started mapping the human genome, and people speculated that they might find a “gay gene.” Of course it didn’t turn out to be so simple.

It is also utterly irrelevant, is there a straight gene? Do you accept it is objectively true that straight people exist? 

As hard as scientists try to find objective proof, 

No one mentoned proof did they? Where is the objective proof anyone is straight? Are you saying straight people don't exist, and that this is only a subjective claim? 

Earlier Paleo suggested that if a psychologist wanted to determine someone’s gender she could look at that person’s behavior. I don’t think that such behavioral observation would be definitive. 

I would ask if you see the irony in dismissing objective evidnece, with an entirely subjective claim, but I think I already know the answer. And again, only you are using words like proof and difinitive. Objective evidnece need not always be difinitive. One can almost here the goal posts shifting here. 

There are no behavioral patterns which are intrinsically, inevitably linked to gender. 

Is that the consensus among elite psychiatric bodies? We are facing a change in attitdes towards minorities that have long been persecuted simply because they are different, and this change seems to be for the good, but there certainly is objective evidence to support gender identity not always matching biological gender. 

social norms can change.

Any objective evidnece can change, even the most relaible facts, this does not make following the objective evidence unreliable. And once again, gender dysphoria is supported by objective evidnece, it is not reliant on "social norms", rather social norms are adjusting in line with the current objective evidnece. 

So I was grateful that someone posted the drawing (or caricature) of French pre-Revolutionary fashion. The fact that in those days the men wore frills and lace reinforces my argument that such customs are determined by custom and not by nature. 

False equivalnce fallacy, as  I think you entirely missed the point of that post. yes our attitudes can change, but no, gender dyshporia is not simply being driven by contemproary subjective customs or whims, it is supported by objective evidence, as has been shown. 

We can’t say that only women want to wear frills and lace, so this removes another fake-objective bit of evidence 

No it does not, it merely presents an opportuniy for you to present yet another straw man argument. unless you really want to claim that elite psychiatric bodies base their consensus about gender dysphoria on whther their pateints wear lace or not...

 it’s not reasonable to say that because someone dresses in a certain way that this is proof of gender.

Indeed not, but then this is a straw man...

Overall, again, I am in favor of listening to what individuals say about their sexuality and gender, taking them seriously, and not attempting to shoehorn objective tests in where they are not appropriate.

What a neat little false dichotomy fallacy, as if the objective evidnece doesn't usually mesh with what people say about their gender and sexuality. 

And that’s enough of that.

Well one can hope of course, but you do seem detemrined to peddle irrational straw men, while denying the existence of objective evidence here, who knows why.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Fun fact: Victor Frankenstein was 19 years old when he animated The Creature.

Boru

[Sheldon]

Fun fact: Victor Frankenstein was 19 years old when he animated The Creature.

Boru

Another fun fact, the author Marey Shelley was just 18 when she wrote her masterpiece, after accepting a challenge between friends to create the scariest story.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Fun Fact #3: In the novel, the Creature is not animated by electricity, but by chemical/alchemical processes (this is what Shelly meant by the phrase ‘spark of being’).

Boru

[Nay_Sayer]

Fun Fact #4: The monster is a vegetarian.

[arewethereyet]

It sure takes Bel a lot of words to not say much.