Imane Khelif is officialy a man

[Yimpa]

Lets be perfectly clear — you are not truly a man unless you’ve been kicked in the nuts and screamed for your mommy to come save you

[integration journey]

11 minutes ago, Yimpa said:

Lets be perfectly clear — you are not truly a man unless you’ve been kicked in the nuts and screamed for your mommy to come save you

Fair enough 

[Yimpa]

But in all seriousness, different cultures and places all over the world will have their own definition of what is a man and what is a woman. 

Look up two-spirit people.

[Scholar]

6 hours ago, mojsterr said:

I love how they had to add some incestophobia in the end as if that had to do anything with the matter.

 

This person is clearly intersex.

[Yimpa]

6 minutes ago, Scholar said:

incestophobia

First time I’ve ever heard of this term. I reckon there is a phobia for literally anything? 

[Scholar]

17 minutes ago, Yimpa said:

First time I’ve ever heard of this term. I reckon there is a phobia for literally anything? 

Incestophobia is a cultural thing, similar to homophobia. It's an irrational aversion and demonization of incestuous relationships or activities.

[What Am I]

57 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Incestophobia is a cultural thing, similar to homophobia. It's an irrational aversion and demonization of incestuous relationships or activities.

This may be a suboptimal way of looking at it, but wouldn't it be true that an incestuous relationship that leads to a child would statistically have a marked increase of health issues for said child? Couldn't that be looked at as a form of abuse towards the child and possibly a reason to express a strong dislike of incest?

I'm just standing in with an argument. Don't get me wrong, I've visited Pornhub too.

[Scholar]

15 minutes ago, What Am I said:

This may be a suboptimal way of looking at it, but wouldn't it be true that an incestuous relationship that leads to a child would statistically have a marked increase of health issues for said child? Couldn't that be looked at as a form of abuse towards the child and possibly a reason to express a strong dislike of incest?

I'm just standing in with an argument. Don't get me wrong, I've visited Pornhub too.

We don't consider individuals who might have a higher chance birthing individuals with problems as "abusive" towards those children. We allow individuals with Huntington’s disease, hemophilia, sickle cell anemia, Down syndrome, Tay Sachs, cystic fibrosis and so forth to have children despite the risk ratios being higher as well as the conditions children will suffer from being far more devastating. We support such individuals in their reproductive choices and give them medical guidance and assistance, rather than shaming them and framing them as abusive. When parents give birth to such children, we have great sympathy for the parents, rather than condemning them.

There is also the non-identity problem, namely: Giving birth to an individual that might be born blind is not harmful to that blind person, because that individual could not have been born without that condition.

In this case, you are simply saying that individuals born with certain genetic inferiorities ought not to be given the privilege to exist. A harm would be causing damage to a child when it's existence would not depend on that limitation, namely if you drink alcohol, smoke or do not consume enough folic acid during pregnancy. In that case, a child who would have been born healthy will be born with a significant impediment to it's well-being. In the case of inbreeding, or breeding between individuals with genetic inferiorities or genetic disabilities, the resulting child existence depends on being born. It could not have been born healthy.

 

The reality is that you can mitigate significant problems with inbreeding through medical intervention and screening of fetal development early during a pregnancy. In principle, inbreeding is far less risky or devastating than individuals who generally have low quality genes procreating, or individuals who have significant genetic disorders as mentioned above. 

Incestophobia simply leads to irrational discriminatory attitudes, as well as, ironically, the shaming of individuals who are born of inbreeding. People make fun of inbreeding all the time, and directly mock traits inbred people might have due to genetic disorders that might affect them. In other words, incestophobia gives you a free pass to dehumanize and mock disabled people, specifically on the basis of their disabilities, or malformations. 

All of it while people proclaim a concern for those very children, to justify their knee jerk hatred and disgusting of individuals who engage in incest or inbreeding. People who are born of inbreeding feel incredible shame around that fact, which is a direct result of our culture.

Edited November 5 by Scholar

[What Am I]

I take your point as to the appropriateness of its acceptance in the world we currently live in. I guess I just put myself in the place of someone who was born in that type of situation, and I felt resentful on their behalf. It's easy to claim innocence, but willfully allowing a life of suffering seems unfortunate to me. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to be an authoritarian monster who controls who's allowed to breed, so I guess acceptance is the only reasonable option.

19 minutes ago, Scholar said:

We don't consider individuals who might have a higher chance birthing individuals with problems as "abusive" towards those children.

Do you imagine it'll always be this way, or do you think humanity might strive towards a higher standard of genetics once technology allows? Certain whispers out of China makes me think the latter.

Edited November 5 by What Am I

[Scholar]

2 minutes ago, What Am I said:

I take your point as to the appropriateness of its acceptance in the world we currently live in. I guess I just put myself in the place of someone who was born in that type of situation, and I felt resentful on their behalf. It's easy to claim innocence, but willfully allowing a life of suffering seems unfortunate to me. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to be an authoritarian monster who controls who's allowed to breed, so I guess acceptance is the only reasonable option.

Do you imagine it'll always be this way, or do you think humanity might strive towards a higher standard of genetics once technology allows? Certain whispers out of China makes me think the latter.

You have to ask yourself where the resentfulness comes from. If your parents are ugly and low IQ, do you also feel resentful that they had you as a child, being born ugly and low IQ? Why would you be resentful, if the alternative would be to not exist at all?

I think it is reasonable to be resentful of your parents willfully put you into a scenario in which you would live a life unworthy of living, meaning a life that is so filled with suffering, one would rather have never been born. Most resentfulness of inbred individuals towards their parents is a function of cultural discrimination towards such relationships, rather than a genuine function of individuals being angry at their parents because they might have been born with worse health outcomes than the average person. If two genetically blind individuals have a child, I don't see a reason why the child could be rationally resentful towards their parents in a meaningful way that would not also translate to basically every other human that exists.

By that logic I could be resentful towards my parents because my mother was over 40 when I was born. Some of my health outcomes could be attributes to the fact that my mother had me so late. But if my mother didn't have me at 40, I would simply not exist at all. If she had a child when she was 30, it would not have been me who was born.

 

I think it's important to understand that inbred people do not live a life of suffering. They might (keyword might) have some difficulties, and in the worst case more severe disabilities, but that does not equate to a life of suffering or a life not worth living. Born in poverty could have a far greater impact on your well being than being born with some minor or even severe defects due to your parents being related, or disabled and so forth.

The option that is reasonable here is that you should educate individuals of risks and encourage wise procreative choices. If you have a certain moral view on the matter, advocate for that view. Either way, current standards have nothing to do with an underlying moral view, but are simply a symptom of discrimination on the basis of primitive feelings of disgusting and revulsion towards a certain act.

 

8 minutes ago, What Am I said:

Do you imagine it'll always be this way, or do you think humanity might strive towards a higher standard of genetics once technology allows? Certain whispers out of China makes me think the latter.

There are deeper problems with eugenics, but I think it is likely that we will use technologies to eliminate certain diseases and risk factors.

[What Am I]

@Scholar Very interesting perspectives, thanks for taking the time. Even though the explanation conforms with the culture I live in, and it's an answer I probably intuitively already knew, it's helpful seeing it spelled out so clearly. You've lived up to your namesake, lol.

Edited November 5 by What Am I

[Basman]

9 hours ago, Nemra said:

People who have a huge advantage have won most of the time and been admired.

The fact that some people are dramatizing over this tells me that it's mostly about identity.

This is a reductive point. You can reduce anything to simply being about identity.

Why not commit suicide? your just surviving your identity anyway...

[Nemra]

1 hour ago, Basman said:

This is a reductive point. You can reduce anything to simply being about identity.

I'm not, but some people are only focusing on gender identity in a very, I would say, bigoted way.

[Basman]

11 hours ago, Nemra said:

I'm not, but some people are only focusing on gender identity in a very, I would say, bigoted way.

Just say bigotry then.

I would advise that you be open minded to the criticism however in a good faith sort of way. You just end up talking over people and not actually engaging with the subject if you have a bad faith attitude from the start. Its essentially just deflection of the discussion as a whole at that point.

[Nemra]

3 minutes ago, Basman said:

I would advise that you be open minded to the criticism however in a good faith sort of way.

What criticism are you talking about?

Please point them out.

4 minutes ago, Basman said:

You just end up talking over people and not actually engaging with the subject if you have a bad faith attitude from the start.

Or consider that they have bad faith attitude.

Also, I would advise you to look again at the thread title.

[Basman]

2 hours ago, Nemra said:

What criticism are you talking about?

Please point them out.

Or consider that they have bad faith attitude.

Also, I would advise you to look again at the thread title.

It doesn't matter so much if they are in a bad faith position. If you want a high quality discussion you take responsibility to argue in a way that is intellectually honest. Your not going to convince people who are set in their ways but you can set the record straight. But right now I don't see them being overly indignant. OP did correct himself quickly.

But its clear you don't actually care about any of that and you just want to argue in circles till you get blue in the face. Enjoy your drama.

[Nemra]

@Basman, you're not saying anything helpful to me. It seems like you like drama.

If you are going to give advice, then please either point out in what ways I was being intellectually dishonest or have a nice day.

[Leo Gura]

Locked for misleading title.