Ben RossJul 12, 2023

Seriously, is nobody concerned that the head of the EHRC is a creationist?

It's the 21st Century - how can you be in charge of a non-governmental body and believe that human bodies were 'designed', for sex or anything else?!?

#ehrc #transphobia #Falkner #equalities #whatisawoman #queerphobia #evolution #science #creationism #flatearth

Show threadwabiwaldenJul 20, 2023
@benross Just stumbled upon your post. Not familiar w/ #UKpolitics. I'm #atheist & believe in #evolution. Though "design" is technically incorrect, I still use it to describe function i.e wings, eyes, vagina, etc. There's design but no designer. Maybe that's what she means too, doesn't really mean she believes in #IntelligentDesign. And I agree with her, ♂️ & ♀️'s bodies look like they're designed for those things, not random. Doesn't mean #TransRights shouldn't be protected.
Show threadBen RossJul 30, 2023

@wabiwalden and... you're mistaken. You need to learn not to trust your assumptions so much.

Bodies might look, to you, like they're designed, but they aren't. Genitals aren't 'for' reproduction, and evolution doesn't care what people do with them.

And yes, assuming a teleology to how humans happen to grow IS to ascribe a religious / creationist design, which I'm afraid is incorrect.

Show threadwabiwaldenJul 31, 2023
@benross But it's called the #ReproductiveSystem because it's for #reproduction. I didn't say bodies are designed, I said there's function #DesignButNoDesigner. #NaturalSelection is the #BlindWatchmaker. I agree our universe is #nihilistic, only people create the rules about #sex, but that doesn't mean there's no #reason behind the shape of wings, fins, penises. I don't know why #Evolution has to be denied for #TransRights, the two are not related. #ISupportTransRights
Show threadBen RossJul 31, 2023

@wabiwalden again, no, genitals aren't 'for' reproduction. I, like every single human on the planet, use my genitals for pleasure far more than to make babies.

You are, and I cannot stress this enough, *incorrectly* attributing purpose to characteristics that have been selected for by evolution. Evolution *does not* design organisms, and it does not imbue them with purpose. Thinking that it does is to make precisely the mistake creationists make.

Show threadwabiwaldenJul 31, 2023
@benross When I say #purpose, I'm not assigning any #normative value to it, only #descriptive, I'm not talking anything #Platonic. The pleasantness of #sex & #masturbation is a necessary element of reproduction so creatures like us would want to engage in sex. It doesn't disprove that #SexOrgans aren't for reproduction. Them being for reproduction doesn't make it "wrong" to use them for other things.
Show threadBen Ross

@wabiwalden I hear your assertion that you're not making a normative claim, and that's positive. And yet I don't see what your reasoning is for why one thing should be the 'purpose' of a fluke of evolution rather than another.

Again: most people use their genitals for pleasure. That's what they're *for* for them, and by this I'm making a functional claim, namely about how people use these body parts. Your simply asserting that they're 'for' something else doesn't make it so.

Jul 31, 2023 at 11:06amWeb
Show threadwabiwaldenAug 3, 2023
@benross It's possible for one part to have many functions, yes. I wouldn't say the reproductive system is a fluke. Mutations are flukes but the results of natural selection are not. There are reasons why they survived the sifting process. They provide a function that helps the organism survive long enough to pass that function to the next gen. Just being there is prima facie proof that the organism has benefit from it. But to some parts, we may not know the benefit/function/purpose yet.
Show threadBen RossAug 3, 2023

@wabiwalden I'm really sorry, I think there is no real argument to be had about this. (Especially since we're in fierce agreement about the ethical implications.)

You simply have an incorrect understanding of evolution. Evolution *does not* deliver "purposes", "designs" or "functions". You think it does purely because you're steeped in a religious framework which makes it hard to understand the "unintentional" nature of a world that emerged by chance and aptitudes in particular situations.