>>> Dennis Claxton
At 01:38 PM 6/3/2008, Charles Brown wrote:
>It is incument on Butler to make some kind of biological argument
>like this to support her thesis.
Why is that?
^^^^ CB: Because she dismisses a highly probable biological trait of humans ,heterosexual instinct (humans being a biological species that reproduces by sex) without argument. Her argument begins with dismissing by fiat a fundamental principle of biology in assessing a biological species, human beings. See what I wrote before.
^^^^
>Butler or anybody who wants to challenge the fundamentality of
>heterosex as a natural or instinctive fact and act has to mount
>some kind of biological argument like I pose above
I don't see where she argues against "the fundamentality of heterosex" whatever that is exactly.
^^^^ CB: When you say "whatever that is" , did you read what I wrote in the initial post. I describe repeatedly and in varying ways how hetero sex is fundamental to a species, like humnas , that reproduce sexually.
^^^^^^^
She's putting the whole question in different terms. To say that she has to mount (uh huh, uh huh, he said mount) a biological argument is to say there is only one way to think about gender, and that is basically what she's arguing against.
^^^^^ CB: Puns and metaphors won't get you out of this. You say "put" ha ha ha. I can laugh at you too.
She has to _make_ a biological argument. She starts out by dismissing a bioloigiocal fundamental without an argument. That's won't fly. ( make whatever puns you want) Humans are a biological species. That's a fact. Humans are not non-material spirits. They are a biological species.
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com