By D.S. Cook for Apostoic.com
As a bonus “article” this week, I am bringing you a chance encounter: a debate with unknown person on Facebook. It was a mostly friendly chat and remained respectful, absent any of the name-calling, ad hominem attacks, and red herrings that we refer to as “debate” these days in comment sections. But as the debate wore on, the veneer of surface-level politeness began to become transparent, revealing a motivation and line of thinking that can only be called demonic.
I will give you a small introduction and then plunge into the debate.
First, an obvious truth needs to be stated in order for the reader to understand what is happening in my opponent’s argument below. Logic depends on objective truth and reality. Where there is no objective truth, there can be no logic. Why? Because logic requires the observation of the world around us in order to form premises that are unshakeable and can be agreed upon by all. “Gravity is a force that pulls toward the center of mass” one might posit, after observing the objective reality of the planet on which we live. With such premises in place, one can then follow along the premises and reach a conclusion to which they point.
1. Gravity is the force that pulls objects toward the center of mass.
2. On earth, we are pulled toward the center of mass.
3. This phenomena can only be counteracted by thrust greater than the pull of gravity, and is otherwise never counteracted.
Conclusion: The laws of gravity apply on earth.
But, if “gravity” were not an observable and objective force, but rather an abstract idea that may be true for me and not true for you, any logical syllogism leading to a conclusion would be impossible. Thus, in order to refer to any thinking as “logical,” it must be on the basis that some form of objective truth and reality exists. I may believe in gravity, and you may reject it. But as I do not fall to the earth with a thud while you float around in an invisible hammock, we must surmise that gravity is objective reality, and depends not upon your belief.
As the debate progresses, a reverse-engineering of logic and reality itself is admitted by my opponent. He does not seek to observe premises and follow them to a conclusion. Rather, he lays out a desired conclusion, and hopes to force it into truth by granting whichever premises are necessitated in order to lead to it. In that subversive system of thinking, it does not matter whether the premises are objectively real or true. So long as they point to the desired conclusion, he will grant them admission and call them true.
This is a fundamentally anti-logic, anti-reality approach to reasoning. And, it is fundamentally demonic. Why do I say such a thing? Because one might define “demonic,” as the force that seeks to undo the created order of God. Even those who do not believe in God will sometimes use the term to describe something that is fundamentally anti natural order. It is an embodiment of the desire not to understand, and not even necessarily to deny the existence of the order in the universe, but rather to undo or unmake it; replacing it with the desires of an agent of chaos. In the case of my opponent, it is shrouded by excellent vocabulary and seemingly intelligent mode of communication. But, to the discerning eye and understanding mind, the method is laid bare. The result is as horrifying as it is unbelievable.
I encourage you to read on. The debate topic: Can men get pregnant?
I will be providing minimal commentary between arguments, primarily to translate his words into common English, as his heavily academic style can be quite challenging to follow if you can’t cut through the vocabulary dance. As I proceed, my translations of his argument into simple language will be presented in italics, and my own thought responses in bold print.
The Debate: Can Men Get Pregnant? An encounter with the Unraveller.
It began with a comment that I made on a fellow Christian page. Admittedly, this comment could be viewed as incendiary and inflammatory, and I have a twinge of embarrassment. Perhaps I should have framed it more carefully; but I was speaking to my own side, and not anticipating opponents to come out of the woodwork. The people in this comment section were conservative Christians. Perhaps sloppily, it was meant as an encouragement for other conservatives not to give up on debating, not to give up on speaking truth regardless of outcome. They should remember that there are other beneficiaries to public debate than the person they are addressing, and they should not give up or feel that they are doing no good when their opponent is immovable.
“Logic and reason is impossible for them” I state hyperbolically. This may sound insulting. But why is it true? Because logic requires objective truth, and the ideologies comprising what we call “leftism” boldly deny any existence of objective truth. Truth is relative, they claim; you have your truth and I have mine. Therefore, whatever their arguments might be called, it cannot be called logic.
To this statement an answer comes:
A challenge is issued to a sort of “logic-off.” I accept the challenge, presenting both sides of a current debate in the form of syllogisms.
As expected: My premises are rejected.
It is not surprising that my opponent rejects the premise that in order to become pregnant, one must be female. Admitting this point would destroy his entire position. Predictably, he rejects my assumption that “female” is an observable, objective truth.
What is surprising however is his syllogistic response, which ignores the question at hand and presents an entirely different argument. I will translate:
Opponent’s Premise 1: Any association that is allowed for one group must be allowed to all groups.
My commentary: This is a fancy way of stating that equality of outcome is the moral good at which we must aim.
Opponent’s Premise 2: “Cis” women and men are permitted to have associations by gender.
My commentary: Yes, women and men are allowed exclusive spaces such as bathrooms, to avoid indecent compromise and unwanted sexual attention from the opposite sex.
Opponent’s Premise 3: Sex and gender are not real anyway. They are social constructs.
My commentary: This is a conclusion. Not a premise. He has made no arguments to prove this out. Nor has anyone else, for that matter. It is a sex-specific manner of stating a common trope, which is; “what’s true for one is not true for another. There is no objective reality.” Thus, it is fundamentally anti-logic, as logic depends entirely on the existence of objective truth.
Opponent’s Conclusion: “Non-cis” women and men should be permitted any gender-related association they choose.
My commentary: If the premises were in any way true, or argued logically and accepted, this conclusion might hold up. The meaning is: There is no objective truth for anyone, and equality of outcome is the highest moral good. Therefore, men who call themselves women have just as much right to woman-specific associations, spaces, and words as real women do.
My opponent’s argument is this: It does not matter whether men actually can get pregnant. It matters only whether everyone has access to all things, words, spaces, and concepts, in perfect equity. Thus, they are allowed to associate with pregnancy, periods, breastfeeding… anything that is female; on the basis of equality of outcome. Absolute equality is the law of reality, not physics.
Here I pause, torn. Should I address the many bizarre and faulty statements made in his new argument? Should I go down this deep, dark rabbit hole? Or should I try to hold him to the original argument; Is it physically possible for men to get pregnant or no? I sleep on it.
In the morning, I decide to debate one point at a time. I attempt to hold him to the original argument.
Again, his reply is mired in academic tones that serve to conceal rather than to clarify what he is actually saying. Please allow me once again to translate his points into plain English.
Opponent’s meaning: “I redirected the argument because it fails to address the real question. The question is not “can men get pregnant” but rather does “men” exist as an objective reality? We disagree on what sex is. Until we resolve that disagreement, we cannot agree on which sex/es can get pregnant.”
My commentary: Yes, I agree. We will never resolve the question at hand until we can accept one another’s premises as true. Until that time, we will not be speaking the same language. We’re going to have to go backward if there’s any hope of moving forward.
Opponent’s meaning: “Circles and squares have mutually exclusive characteristics. Corners and no-corners cannot exist in the same space. The same is not true for men and women.”
My commentary: This is blatantly false. A malformed human may have ovaries and testicles, but testicles and no-testicles cannot inhabit the same space.
Opponent’s meaning: “The difference between “male” and “female” (sexes) is poorly defined and not objectively true.”
“I would never say “men can get pregnant.” Instead I would say “men exist who can get pregnant.” Also, I wouldn’t say “women can get pregnant” because there are some who can’t.”
My commentary: Sex is actually quite well defined, and has been for all of human history until ideologs began to confuse the issue a few short years ago. It’s a true statement that some women cannot get pregnant, but it is a false twisting of reality to state that some men exist that can. This is begging the question. The whole debate is whether or not men can get pregnant, and he is assuming his own conclusion before using it again later as a premise.
Opponent’s meaning “My issue is not with biological reality… it’s with how we assign that reality to words. (Ovary to women, testicle to men). It’s a general descriptor that does not account for malformations. Therefore, it is false.”
My commentary. The opponent seeks not to deny what is or is not physically possible, but rather to provide perfect equality in which words the sexes are permitted to use to describe a state of mind. Once again, it’s an appeal that if one human being can say “I am X” than any other human must also be able to say “I am X” and be accounted truthful. Equality of outcome is the highest good.
Clearly, I reject his premises as vehemently as he rejects mine. But to say “mine” is not accurate. The premises do not belong to me, they belong to human observation for all time. It is collective human experience he rejects, not my thoughts.
In order to progress in any manner, we will have to go back. How far? To the fundamental elements of “real” and “not real,” “true” and “not true.” The objectivity of truth must be argued, before we even begin to speak the same language. I say so.
My opponent’s response comes through in the most contradictory and confusing manner possible.
His reply is impossible to nail down. He makes multiple contradictions to his former points, and then agrees with “my” arguments, pretending I made different arguments. He claims to reject the very principles he has already laid out. It’s a confusing mess, but I’ll try to translate.
Opponent’s meaning: Your arguments are exactly what I am saying. And they prove my point, not yours.
My commentary: No they aren’t, and no they don’t.
Opponent’s meaning: I too reject the distinction between sex and gender.
My commentary: This is in direct opposition to his original syllogism, and the entire argument of his side. Proponents of transgenderism and male pregnancy believe that sex and gender are two distinct things. He either does not know this, or is trying to sow confusion.
Opponent’s meaning: I also reject the distinction between cis-gender and trans-gender.
My commentary: The word “also” here implies that this was my statement. It wasn’t. He is now clearly trying to confuse and misdirect. This is nothing more than a cleverly worded statement that “trans women are real women,” without offering any logical proof that this is so. He is rejecting that there is any difference between a woman and “trans” woman. That is not what I said. I rejected the false distinction between a woman and a “cis-woman.”
Opponent’s meaning: I also reject subjective gender.
My commentary: Remember premise 3 of his syllogism, stating that sex and gender are subjective. He is now in blatant self-contradiction territory. Is he blind to this, or is he doing it on purpose? Is the intent to convince, or simply to confuse and gaslight?
Opponent’s meaning: I reject the concept that “these distinctions should exist.” I posit that they do not exist in reality.
My commentary: I did not claim that they “should” exist. My claims all had to do with distinctions that do not exist. This person’s response has little to do with the arguments I am presenting. To muddy the water and distribute confusion is his only tact.
Opponent’s meaning: The purpose of feminism is to abolish gender.
My commentary: Ah, the real objective revealed. Put a pin in that one, it’s a big deal.
Opponent’s meaning: My way of thinking is not different than the historical view of sex. It is turning the logic of the historical view of sex against itself.
My commentary: You have succeeded in no way.
Opponent’s meaning: It would not be wrong to say “cows have two horns”, it would be wrong to say “that’s not a cow” if it doesn’t.
My commentary: Absolutely correct. So, it would not be wrong to say “women can get pregnant.” It would be wrong to say “that’s not a woman, because it can’t.” This proves my point and destroys his.
Opponent’s meaning: My syllogism, clearly stated on the basis that equal outcome must be achieved for all groups, has nothing to do with equality of outcome. Because Kant.
My commentary: Bringing in Kant’s name, or giving the logic another label, does not change the substance of the argument.
Opponent’s meaning: Conservatives reject the idea that “men can get pregnant” as a silly notion. We also reject “men can get pregnant” as a silly notion, which is why we criticize the conservative position.
My commentary: Try to make sense of this one, if you can. This doesn’t even attempt sense. It defies rationality.
Of all the nonsense and contradiction that was just spewed, one thing stands out as truly sinister… truly evil. “The goal of feminism is to abolish gender.” This not only admits that gender exists (distinction between genders must exist if you wish to abolish it), but reveals the actual goal for which he is reverse-engineering logic. This will be more clearly revealed in a moment.
It’s a tough job to translate this into everyday speech, but I’ll try my best.
Opponent’s Meaning: You and I both believe what we believe because there are big players with big dollars controlling what we experience.
My commentary: All… right? I’m interested in what is or isn’t true, objectively. That people with a lot of money also believe things has nothing to do with what is is or isn’t true.
Opponent’s meaning: Because of the golden rule, we want to abolish gender. However, we understand that people are going to get in our way.
My commentary: The golden rule does not enable us to do a thing unto others when the thing they want done is not possible. You would like eagle wings. But you cannot give me eagle wings because you’d like someone to give them to you. I can no more give you eagle wings than change or abolish your gender.
Additionally, the golden rule does not licence you to do something to others because you want it done to you. If I want a nose piercing, I don’t go give one to my neighbor by force in order to get one myself in return. The golden rule is no argument for imposing genderlessness on a society that does not want it.
Opponent’s meaning: The difference of sexes that has been understood for all of human history is both true AND false.
My commentary: A thing cannot be both true and false. Any such position is mysticism, not logic.
Opponent’s meaning: I believe it’s wrong, but not because I disagree with it. I think it’s wrong because it’s internally contradictory that YOU think it’s wrong.
My commentary: Wut?
Opponent’s meaning: Your arguments say “men can’t get pregnant” but the logic you use to reach that conclusion necessitates the admission that “men can get pregnant.”
My commentary: This has been demonstrated in no way. At no point was this successfully argued.
But more importantly, the real strategy at play is laid entirely bare. This is not a debate about what is or isn’t real. It’s a statement of what he intends to MAKE real. “We want sex and gender abolished” he says. The logic required to make this happen necessitates the use of seemingly impossible premises such as “men can get pregnant.” Since they are necessary for the conclusion, they are admitted as premises; not because he “disagrees or has other views” on whether they are possible in physics. He is not observing reality to form premises and arrive at a conclusion. Logic is not what he is going about, by any measure. He has a desired objective: to destroy the created order of gender. He will introduce premises that serve that goal, regardless of whether they are real, true, or even possible. All of this by his own admission. The confession of a demon. I say so.
With the mention of demonic thought and the question of “who is we?” the opponent disappeared and did not reply. It was also at this time that I finally clicked on his profile and found a black hole account. No friends, two fake photos. Nothing at all. It was almost as though the account was created specifically to have this debate with me.
The Adversary’s goal is not, and has never been, to disprove the created order. He does not claim created order doesn’t exist. It exists, and he hates it. His purpose is to destroy it, and create something else in its stead. The first tactic he employs is always to sow confusion and doubt. “Did God really say…?”
Sowing confusion was his tactic, and destroying rather than denying reality his goal. The methods of this individual mirror that of the Adversary precisely. Masked in academic vocabulary and polite eloquence, his arguments are no logicl; but the deliberate attempt to confuse at every opportunity, to deny the existence of objective truth on which logic depends, to contradict everything including himself, and ultimately, to destroy reality and create a sexless society. As Thomas Aquinas and traditional Christian demonology present demons as sexless amalgamations, this person (?) wishes the human race to follow suit.
So, my readers. What do you think?
Did I have a chat with a demon this week, or just a human emissary?
Does it make any difference?
Key Words / Search Terms
A Dance With A Friendly Demon | sex abolitionist | men get pregnant | can men get pregnant | objective truth | logic and reality | anti-logic | demonic reasoning | reverse-engineering logic | equality of outcome | abolish gender | feminism abolish gender | sex and gender social constructs | trans women are women | gender abolition | created order | demonic | Adversary | unraveller | Facebook debate | apostoic.com
More Articles for You:
The Apple Sacks and the Red Herring: A Short Parable on Distraction Tactics, Anger, and the Cost of Folly – Apostoic
The Emperor and the Two Governors: A Christian – Stoic Parable of Sequence and Causation – Apostoic
Socials:
Blog: https://atomic-temporary-233984289.wpcomstaging.com
X: @DSpencer_blog
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61584804386705
Apostoic – YouTube
Drop a penny in the tip jar. This blog is entirely reader-funded.
Leave a Reply