Chromosomal sex is not the entirety of sex. There’s also hormonal sex and anatomical sex. If anything, anatomical sex is the original referent of the word, from before we knew anything about hormones or chromosomes. And there are some people naturally born with a chromosomal sex that differs from their hormonal or anatomical sex (women AFAB but with XY chromosomes), and everyone has always referred to them by their anatomical sex (as we usually don’t know anything but anatomical sex about anyone).
Hormonal and genital sex can be changed already, and it’s only a matter of time before chromosomal sex can be changed too (hello CRISPR).
How is it possible.
It isn't from a scientific perspective. How has it become so accepted as a concept?
Let's walk through this. Presumably, sex is a matter of chromosomes (it's not exactly; but that's close enough for government work). So let's call a person who is XY male-sexed, and a person who is XX female-sexed.
Now let's define a sex change in these terms. A sex change would be a change in the chromosomes from XY to XX, or XX to XY. This is what you're claiming is not possible. I'll presume by possible you're referring to something like technological feasibility. Quoting Andrew4Handel
How has it become so accepted as a concept?
...and here we fail. It doesn't appear that it is technologically feasible to change a person from male-sexed to female-sexed.
So, maybe you're going to have to explain this to me. What impossible thing are you referring to that is accepted as a concept?
Having surgery to mutilate your genitalia and spending a life time on wrong sex hormones and other body damaging chemicals is not changing sex it is forcing your body to be something it doesn't want to be and once hormones stop it will revert back to it's natural self.
These surgeries (in my opinion) are Frankenstein surgeries and abusive. people who have had their breasts or penis removed and then detransition cannot replace them. The rate of detransition has risen with the rate of trans acceptance.
I think humans each have a dominant soul out of our many internal parts that is either male or female. People might say I'm being to philosophically Platonic in that respect, but I have to draw the line somewhere
Reply to InPitzotl You cannot tell the difference between a man or a woman.? I have always been able to tell I use my ears. I can also tell when someone has had "gender reassignment"
The fact that to "pass" as the opposite sex requires numerous surgeries and a life time on medication shows that you cannot become the opposite sex through wishful thinking. You have to rely on unethical surgeons and big pharma. It is a money making scam that is undermining gender non conformity, women and gays. Instead of pray the gay away it is now trans the gay away.
But where is the philosophy in this? Who has defended this sex change magic?
How can it be ethical to chop off healthy breasts and penises?
Having surgery to mutilate your genitalia and spending a life time on wrong sex hormones and other body damaging chemicals is not changing sex it is forcing your body to be something it doesn't want to be and once hormones stop it will revert back to it's natural self.
If your body "wants" high levels of blood sugar, should you modify it with insulin injections only to watch it revert to its natural diabetic state as God, blessed be He, intended it once you cleanse it of the unnatural synthetic insulin?
This conversation will come down to what you think is a healthy state, with the final question being who gets to decide how they wish to live their lives, you or the affected person.
Having surgery to mutilate your genitalia and spending a life time on wrong sex hormones and other body damaging chemicals is not changing sex it is forcing your body to be something it doesn't want to be and once hormones stop it will revert back to it's natural self.
Having such surgeries is scientifically possible; but since when is bodies wanting to be things scientific? Quoting Andrew4Handel
You cannot tell the difference between a man or a woman.?
I have always been able to tell I use my ears. I can also tell when someone has had "gender reassignment"
That sounds anecdotal, not scientific. Silly me, but by your OP I thought you were complaining about the acceptance of something that was scientifically impossible.
Why would you only recognize distinctions that occur only at birth and not those through human effort.
It is not a distinction it is a case of natural and artificial. I think pretending to be the opposite sex is a lie. Prove me otherwise That is the human effort. It is like camouflage. A woman is not something superficial but a biological reality and the reason we are all here because only women can gestate, and give birth
Some trans people have claimed they wish they could have abortions, they enjoy being catcalled because it validates their woman hood they have stated an array of sexist ideas about women hood that I can freely quote. It is clearly a fantasy that can never be achieved but based on misogyny but also women who want to be men are often trying to escape misogyny and the abuse they faced as women
It isn't from a scientific perspective. How has it become so accepted as a concept?
"Woman" and "female" are words and can be redefined any time standard usage changes. If enough people accept people born as biological males who identify themselves as females as women, then they will be. That battle is being fought vigorously on the political, legal, and social front right now.
There is a recognized psychological diagnosis - gender dysphoria - in which a person born with one biological sex feels as though they are the other. It's certainly debatable, but recognizing them as such is not necessarily unreasonable.
It certainly hasn't gone that far yet, but the legal and social differences between women and men have become less prominent, less important during my lifetime. On the other hand, there are still times when the distinction is very important, e.g. women and men often have to be treated differently medically. Even so, It's not as big a deal what people call themselves as it once was. Some people, maybe even I, might say "Who cares." Others, maybe even you, might say "I care a lot."
Breast reduction and enhancement surgeries occur in contexts other than in transsexual situations. Do you object to those?
A double mastectomy is not a a breast reduction. It is breast annihilation and when performed on young women can lead to chronic pain in later life. Hysterectomies increase the risk of Alzheimer's, heart attacks and osteoporosis.
Plastic surgery has often been abused (Michael Jackson/Joycelyn Wildenstein) not all surgery is therapeutic or life saving.
The only reason trans surgeries are seen as life saving is because they are seen to prevent suicides but little to none of the literature supports that.
Are gender qualities defined by physical attributes only, or does it require auxiliary qualities such as psychological attributes too?
Haven't you seen sissies in male bodies and a butch in female bodies? Even in this forum, don't you see
examples of people who would normally be considered as grown men (age factor), acting like sissies with their hissy fits, when they go around trolling others? These are not very 'manlike' qualities now are they?
When you take into account factors like the above, and other markers like psychological dispositions, conduct etc., you might want to re-consider how you define and separate the sex.I sure am having a hard time deciding on some of the posters/trolls here.
I have always been able to tell I use my ears. I can also tell when someone has had "gender reassignment"
— Andrew4Handel
That sounds anecdotal, not scientific
In what sense is it anecdotal? I have survived 45 years using my ears and eyes to tell me how reality works. I am not going to distrust my senses based on someone else's self i.d. in their mind.
I thought gender dysphoria was a mental illness now we are told it's not these people are really trapped in the wrong body and being liberated by surgeons and big pharma.
Stopping a child achieving puberty and making them infertile is now liberation theology.
Reply to Andrew4Handel It seems to me that whether it is metaphysically possible to change one's sex depends on whether one's sex is determined in part by a historical property.
It seems to me that we can distinguish four broad views about sex (scope for lots of disagreement within these):
A) Physicalism about sex
One's sex is constitutively determined by sets of physical features.
B) Subjectivism about sex
One's sex is constitutively determined by subjective features (one's attitudes etc).
C) Pluralism about sex
One's sex is constitutively determined by bundles of features that include - or can include - both subjective and physical properties.
D) Historicism about sex
One's sex is constitutively determined at a particular time and is fixed thereafter. So, on this view, there is a 'baptismal' point at which, due to satisfying the conditions of one of either A, B or C, you are sex X, Y, or neither. And that's what you are thereafter.
To clarify: take a genuine Leonardo da Vinci. What makes it a Leonardo da Vinci? Well, it possesses a historical property: Leonardo da Vinci painted it. And that's why an exact replica won't qualify, no matter that it possesses all the same current-time-slice properties.
If either of A or B or C is true, then one's sex can be changed. Exactly what it would take to change it would, of course, be determined by the substance of A, B or C.
But if D is true, then changing one's sex would require undoing the past. And that seems like something only God could do.
So, does sex have a historical component? I have to say, my own intuitions say that it doesn't. "I used to be a woman, but now I am a man" does not sound confused (whereas "this used to be a Leonardo da Vinci, but now it is a Rubens" does).
A better question would be why the contents of other people's underpants cause folk such as you so much grief.
I am concerned about the erosion of women's rights, gay erasure, suppression of gender non conformity, life altering surgeries leading to a life time of health care etc not what is in someone's pants. Most trans people do not pass ( I have known four) I don't need to look in peoples underwear. The one's that pass are a luck minority. Elliot page looks unhappy and awful yet is being affirmed by people for what has happened to they.
There are two kinds of sex - mental and physical. That mental sex is real is evidenced by transgenders (mismatch between mental and physical sex). Sex change is limited to the physical and, interestingly, a transgender will request that faer body be modified to match faer mental sex. I've never heard of any transgender requesting the opposite - reprogramming faer mind to match faer body. In other words, mental sex trumps physical sex i.e. a person's true sex is faer mental sex. I can pick up the telltale signs of a paradox - that transgenders exist implies that sex is mental but that they want a sex change implies that their main concern is physical sex! Go figure!
Men are considered effeminate for not acting macho, women are considered butch for not acting girly.
Women are not camp men and men are not butch lesbians. Gender non conformity should not lead to genital mutilation and a life time on chemicals.
The point was, one has to reconsider their definitions on how you separate or define the sex's. Taking into account the associated psychological and conduct requirements. Case in point, some of the forum members.
I completely disagree. Who has discovered this "mental sex". By mental do you mean immaterial?
Before the discovery of hormones and extensive advances in plastic surgery there was no way to live other than in the body you were born in. There is no evidence of mass trans suicides before they could get surgery and hormones.
This mental sex appears to consists of an array of stereotypes about the opposite sex. Men and women's dress and roles has varied throughout time and culture.
I've worked with trans children and seen the difference that recognition makes to them. I don't pretend to understand transsexuality, but that does not lead me to damn it, as you do.
One's sex is constitutively determined by subjective features (one's attitudes etc).
That is sex stereotypes which is the foundation of transgenderism. It is about conforming to stereotypes to feel comfortable. Many women now wear trousers but if you go on reddit trans sub reddit's most of the men identifying as women wear skirts and say how great it feels.
They don't say anything that reminds me of my three sisters and their experiences as being women. It just comes of as a fetish.
Reply to Andrew4Handel I certainly agree with you that this is a debate where a lot of ugly sexist and homophobic attitudes have found a way of expressing themselves without being called-out for what they are.
But which of A, B, C or D is true is a philosophical matter. It is just that position B - subjectivism about sex - is a position that is going to be especially appealing to a certain sort of sexist (not all -there's more than one way to be a sexist!). That doesn't mean B is false, of course. It just explains why many support it - there are a lot of sexists out there. Though one could endorse B and not be a sexist, of course.
anecdotal
1. (of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research
https://www.oxfordify.com/meaning/anecdotal
I have survived 45 years using my ears and eyes to tell me how reality works. I am not going to distrust my senses based on someone else's self i.d. in their mind.
That doesn't sound very scientific to me. Using your eyes and ears to tell you how reality works is what nearly everyone does. Also, scientists don't tend to go around declaring whose eyes and ears they are going to trust and whose eyes and ears they are going to distrust. Quoting Andrew4Handel
I thought gender dysphoria was a mental illness now we are told it's not
Given you have opened this thread talking about science, what does the science say?
Most children with gender dysphoria are gay and without intervention resolve their identity issues. Affirmation and puberty blockers etc prolong gender dysphoria.
I am lucky I am a gay man who only wanted to hang around with girls as a young child. I liked hanging around with girls without feeling there was anything wrong with this. I enjoyed being around the opposite sex with no shame and no need to not identify as male. I was diagnosed as autistic in my 40's which explains my non conformity but also 2 trans identified people I know I met through autism services and the other 2 trans people I know exhibited autistic traits.
That doesn't sound very scientific to me. Using your eyes and ears to tell you how reality works is what nearly everyone does
Science has to assume that some human faculties are accurate., Are you seriously claiming you cannot identify who is male and female. The start of categorisation of entities is based on the reliability of the human senses.
Science shows and every day experience that only a man and woman can produce a children.
They have yet to create the insane dystopia of trying to give a woman a penis implant and implant a womb in a man. But by Jebus they are trying hard.
Or if you prefer, suck it up and mind your own business.
Undermining women's rights, women's sports, gay erasure and genital mutilation, medication of children is everyone's business I am not selfish enough to think otherwise.
It us not a distinction it is a case of natural and artificial
This comment is incoherent. You claim there is no distinction, but then you distinguish one as being natural and the other artificial, while my position has been that you've established a distinction that makes no difference and that you only object to when it offends your views on sexual morality. Not sure this can be unmuddled. Quoting Andrew4Handel
double mastectomy is not a a breast reduction. It is breast annihilation and when performed on young women can lead to chronic pain in later life. Hysterectomies increase the risk of Alzheimer's, heart attacks and osteoporosis.
Sure, and breast enhancements and face lifts and all sorts of elective procedures have risks. Why do you get to weigh in on other's piercings, tattoos, breast enlargements, or whatever? What moral principle is violated by allowing these decisions to be made by adults without your two cents Quoting Andrew4Handel
The only reason trans surgeries are seen as life saving is because they are seen to prevent suicides but little to none of the literature supports that.
So as long as the decision isn't made on the basis of suicide prevention you're OK with it, or does that article mean more than that?Quoting Andrew4Handel
Most of the Iranian transsexuals are and most detransitioned women are lesbians.
That was a really (as in award winning) ridiculous post. Iran forces gay people into sex change operations because I guess they figure that will eliminate homosexuality. So, of fucking course most trans people in Iran are gay. Their fucked up beyond repair government forces them on a gurney and performs involuntary surgery on them. You then use as evidence that most trans are gay the results of Iran's fucked up practice.
What moral principle is violated by allowing these decisions to be made by adults without your two cents
I think that cosmetic surgery which is self harm in many cases is a concern because it is self harm. I am not pro suicide or pro self harm.
This young man now has to live the rest of his life without a penis because some generous surgeon cut it off.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWv7RNlVjaU&t=312s
A moral principle based on self indulgence (that is how it is nowadays) is narcissism and solipsism writ large and does not promote anyone's welfare other than ones own self ID. It is not a foundation for community/society.
One's sex is constitutively determined by subjective features (one's attitudes etc).
— Bartricks
That is sex stereotypes which is the foundation of transgenderism. It is about conforming to stereotypes to feel comfortable. Many women now wear trousers but if you go on reddit trans sub reddit's most of the men identifying as women wear skirts and say how great it feels.
They don't say anything that reminds me of my three sisters and their experiences as being women. It just comes of as a fetish.
I think I am sympathetic to what you're saying. For like I say, I do think that at present this debate offers a way for a certain kind of sexist to express their sexist attitudes. And this particular kind of sexist is going to endorse position B as a way of doing this. That doesn't mean position B is sexist or that anyone who endorses it is a sexist. But many sexists are going to endorse position B, and be doing so for sexist reasons (rather than apparent epistemic ones).
1. If you're a sexist (of a certain sort), then you'll find position B plausible (if P, then Q)
2. I find position B plausible (Q)
3. Therefore I am a sexist (therefore P)
That's clearly fallacious. So one could defend B and not be a sexist, but many sexists will defend B.
There are different ways to be a sexist, and in saying that position B will appeal to a sexist of a certain sort, I am not suggesting that those who endorse A or C or D are not capable of being sexists too (many will be).
It seems to me, though, that you're endorsing a stronger position: you seem to be saying that position B is essentially sexist. Would that be correct?
I don't personally think subjectivism about sex is the correct view. I think A is correct. My sex is a feature of my body, not of me (for I am not my body). But as such I think sex can be changed. I think only D would result in a 'sex can't be changed' conclusion. (And I think D isn't all that plausible).
Undermining women's rights, women's sports, gay erasure and genital mutilation, medication of children is everyone's business I am not selfish enough to think otherwise.
And not clever enoughto phrase the problem in a considered, respectful way.
you seem to be saying that position B is essentially sexist. Would that be correct?
Yes.
The idea that you can become the opposite sex ignores biological reality and embodiment. Women are the main losers because men who have dominated women for millennia can now claim to be women by wearing a dress and lipstick and undermine them and win at their sports and get women of the year awards and invade spaces designed for the protection of women against male violence.
Being a woman is then reduced to the superficial not biological reality.
The start of categorisation of entities is based on the reliability of the human senses.
Okay, but that does not entail that science has to rely on anecdotes, nor does it suffice to show that anecdotal evidence is scientific. Neither of those things are true. Quoting Andrew4Handel
Science shows [s]and every day experience[/s] that only a man and woman can produce a children.
I crossed out the superfluous part. To the best of my knowledge, there's no ethical current technology to produce a human offspring without involving a male and a female, though there are potential unethical technologies. But this is simply factual; there's nothing normative here. Quoting Andrew4Handel
They have yet to create the insane dystopia of trying to give a woman a penis implant and implant a womb in a man.
"insane dystopia" is a political term. As for the science, there's no scientific theory I'm aware of that states that it is impossible to give a woman such a penis. The absolute best you can say is that there's no extant technology to pull this off.
I engaged you over the scientific claims. You keep replying to me, but nowhere are you backing up that there's anything scientific here... you're just trying to pass off your politics as scientific. Here, I don't much care about anything else; there are plenty of folk here who will be happy to politicize with you.
And not clever enough to phrase the problem in a considered, respectful way.
I don't respect misogyny, child abuse and gay erasure. I am not going to pretend people can change sex to spare someone's feelings just Like I am not going top pretend the moon is made of cheese. I am not going to endorse penis and vagina mutilation. You can do it and be on the wrong side of history whatever...
moral principle based on self indulgence (that is how it is nowadays) is narcissism and solipsism writ large and does not promote anyone's welfare other than ones own self ID. It is not a foundation for community/society.
Again, you've not shown why sexual issues should be treated differently than other forms of self-indulgence, like buying a sports car, getting a face lift, buying designer clothes.
Why do trans people so offend you and epitomize for you self indulgence when their brand of self expression is so relatively rare but others so common?Quoting Andrew4Handel
Can you give me one HEALTHY reason for rejecting ones biological sex?
Since it's in all caps, I suppose it's your critical term. What does it mean and is adherence to it universally decreed or just when it involves sexual issues?
Okay, but that does not entail that science has to rely on anecdotes,
Being able to identify a male form a female is not an anecdote and if you claim so you are just outright lying about reality. It is insulting to men and women to deny the reality of sexual dimorphism to humour people with dysphoria or gender saboteurs. There is a huge literature on male and female bodies. reproduction, vaginas penises, sperm etc this is not like someone mistaking a bush for a cow in the middle of the night.
CRISPR - Wait a few decades and it will be perfectly possible to switch back and forth easily enough AND produce eggs/sperm.
Either way if woman becomes a man they are still a woman who has become a man. Actions cannot erase the history/experience.
@TheMadFool I’m not inclined to agree that there are different ‘kinds of sex’ as you said above. Neither am I inclined to use other derivatives of terms that are generally created to by someone to make a name for themselves in a certain field of interest. They should either create a completely new term or think carefully about how using the same term in a different manner could muddy the waters and accomplish little more than academic confusion and/or create misunderstanding in the public sphere at large.
That said, there are grey areas and that’s fine. As mentioned above it is more than possible in the not too distant future that people will be able to fully change from one sex to another, and I’m sure some will abscond and turn to surgery instead for various personal reasons.
Defining oneself by any one particular aspect of out being seems a little obsessive to me. Sadly society forces some to have to react against the ‘norm’.
If a trans person is happy with the results, it isn't harm.
But there is little evidence that reassignment surgery causes happiness. It does not end dysphoria. But happiness is not evidence of goodness. There were happy Nazi's. This is emotional blackmail writ large where someone has something happen due to threats of self harm,.
But there is little evidence that reassignment surgery causes happiness. It does not end dysphoria
If this is the case, it will come out eventually. In the meantime there are people who feel great relief from putting down their burden. Leave them be.
In the definitive sense:
anecdotal
1. (of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research
Well you have just found a problem with the notion of science. In what sense is any observation not a personal account?
An anecdote is usually when some uses one experience to generalise. I am not using ONE experience I am using a lifetime of being around men an women.
But there is science as well. For example men are taller on average than woman. Lauren Laverne identifies as female and is much taller than Chase Strangio who identifies as male. The failure to "pass" is due to people innate ability to recognise sex differences.
It is reality denying. It is unscientific. It prioritises peoples mental states over reality. We don't apply this "logic" in many areas of life.
Be that as it may, that's the way things are. Bitch and moan. Gnash your teeth. Repeat after me "Hell in a hand basket," "Why, when I was a boy..." My prediction - this will all die down fairly quickly. It will not longer be fashionable to be transgender. Those who are left will be those with true gender dysphoria. Keep in mind that I'm almost always wrong when I make this kind of prediction.
I'll be satisfied as long as children are protected from making decisions that have serious consequences and are hard to reverse.
What I find problematic is the desire that everyone pretends that a male is a female (or vice versa) and even actually believes they have become a female/male because of self identity.
The equivalent is everyone having to believe I am a genius because I claim I am one. I find this psychologically damaging. Some trans people (maybe most?) will acknowledge they have not changed sex but are living as the sex they feel comfortable with. They will accept claims such as "Trans women are men"
For myself as a gay male I do not need societies affirmation or approval to know what I am. I grew up with religious homophobia and that is probably the main reason I left Christianity. But now society has to change to pander to everyone's self identity and assimilate everyone else's personal beliefs..
you seem to be saying that position B is essentially sexist. Would that be correct?
— Bartricks
Yes.
The idea that you can become the opposite sex ignores biological reality and embodiment. Women are the main losers because men who have dominated women for millennia can now claim to be women by wearing a dress and lipstick and undermine them and win at their sports and get women of the year awards and invade spaces designed for the protection of women against male violence.
Being a woman is then reduced to the superficial not biological reality.
I don't think subjectivism about sex is very plausible. But I don't see why it would be 'essentially' sexist to endorse the view (stupid, perhaps, but not necessarily sexist).
I take it that one way to be a sexist is to think that women 'ought' to behave in certain ways, have certain attitudes and so on (and likewise for men). So, it is not a view about what makes someone a man or a women, but about what you 'ought' to do and feel etc, if you are one or the other. So it is that normative element that makes it sexist.
But to think that you are a man or a women depending on whether you hold those attitudes, behave in those ways etc, though quite silly as a philosphical position, is not itself sexist, as it is not a normative view. It is descriptive, not normative.
It's just that many who hold the normative view are led by it to endorse the descriptive view. They reason, presumably, something like this: this is how women ought to behave.....I am behaving in that way......therefore I am a woman. It's fallacious reasoning and has a sexist premise. To make the conclusion follow one would need to put in a premise expressing the truth of B. And thus the slightly more reflective sexist will be driven to endorse B. But that doesn't make B sexist, for the sexism was expressed in the premise that said "this is how women ought to behave; or ought to think; etc".
So I think B may be quite a silly view, but I don't see that it is essentially sexist, even though many sexists (of a certain sort) may end up endorsing it.
Well you have just found a problem with the notion of science. In what sense is any observation not a personal account?
To intentionally use the pun, science has made controlling for all sorts of errors in personal accounts a science. Scientific observations would employ said controls. Your personal observations are most certainly not controlled. Quoting Andrew4Handel
But there is science as well. For example men are taller on average than woman.
Sure; humans are sexually dimorphic. But note that you're immediately jumping to averages, because the dimorphism in heights isn't all that extreme. There are plenty of short males and tall females. This is child's play compared to the sexual size dimorphism found in spiders. Quoting Andrew4Handel
Lauren Laverne identifies as female and is much taller than Chase Strangio who identifies as male.
This is also anecdotal. Incidentally, are you sure you really mean Lauren Laverne?
What I find problematic is the desire that everyone pretends that a male is a female (or vice versa) and even actually believes they have become a female/male because of self identity.
Do you really think a biologically born female and a trans female lack recognition of their historical and current differences and that hey live in a delusional state, or do you think maybe they see as clearly as you do, but it's really a civil rights issue and a desire not to be treated like a freak?
If you think you're enlightening anyone with your clarity, you're not. You're just demanding a rigid classification system that will do nothing more than further ostracize, attack, and bully an already oppressed and vilified super minority. You bring no light to this issue in any sense.
Since I assume you don't live with the delusion that you will effectively scold the ttans community into submission to your will, can you at least acknowledge their existence is not being made more HEALTHY by your and your ilk's berating?
. But note that you're immediately jumping to averages,
How did humans create 7 billion of themselves? It is not an average it is a huge majority of humans displaying sexual dimorphism. Puberty blockers , hormones and genitals surgeries lead to the evolutionary dead end of infertility.
Unlike some species humans cannot spontaneously change sex and remain fertile.
Since I assume you don't live with the delusion that you will effectively scold the trans community into submission to your will, can you at least acknowledge their existence is not being made more HEALTHY by your and your ilk's berating
I do not think trans people exist. No one can change sex. I have posted a video of a young man on here who had his penis destroyed to due to gender ideology. I have never met him or had any influence on him.
The number of detransitioners is far greater than trans activist propaganda will have you believe. Encouraging children to deny their biological sex is gross child abuse and gender "reassignment surgeries are mutilation. There is nothing healthy, progressive or truthful about this movement.
It has relied on huge amount of deception, lies censorship, cancel culture, suppressing research etc.
If you think a penis can be turned into a functioning vagina I would question your sanity. It is a wound that will keep on trying to heal if you don't use a dilator this is probably why 70-90% of trans women keep their penises. Blaire White has kept hers and has used this description of the neo vagina.
It is not an average it is a huge majority of humans displaying sexual dimorphism.
What is the antecedent to "it" there? We were just talking about sexual size dimorphism. I specifically cited sexual size dimorphism in spiders to contrast. Now suddenly you're talking about all sexual dimorphism. Quoting Andrew4Handel
Puberty blockers , hormones and genitals surgeries lead to the evolutionary dead end of infertility.
There's nothing normative about evolution. There is no "scientific mandate" to reproduce.
IMHO, a male cannot be turned into a female (likewise, a female cannot be changed into a male). What can be done is a change of clothing, hair style, makeup, gait, and so on. Prescribed hormones can do what hormone disorders can do -- give men breasts and women mustaches. A surgeon can slice away unwanted giblets or can fashion wanted ones.
The upshot? The man is still a man. The woman is still a woman. Can they pass? They can, if they are good at it, Going back centuries, some men have passed as women and some women have passed as men. Were the fakes to be examined with a little care, their real sex would be discovered.
Reply to Andrew4Handel The credibility of a view is not affected by who endorses it - so the fact many sexists endorse subjectivism about sex isn't, in itself, evidence that the view is implausible.
So ignoring entirely who does and doesn't endorse it, is subjectivism about sex at all plausible? I think the answer to that is a pretty clear 'no'.
There are a variety of subjectivist positions available, all quite implausible.
For example, the view that you are sex X if you think you are sex X is incoherent. For thoughts have content, and so the thought that you are sex X needs to have some content - that is, the thinker needs to be thinking something. What are they thinking when they think they are sex X? Well, whatever they are thinking - whatever content their thought has - will express a view about what they think being that sex involves. And thus it will involve more than just 'thinking' you are that sex.
So that view - you are sex X if you think you are sex X - makes no sense and can be dismissed as incoherent.
Then there's what we might call the 'performative' view. A performative is where you make something the case by doing or saying it. So, "meeting adjourned" is a performative. For saying it will - if you are the chair - adjourn the meeting. Likewise "I promise to pay you $5" makes it the case that you have promised to pay $5. Sometimes, then, saying something makes it so.
Some subjectivists about sex take this idea and apply it to sex, arguing that sex is a performative (or that 'one' way in which you can qualify as a given sex is by performing a performative). Saying you are sex X is a performative (it is argued) and so just as saying "meeting adjourned" adjourns the meeting, so too saying "I am sex X" makes you that sex.
This view is not incoherent, but it doesn't seem to have anything to be said for it. Why on earth think sex is a performative? The brute possibility that it could be? That's not a good reason in any other context (the brute possibility you are a murderer is not good reason to think you are one). And in other cases of performatives - promises, marriages, meeting adjournments, pardons and so on - it is intuitively clear to virtually everyone that the saying of the thing makes it so. If being sex X is something that can be achieved via performative then we would expect it to be obvious to most reflective people that it is - that is, that saying "I am sex X" is away of becoming sex X. Yet it is far from obvious as the existence of heated debate over this matter testifies. And thus there just seems nothing to be said for this view. It has no evidence in its support.
Another version of subjectivism about sex would say that to be sex X involves having certain attitudes and dispositions. But it is quite easy to show this kind of view to be false: one simply imagines if there is something incoherent in the idea of a person of sex Y having those attitudes and dispositions. And if there is nothing incoherent about it, then the view has been falsified.
This kind of subjectivist might appeal to bundles of such attitudes and dispositions, but the same applies and plus such moves are always apt to look ad hoc.
So one doesn't need to appeal to any of the sexist motivations that lead some to endorse subjectivism about sex (and doing so is ad hominem anyway). We can just soberly assess it in the cold hard light of rational day and see that it turns out to have nothing to be said for it. (Which is, presumably, why it is the preserve mainly of the stupid and the sexist).
But still, the whole 'changing sex' issue is a red herring. FOr like I say, sex is only unchangeable if sex has an essential historical element - but it doesn't seem to. Different issues are being conflated here, then. Can one change one's sex? Well, yes. That seems metaphysically possible (and may well be practically possible too). But is sex subjective? Well, it doesn't seem to be. And thus changing one's sex requires something more than simply changing one's attitudes or thinking one has changed one's sex or some such.
The credibility of a view is not affected by who endorses it - so the fact many sexists endorse subjectivism about sex isn't, in itself, evidence that the view is implausible.
Subjectivism is fundamental to trans ideology. It is about feelings over biology. These feelings are deeply imbedded with sex stereotypes.
I find it hard to believe that 99.9% of people are unable to differentiate between a male and female. That by identifying a female I am being subjective, biased and undergoing a hallucinations. Denying the ability to differentiate between men and women is surely and illness is surely disorder like prosopagnosia?
The inability to remember peoples faces is prosopagnosia. But the inability to classify someone's (mental) gender is transphobia.
I find it hard to believe that 99.9% of people are unable to differentiate between a male and female.
I smell shifting the goalpost here. I also smell black and white fallacy here.
You're quite a dramatic little fellow aren't you. Observing one person who has transitioned who passes is all it takes to make the leap from always being able to tell to not always being able to tell. But apparently that's enough for you to invent disorders to explain the outliers.
Denying the ability to differentiate between men and women is surely and illness is surely disorder like prosopagnosia?
I was recently playing around with a face manipulating app that gives you different options depending on whether (it thinks) you’re male or female. Depending on the picture it would identify me as male or female, and not because of clothes or hair, because my hair is the same in all of them, in some of the ones where I’m dressed en femme it thinks I’m male, and in others where I’m wearing an ordinary men’s t-shirt or no shirt at all at thinks I’m female.
Software trained on a bunch of male and female faces has some kind of disorder too?
Subjectivism is fundamental to trans ideology. It is about feelings over biology. These feelings are deeply imbedded with sex stereotypes.
I don't think that's true even though I do think that sexism and sex stereotypes and homophobia is implicated in a lot of this.
Subjectivism about sex seems false. Once we just focus on it as a philosophical position and ignore all the noises-off, it seems to have next to nothing to be said for it. We can show this without mentioning sexism. Sexism is, I am sure, the reason why many endorse subjectivist positions about sex (not the only reason - lack of reflection and tribalism too, no doubt). But subjectivism about sex - though often motivated by sexist commitments - can be assessed on its own merits. And when assessed in that manner it just seems false.
That also means that view C - the pluralist view - goes down too. Leaving A - physicalism - and D - historicism.
I think A is true, both because I think D is prima facie implausible (and A is the only other option, once B - and by extension, C - are knocked out), and that A is independently plausible, given that there seems nothing incoherent in me discovering that I am a woman, despite my belief that I am a man.
But A is entirely compatible with changing one's sex. If A is true, then sex is a feature of my physical body. Well, I am not my body. And so my body can be changed - it can be changed from male to female, or male to neither male or female - and it will still be my body afterwards, it is just that now I will be a female rather than a male.
So that's why I don't see subjectivism as essential to trans ideology. For one could be trans but agree that transitioning from one sex to another requires that one's physical body undergoes certain changes. And one could be trans and not be motivated by any sexist attitudes. So I think we need to be careful not to tar everyone with the same brush.
You'd benefit from reading the UN primer on sex/gender and transgenderism. The concepts are a bit nuanced, but since you're a philosopher you're up to the task of understanding them.
Reply to fdrake
I think that the link you provide is extremely useful, because it gives clear information. I believe if people wish to understand the topic it is worth looking at this link for clarity.
You cannot tell the difference between a man or a woman.? I have always been able to tell I use my ears. I can also tell when someone has had "gender reassignment"
Most trans people do not pass ( I have known four) I don't need to look in peoples underwear. The one's that pass are a luck minority.
If you accept that some trans people "pass" (which I assume you mean that their appearance does not indicate that they have had gender reassignment) then you can't always tell when someone has had gender reassignment. And you've already said that you don't care about chromosomes. So how do you determine the difference between a cisgender person and a "passing" transgender person?
A woman is not something superficial but a biological reality and the reason we are all here because only women can gestate, and give birth
Not all women can gestate or give birth, so being able to gestate or give birth is not what it means to be a woman. Could you clarify what you believe to be the necessary and sufficient conditions to be a woman?
If you want to talk philosophy then a) essentialism is bullshit and b) meaning is use. Neither biology nor the definitions of words is black and white.
Aside from that, what does philosophy have to do with being transgender and having sex reassignment surgery?
And what, exactly, are you arguing? That transgender people ought be mistreated? That transgender people ought not be protected from discrimination for being transgender? That transgender people ought not be respected in their wish to be called a particular name or talked about using particular pronouns? That sex reassignment surgery ought not be allowed?
1. Club foot. A natural condition that without surgery and corrective plasters etc would leave the patient crippled for life. Few would argue against 'corrective' surgery in infancy when it is easiest and most effective.
2. Cleft palate. A natural condition that has some long term health implications, but huge social implications. Surgery is again much easier in infancy but is more 'cosmetic'. Likewise, the amputation of extra fingers or toes, or webbed digits.
3. Unusually heavy breasts A natural condition the appears at puberty and has some health implications but 'corrective' surgery is mainly carried out for cosmetic reasons.
4. Circumcision. A cosmetic mutilating amputation carried out for social and religious reasons.
5.FGM. A cosmetic mutilating amputation carried out for social and religious reasons.
6. Castration. No longer much practiced.
7. Dentisty. Universally practiced in the West for health and cosmetic purposes.
8. Skin-lightening. a non surgical intervention carried out for cosmetic social reasons.
It is surely clear that the distinction between health benefits and purely cosmetic reasons is blurred. It is surely clear that it is normal practice to make some surgical interventions in infancy for reasons of social conformity.
It is clear that humans spend a great deal of time, money and effort in the manipulation of their own and each other's bodies, mainly for reasons of tribal conformity and tradition, and (not separate) sexual identification and attractiveness.
There is a strong demand - social pressure - for gender conformity. This leads to the deliberate exaggeration of sexual tendencies, to the extent that, for example, a bearded lady is regarded as a freak and women go to great lengths to remove any trace of hair from face and elsewhere. And so on and on.
Folks here talk as though they are not immersed in this global cosmetic culture; as though there is no need to conform; as though it is not mandatory from childhood to hide one's genitalia and yet display by coded signals one's gender at all times. As though not being clearly identified as to sex were not seriously deviant behaviour.
Questions arise.
What are the limits of surgical and related interventions in infancy?
At what age does body autonomy prevail?
Are there any limits to individual's freedom to modify their own body?
And so on. The interrelation of personal identity and autonomy with social identity is fraught
Not all women can gestate or give birth, so being able to gestate or give birth is not what it means to be a woman.
My first wife killed herself because she was unable to give birth and felt that she was a failure and "not a real woman". Gender and sexuality are not just a matter of physics or of definition, but of identity. "What it means to be a woman" is always contested. It changes. But @Andrew4Hande articulates a feeling that women (and many men, vicariously,) often have, largely socially and historically formed, that means that they define femaleness primarily as childbearing.
I recently heard on NPR that all clown fish are born male. At some point the biggest male in a group turns in to a female, because the biggest female can hold the most eggs.
Given that most of us here are clowns, I think we have a good chance of making this work. I wanna be Jennifer Anniston, would that be OK?
If I would say: have always want to become - transform into Immanuel Kant and have his brains and if I wish hard enough and they give me some drugs and everyone says I am - then and only then I will be even if I will never be?
I find this sort of wishful thinking very hurtful for the person who is in the middle of it and lives - for real - as if the protagonist of the emperor's New Clothes.
The cruelty of society, the mockery and the jokes and these poor creatures who want something that physically - at the core of what we are and can be - is deeply hurtful.
I suffer this charade and this insanity. Because I do think that humans believe in this and this is real for them.
The heartlessness is astounding when we do not say: you are who you were born to be according to your DNA and the chromosomes that are in every cell of your body regardless of your wish and the apparent appearance of something else - and you will know, and that knowledge, of your own core being in spite of the exterior, will make you miserable.
Not even I can stomach doing it.
But I hope that those within this bubble will find their way out and understand that biology is not as we sometimes wish for.
Reply to unenlightened
I think that your point about your wife killing herself because she felt unable to be a 'woman' because she felt unable to give birth to children is important. We live in a society in which ideals about the body are ranked as important. I think that on this site, the focus is often upon transgender people, and overlooks how many other people feel uncomfortable with aspects of their bodies, and how they measure up to ideals and about masculinity and femininity, as well as other ideals. Gender dysphoria is only one aspect of misery over bodily appearance and sex changes are only one form, among many other aspects, of bodily modification.
Reply to Jack Cummins you are straight on it. All the operations for other noses, for other bodies, for plastic breasts and whatnot - "enhancing" oneself to become a copy of someone else is insane.
Reply to Iris0
I believe that is a rather shallow understanding of cosmetic surgery. My own experience of knowing people who have had many forms of cosmetic surgery, including gender reassignment, is that it can enable them to feel more at ease with themselves. Of course, some forms of treatment are more successful than others, and some may be less satisfied with the results, but why criticise people who choose to have interventions to help them to feel happier? Surely, they should be encouraged not criticised.
Reply to Jack Cummins I would rather think that teaching humans to accept themselves as they are is a better option than to lure them into believing "if you only get this or that - THEN you will be happy"... what is happiness when it is endlessly fleeing and we need more and more of that poison?
I believe that cosmetic surgery - when not done for someone who has been in an accident or was born with a defect that is really tremendous and help them - is just a way to think you will become more attractive on a market where your body is the main attraction.
This is what I perceive of the world and it has become insane.
Reply to Iris0
I don't think that teaching people to be happy works, even with the help of psychotherapy interventions. If you go down that line of thinking, you might as well argue that people should only be taught how to be happy rather than being offered antidepressant medications. I believe that people may benefit from cosmetic interventions but may need psychotherapeutic interventions as well. It does not have to be one or the other, and individuals probably need guidance and support in looking at all available options.
Reply to Jack Cummins well now - before TV and all the stars and stuff and all we SEE and that enters our eyes - as still is the case in countries where people on the countryside have no time to bother about their nose being to small or big or if their breasts are attractive on the flesh market --- you will find that without psychotherapy and the lot they do no have no problem accepting themselves as they are...
funny is it not?
strange... that there are people out there unaffected of the endless exterior "perfection" looking like porn stars mostly...
:rofl:
I know - I am cruel as is reality...
Chromosomal sex is not the entirety of sex. There’s also hormonal sex and anatomical sex. If anything, anatomical sex is the original referent of the word, from before we knew anything about hormones or chromosomes. And there are some people naturally born with a chromosomal sex that differs from their hormonal or anatomical sex (women AFAB but with XY chromosomes), and everyone has always referred to them by their anatomical sex (as we usually don’t know anything but anatomical sex about anyone).
Hormonal and genital sex can be changed already, and it’s only a matter of time before chromosomal sex can be changed too (hello CRISPR).
Biological sex is based on a combination of traits:
- chromosomes (in humans, XY is male, XX female)
- genitals (penis vs. vagina)
- gonads (testes vs. ovaries)
- hormones (males have higher relative levels of testosterone than women, while women have higher levels of estrogen)
- secondary sex characteristics that aren’t connected with the reproductive system but distinguish the sexes, and usually appear at puberty (breasts, facial hair, size of larynx, subcutaneous fat, etc.)
Using genitals and gonads alone, more than 99.9% of people fall into two non-overlapping classes—male and female—and the other traits almost always occur with these. If you did a principal components analysis using the combination of all five traits, you’d find two widely separated clusters with very few people in between. Those clusters are biological realities, just as horses and donkeys are biological realities, even though they can produce hybrids (sterile mules) that fall morphologically in between.
If sex were purely a social construct, sexual selection wouldn’t work: males would look identical to females. That difference itself suggests that there’s a biological reality to sex, and that this biological reality—the correlation of chromosomal constitution with reproductive traits and with secondary sexual traits—is what has caused both behavioral and morphological differences between the sexes. If sex were purely a social construct, then male deer wouldn’t have antlers, male peacocks wouldn’t have long tails, human females wouldn’t have breasts, etc.
"Woman" and "female" are words and can be redefined any time standard usage changes. If enough people accept people born as biological males who identify themselves as females as women, then they will be.
When enough people defined the Earth as flat, did that make the Earth flat? When enough people use the word, "god", does that make god exist? The words you decide to use does not make it so. It just makes it the words you use. If not, then there would never be such things as lies and mass delusions.
To me the narrative that trans-people are changing their gender or sex doesn’t adequately describe the situation, and presents a false hope. It suggests that when people are not happy with their body they should disfigure it. And that’s what this is. When a trans-person enters the realm of surgery and drug therapy they are disfiguring their body, nothing besides. I suspect that farther down the road, perhaps when we discover the cause, we’ll look back on this time in medicine as barbaric and unethical.
Reply to NOS4A2 there are perfect theories within psychology what does exactly explain this issue : Jung Anima Animus... and what happens when the human being is unable to integrate these into his/her psyche. As well as what happens when humans are unable to integrate the shadow into her/him self.
Not sure if you think I was saying that, but I wasn’t.
I was saying, like you did even more thoroughly, that there are a bunch of different components to sex — and that some of those CAN be changed already, and for others the technology to do so is already under development.
Perhaps something like the integration you speak of would be a better and more humane goal than disfiguring the body. Therapists should move to disfigure the shadow rather than the self.
When enough people defined the Earth as flat, did that make the Earth flat? When enough people use the word, "god", does that make god exist? The words you decide to use does not make it so. It just makes it the words you use. If not, then there would never be such things as lies and mass delusions.
Words mean what people say they mean, what they act as if they mean. Calling the Earth flat doesn't change the meanings of the words "Earth" and "flat." A biological man who defines herself as a woman doesn't automatically lose her penis and testicles, but that probably isn't what she wants. She probably wants to be seen socially as a woman. Whether that's a good thing for society to allow that is open to debate, but it is something that can be accomplished by changing the dictionary.
Expert consensus regarding the treatment of adults has been arrived at after many years of clinical experience. Attempts to engage individuals in psychotherapy to change their gender identity or expression are currently not considered fruitful by the mental health professionals with the most experience working in this area...
Although treatment with exogenous estrogen or testosterone carries a risk for medical side effects, both have been associated with improvement with respect to anxiety, mood, and mood stability, as well as overall satisfaction and quality of life for both transgender women and transgender men. Similarly, review of the available literature demonstrates the benefits of surgery in alleviating GD and the rarity of postsurgical regret.
You've claimed before to be something of a right libertarian or anarcho-capitalist, and so presumably believe in the individual's right to bodily integrity? Are you also in favour of evidence-based treatment? If so, then given the above, how can sex reassignment surgery be considered barbaric and unethical?
And is your objection to sex reassignment surgery an objection on principle, or do you just believe that our currently technology isn't up to the task? If something like sex-reassignment via gene editing were possible in adult humans (similar to what has already been done in mice), would you be more accepting of it?
When enough people defined the Earth as flat, did that make the Earth flat? When enough people use the word, "god", does that make god exist? The words you decide to use does not make it so. It just makes it the words you use. If not, then there would never be such things as lies and mass delusions.
People didn't define the Earth as flat. The definitions of "Earth" and "flat" were what they are now; they just incorrectly predicated flatness of Earth. But there's a disagreement over the definition of "woman"; for some it refers to a human with XX chromosomes and born with a womb, a vagina, ovaries, etc., and for others it means something slightly different.
And talking about one or the other being the "correct" definition would somewhat misleading. It's more accurate to talk about what you mean when you use the word, or what I mean when I use the word, or what most English-speaking people mean when they use the word, etc. And as T Clark says, how we use words (and so their definition) changes over time, e.g. with "man" which was once a gender neutral term meaning “someone, one, human”, hence the word "mankind". Just as the meaning of "man" has changed, so too has the meaning of "woman".
You're welcome to live in the past if you want, but it seems strange to fight against the evolution of language. Why are you so opposed to us using the term "woman" to refer to people other than those with XX chromosomes and born with a womb, a vagina, ovaries, etc.?
Why are you so opposed to us using the term "woman" to refer to people other than those with XX chromosomes and born with a womb, a vagina, ovaries, etc.?
Reply to Michael I do know the difference between a bull and a cow when I see them and thus there is something in the physical appearance that is different - just as a lion and a lioness --. but you do not see that difference? Why?
You're welcome to live in the past if you want, but it seems strange to fight against the evolution of language. Why are you so opposed to us using the term "woman" to refer to people other than those with XX chromosomes and born with a womb, a vagina, ovaries, etc.?
The opposition is because it normalizes what he believes to be deviant behavior. Women are naturally occurring, whereas trans people are modified freakaoids according to that view.
Your desire to change the usage of the word is due to your desire to eliminate prejudices. There is an obvious difference between a biological female and a transsexual, but you wish to call them both women because those differences are irrelevant to you day to day (but not if you were a gynecologist or surfing a dating app for example).
Language does evolve, but different populations use words differently, and opposing groups don't have the right to prescribe word usage to the other. If I live among those who think transsexuals are deviants, I suppose correct word usage in my group would not allow them to be called women (because women are natural and normal).
None of this suggests calling trans people freaks is moral or to be encouraged, just as it would be similarly offensive to use racial slurs within a group so as to clarify your belief in their inferiority, but that sub-group would be linguistically correct in their word usage.
Of course how you speak and what you highlight with your word usage shows the sort of culture you have and what values you hold. So to those who insist a fully trans woman be called "he," I think it says only something of the speaker, but not of the woman he mocks, but I don't think the speaker has violated a language rule. He's just a dick.
Reply to Iris0 So physical appearance determines whether or not one is a man or a woman? Notwithstanding individual differences, transgender men can look like cisgender men and transgender women can look like cisgender women. So these transgender men and cisgender men are both men, and these transgender women and cisgender women are both women?
Reply to Michael men normally as do a lion and a bull have some equipment between their legs and they normally produce sperm - I have not that sort of equipment nor do I produce sperm - I ovulate and I can bare children as do lionesses and cows bare their offspring ... that is basic biology for me and the difference is due to producing offsprings thus nature has created us such - all except for hermaphroditis ---and other insects that differ from the norm of male and female. What is the point - I do not understand what you are trying to convey...
You're welcome to live in the past if you want, but it seems strange to fight against the evolution of language. Why are you so opposed to us using the term "woman" to refer to people other than those with XX chromosomes and born with a womb, a vagina, ovaries, etc.?
I agree with most of what you've written, but I can understand the resistance to redefining the word "woman." I think many people, including many women, feel that changing the definition of "woman" is disrespectful and risky. It's taken decades, centuries to start changing the political and social status of women. Then this comes along and muddies the waters. An extreme example is the controversy about transgender women competing in women's athletics.
I especially worry that making sex redefinition too easy will hurt vulnerable people, e.g. children and the mentally ill. Medical intervention can have, will probably have, serious and irreversible effects. Adolescents and some adults are not mature and knowledgeable enough to make those kinds of decisions.
men normally as do a lion and a bull have some equipment between their legs and they normally produce sperm - I have not that sort of equipment nor do I produce sperm - I ovulate and I can bare children as do lionesses and cows bare their offspring ... that is basic biology for me and the difference is due to producing offsprings thus nature has created us such - all except for hermaphroditis ---and other insects that differ from the norm of male and female. What is the point - I do not understand what you are trying to convey...
Not every cisgender woman ovulates and can bare children. Some transgender women have breasts and a vagina. Some transgender men have a penis and testicles.
feel that changing the definition of "woman" is disrespectful and risky.
you feel? Ask me what I feel when someone who is no woman is trying to annihilate me and who I am and tell me that I do not exist the way I have always seen myself and men - and I like men, because they have what I do lack and that is the entire ball game.
I do not only feel deeply offended by I do not understand what is there in this sort of --- strange discussions
There is an obvious difference between a biological female and a transsexual, but you wish to call them both women because those differences are irrelevant to you day to day (but not if you were a gynecologist or surfing a dating app for example).
Maybe this is the heart of the matter - are the differences between a biological female and a transsexual irrelevant. As you point out, there are certainly situations where they are not. Are we ready to say that, except in a limited area related to biological function and medical practice, men and women should be treated exactly the same? I'm not sure how I'd answer that.
Reply to Michael please do NOT offend me. A vagina is not a cavity like some whatnot made o resemble it - it is a deeply sensible part of my body that I was born with - the resemblance of a penis handmaid by some physician is not a penis in the real sens --- why do you say this?
A copy of an Omega is still not an Omega and that is only a watch not my body - you talk about my most intimate parts like they are nothing... but they are! They are part of who I am and was born to be.
I agree with most of what you've written, but I can understand the resistance to redefining the word "woman." I think many people, including many women, feel that changing the definition of "woman" is disrespectful and risky. It's taken decades, centuries to start changing the political and social status of women. Then this comes along and muddies the waters. An extreme example is the controversy about transgender women competing in women's athletics.
I can sort of understand that objection, but I don't think that that's Harry's objection. His objection seems to be that his definition of "woman" is the correct one, and so people who use the word differently are incorrect and even delusional (almost as if he thinks that transgender men think themselves cisgender men, and see a penis where there is none).
I especially worry that making sex redefinition too easy will hurt vulnerable people, e.g. children and the mentally ill. Medical intervention can have, will probably have, serious and irreversible effects. Adolescents and some adults are not mature and knowledgeable enough to make those kinds of decisions.
From the article I cited above:
Whether the initial evaluation for hormones is done by the hormone prescriber or by a mental health professional, criteria for starting hormones are the same: the presence of persistent GD, the ability to give informed consent, and relative mental health stability. Insurance carriers and surgeons require mental health evaluation before transition-related surgeries to assess and document eligibility, readiness, and medical necessity of the requested procedure.
I do not only feel deeply offended by I do not understand what is there in this sort of --- strange discussions
Seems like you are saying what I said, just more forcefully. As I said, I can understand your point. I think it's a good argument. I think I would be angry too.
no - they are at the very depth of who we are it is more than just an identity it is the entire being we are
I agree, but I'm 69 years old. I don't know what comes next and my opinion will matter less and less the older I get. I won't be the one who has to deal with whatever changes are to come.
please do NOT offend me. A vagina is not a cavity like some whatnot made o resemble it - it is a deeply sensible part of my body that I was born with - the resemblance of a penis handmaid by some physician is not a penis in the real sens --- why do you say this?
A copy of an Omega is still not an Omega and that is only a watch not my body - you talk about my most intimate parts like they are nothing... but they are! They are part of who I am and was born to be.
Then you're talking past the transgender person. When a transgender man claims to be a man he is not claiming to have been born with a natural penis. When a transgender woman claims to be a woman she is not claiming to have been both with a natural vagina. What they mean by "man" and "woman" isn't what you mean by "man" and "woman". So you haven't actually answered the question you responded to. Why are you opposed to transgender people using the words "man" and "woman" in a different way to you?
they are at the very depth of who we are it is more than just an identity it is the entire being we are
Do you believe that your vagina makes you attracted to men rather than women , and makes you feel and act feminine? Or do you think this happens in the brain? I. other words, do you accept the concept of psychological gender , apart from physical gender?
Do you believe that your vagina makes you attracted to men rather than women , and makes you feel and act feminine? Or do you think this happens in the brain? I. other words, do you accept the concept of psychological gender , apart from physical gender?
To add to this; if you (a cisgender woman) had your brain transplanted into a man's body, would you identify as a man or a woman?
Reply to Michael they are talking passed me!!
If someone would steal my identity and pose as if they were me I would drag them to court --- that is identity theft no less no more.
And you see they are not males even when they resemble such a bit, as you see the males who resemble women. I have seen cases that almost looked like a woman- but there is something that is in every cell of our body - so you see it anyway... even when they had hormones when young.
I find that offensive that they want to dictate to me who I am and what I am - that is really really offensive.
I can sort of understand that objection, but I don't think that that's Harry's objection. His objection seems to be that his definition of "woman" is the correct one, and so people who use the word differently are incorrect and delusional.
I think you and I agree at least on what the issues are and what the right questions are. Part of the reason these discussions rarely go anywhere is that people are arguing completely different issues, as you note.
Whether the initial evaluation for hormones is done by the hormone prescriber or by a mental health professional, criteria for starting hormones are the same: the presence of persistent GD, the ability to give informed consent, and relative mental health stability.
If I were certain that all these criteria were being applied effectively in the great majority of cases, a lot of my concerns would be addressed.
Reply to Joshs before I came into puberty I always - ever - liked men. The feeling towards them is within me completely different - as was my father completely different from my mother and the feelings I had to them were different. I have not - and that is close to revolting for me - imagined having a woman's body in an intimate act with me. So there has never in my life even been curiosity for that because the males are - entirely - attractive for me.
I was born like that and still am and will not change because there is no attraction in a female body for me. At all.
they are at the very depth of who we are it is more than just an identity it is the entire being we are
That is what identity is; the entire being as identified by the being. I wonder, if you can share a little, what it is about a transsexual that is a threat to your own identity? I'm thinking I suppose that if I have achieved something - some social recognition, a PhD or whatever, and someone else gets the same accolade for nothing, it devalues my identity. Is it something like that?
Reply to unenlightened it is the knowledge of that every cell in my body from conception to birth and after during my entire life - I know I am a woman. And I love being that - so a copy of what I am and other women - a lookalike but without the complete structure of what a female is - is not a threat but some sort of mockery of who I am.
It feels like when someone behind your back imitates you for the fun of others who laughs at you. This is what I feel.
there has never in my life even been curiosity for that because the males are - entirely - attractive for me.
I was born like that and still am and will not change because there is no attraction in a female body for me. At all.
Yes but why are you attracted to men but some
women are attracted to other women? Can the brain be ‘wired’ to produce same-sex attraction? Can the brain be wired to produce masculine or feminine behavior. Have you ever met a man who’s behavior , gestures, walk or way of talking sounded extremely feminine to you? Do you think this was a deliberate act , or is it possible that they were born this way and cannot help their behavior?
Reply to Joshs yes I have friends who are homosexuals - and not all who are gay have that sort of behavior --- women do not normally have that sort of acting.
Reply to Iris0 Mockery, yes I think I understand. In my youth, I think many men felt rather the same way about gay men. Being accused of being gay was the one insult that absolutely demanded a fight by way of denial. How could one be a man and not attracted to women? It was a contradiction. Ridiculous. A mockery.
Strangely, or perhaps obviously, the same did not apply to women and lesbians. Because to a sexist society, what women wanted was of no importance. Even to themselves.
It’s not unlike Body Integrity Identity Disorder, where people have urges to amputate healthy limbs or sever their own spinal cord. The crux of the question for me is whether one should go so far as to disfigure his body in such a way so as to satiate a mental urge. Maybe the urge is the problem and not the body.
But yes I think mutilation is barbaric and goes against the hypocritical oath.
if you (a cisgender woman) had your brain transplanted into a man's body, would you identify as a man or a woman?
But being a woman is not an issue of the brain - it is the ENTIRE BEING my complete and total body and all I am and feel --- that is me. Who I am as a complete...
Reply to unenlightened no - no not at all. What you talk about is not at all the issue. Because sex and wanting to have sex is up to everyone - but it is an issue of deep inner identity that is confirmed and reaffirmed exterior - who I am. What I am.
That is in my chromosomes in every part of my being, in all I am.
Reply to Iris0 If you had your brain transplanted into a man's body then your "entire being" would be different, as you'd now have a man's body. So would you identify as a man or a woman (or other)?
Reply to Michael but that is a fictive story that has nothing to do with reality - in my mothers womb I evolved - every cell within me to become a woman not a man. My brother who was born 18 moths before me evolved into a male. Every cell in his body. As every cell in mine.
DUE TO THIS
our brains evolved into different sexes - his male with less connection between the two parts and mine into feminine - with more connections between the two parts.
And thus - due to the evolvement of the cells who made us male and female and thus also the difference in brains and hormon systems - we are male and female - and if his brains were to be in my head it would NEVER EVER make my body male.
Ever...
Not in the wildest dreams - because nature is not according to magic - but according to the processes that makes us who we are. We are thus - entirely - all included - formed into being a male OR a female - and if it were not the case - then there would be no idea - CHANGING the sex.
Now would there?
Reply to Joshs why do some - SOME - gay men act in ways a normal woman would never ever act?
I do not know... it looks exaggerated and utterly silly to me. And our behavior is something we can control - so if they are not out of control they must act it and play it.
but that is a fictive story that has nothing to do with reality
We currently don't have the technology, but it's conceivable that it's possible. So would you identify as a man or a woman if your brain was transplanted into a man's body?
our brains evolved into different sexes
So are you saying that you have a female brain, and that if your brain was transplanted into a man's body then you would still identify as a woman?
That is in my chromosomes in every part of my being, in all I am.
Well then I am confused. How can that be troubled by another? If your identity is secured at the cellular level, then it is secure and untroubled by another's odd behaviour, surely?
Reply to Michael of course because my entire being is female with an alien brain what does not fit the rest because some moron put it where it does not belong by some Frankenstein operations.
Your question is quite silly actually... and if you believe that me being who I am is in my brain - think again... my entire body is a proof of it and my entire hormon system too
of course because my entire being is female with an alien brain what does not fit the rest because some moron put it where it does not belong by some Frankenstein operations.
Your question is quite silly actually... and if you believe that me being who I am is in my brain - think again... my entire body is a proof of it and my entire hormon system too
I don't know what you mean by you having an alien brain. I'm saying that your brain is transplanted into a man's body. So, if anything, you have an alien body. Or do you have some different view of consciousness where consciousness isn't "carried" by the brain? Something like a "soul" that inhabits the body and the brain is incidental?
Reply to Michael did you actually skip all biology classes? Or do you just pretend you do not know how a child grows in the womb of a woman after that the sperm of a male hit the egg?
Reply to Iris0 I understand biology. You are familiar with things like heart transplants? Well consider a brain transplant. If your brain was transplanted into my body then you would wake up in my body. Do you understand that?
Reply to Michael I think you do actually have a problem there with understanding what I am and how that feels - thus you try to make me believe that you know better. As do others who try to dictate to me that a male who - feels - he is a woman does feel what I do.
That is ridicules and very highly offensive to me.
So now I have - as you show no respect towards me being the women I am - reached the point when I have had enough of this sort of offense.
Try saying that to my gay friends - ah but you know you could just as well change your brains and then you would want to have sex with women.
... never heard anything so offensive.
why do some - SOME - gay men act in ways a normal woman would never ever act?
I do not know... it looks exaggerated and utterly silly to me. And our behavior is something we can control - so if they are not out of control they must act it and play it.
I suggest you tell these homosexual men you know who act effeminately that they look exaggerated and silly, and that you think they are deliberately acting this way. This is what I think they will tell you: They remember acting this way since early childhood, they believe they were born this way and have no control over these behaviors , and they are insulted and hurt that you think this is just a performance. This is what I think you don’t understand: masculinity, femininity and sexual attraction are strongly influenced by brain organization. You think you are attracted to men because you have a vagina, but your physical sexual parts have nothing to do with it. You are attracted to men in large part because of brain factors that you cannot control and were present from the moment you were born. These gender-related brain factors invoke much more than just who you are sexually attracted to , they shape the way you perceive your world , the way you walk and talk , you affective style.
If one were to alter this brain structuring in you while you slept, you would wake up astonished at how many of the things about you you thought you had complete control over were actually inborn.
Shirley, philosophers should be dismantling cultural myths, not mantling them, or encouraging psychiatrists to mantle them.
There are nothing but myths. To dismantle one is to erect another. Sometimes , for the purposes of certain discussions, it can be useful to offer an alternative myth to a particularly play-out one, even if the alternative being offered is not one’s own preferred myth. Translation: in engaging with someone who has no concept of psychological gender and its infinite possible varieties, it may be more productive to offer as alternative the concept of brain wired gender. Why? Because this particular myth presents the idea, absolutely foreign to the traditionalist about gender , that gender is a rich web of perceptual , cognitive and affective style of interaction and behavior rather than physical body parts.
Putting it in the form of ‘brain wiring’ is more likely to connect with traditionalistic ideas of gender as physical parts than leaping ahead to the more challenging postmodern myth.
I'm quite interested in what the root arguments are about stopping trans people doing their thing. Historically, when we victimise or disenfranchise a group of people, we do so either on the basis of what we perceive them to be or on the basis of what they do. Suffrage and civil rights concerns the former, gay and trans rights the latter.
What surprises me about TEFs and transphobes generally is that we seemed to be over both. The notion that a dominant group of people can prescribe how a minority can live their own lives seems old fashioned and wrong. A homophobe might not consider a gay man to be his idea of a man, but he is obliged to accept the latter's rights. Likewise a TEF might not accept that a trans woman is her idea of a woman, but so what? What happened to live and let live?
TEFs particularly surprise me because they are very aware of the battle for their own autonomy. No feminist would agree to have womanhood dictated to them by men, no black feminist would agree to having womanhood dictated to them by a white woman, no gay feminist would agree to having womanhood dictated to them by a straight feminist and no working class feminist would agree to having womanhood dictated to them by a middle class feminist.
Feminists appear to understand context and the primacy of their own rights to self-definition, and yet TEFs are united by the theory that they do have a right to dictate a notion of womanhood to trans women, based on a clearly debunked (by them) idea of uniformity of women's experiences.
I've heard some pretty far-out arguments... Trans people want to make children trans (okay, criminalise THAT), trans women want to rape cis women in ladies toilets (already as illegal as a cis man raping a cis woman in ladies toilets) and, of course, that how someone lives their life undermine's one's own sense of self, debunked not least by feminists as per the above, but also with regards to atheism or minority religious groups and homosexuals.
What's interesting is that it's almost always trans women who are the targets. There seems to be much less of a problem with trans men (much like gay men had a much harder time of it than gay women). I suspect the answer is that trans women are a perfect storm: they inspire the hatred of radical (now mainstream) feminists for being male, the hatred of misogynists for being female, and the hatred of homophobes for being, in some sense, queer.
Transphobic comments don't seem qualitatively better than misogynistic or homophobic ones, but they appear to inherit respectability from the misandry of untouchable feminists. Claiming that trans women will rape cis women sounds a lot like people who historically claimed that emancipated black men would rape white girls, or that gay men would always be trying to bum us in the showers, i.e. stupid. And certainly not tantamount to an argument against tolerating trans people generally. Again, it seems shockingly backward. Is it? Or is there a legitimate argument that has to be considered by a modern person?
ArguingWAristotleTiffJune 21, 2021 at 13:28#5545180 likes
much like gay men had a much harder time of it than gay women
Not just in the past. I recently came across this:
Dominant accounts of sexual prejudice posit that negative attitudes toward nonheterosexual individuals are stronger for male (vs. female) targets, higher among men (vs. women), and driven, in part, by the perception that gay men and lesbian women violate traditional gender norms. We test these predictions in 23 countries, representing both Western and non-Western societies. Results show that (1) gay men are disliked more than lesbian women across all countries...
Transphobic comments don't seem qualitatively better than misogynistic or homophobic ones,
What are you classifying as transphobic comments?
If you look at this website of crimes committed by trans identified people in the UK it is all men.
https://transcrimeuk.com/
The rate of female sex criminals has risen sharply and this is because sex offenders who are male identify as women and the courts legally have to refer to them as such. Put in terms of criminality trans women have the same pattern of criminality and behavioural problems as biological males.
This is why women are concerned about their safety. A male athlete who changes gender will have the advantage of being stronger and faster than a female and now in some cases are thrashing them in sporting events. Fallion Fox born male broke the skull of two female competitors and only lost one fight. So can you clarify what the transphobia is in these concerns?
May be you think that it is transphobic to simply have a private belief that sex is immutable and binary?
May be you think that it is transphobic to simply have a private belief that sex is immutable and binary?
Which means what, exactly? When you say that sex is immutable and binary, are you saying that sex chromosomes are immutable and binary? Because that's false. There are varieties beyond the typical XX and XY. Are you saying that human reproductive organs are immutable and binary? Because that's false. There are varieties beyond the typical testes and penis or ovaries and vagina. Are you saying that some other biological make-up is immutable and binary? You'll first need to clarify what exactly it is, but I'd wager that you'd be false on that account too. Biology isn't black and white. Multi-cellular species are complicated.
But then, of course, if you're referring to biology when you say that sex is immutable and binary then you're talking past transgender people, as they're not claiming that their biology is mutable and non-binary (beyond the obvious fact that hormone treatments and surgery have real effects on their bodies). When a transgender man says "I am a man" he isn't saying "I have XY chromsomes" or "I have a naturally developed penis and testes."
The rate of female sex criminals has risen sharply and this is because sex offenders who are male identify as women and the courts legally have to refer to them as such.
Is this really true? I mean, I can believe that some chancers have tried it, but nothing that would account for a sharp rise in nominal female criminals. What's your source for this.
Either way, that's not something you can lay on a trans woman.
Personally I don't think any of this is fair to the women participants, because unlike the trans athlete the women did not develop as males in their formative years, but I'm interested to see how it plays out. I predict that some countries might come to abuse this loophole like East Germany did with its state doping programs.
I'd agree with you. How does this warrant intolerance to the vast majority of trans women who aren't advantaged in this way, or those that are who wouldn't do it?
There's something self-similar in transphobic arguments: in lieu of an argument against people living their lives in a way that makes sense to them, it's always: "Well this person committed a crime while trans," and "That person got an unfair advantage while trans." So what? What does that have to do with whether the majority of trans people should be allowed to live their lives?
Holy fuck, I totally misread this. What kind of psycho starts a website listing crimes by a particular demographic?
People concerned about women's rights and their safety in prison.
What is being highlighted is dangerous predatory offenders allowed to identify as female based on word of mouth.
"The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) provides the best measure of victimisation and estimated that for the year ending March 2020 there were 773,000 adults aged 16 to 74 years who were victims of sexual assault (including attempts) in the last year, with almost four times as many female victims (618,000) as male victims (155,000)."
The unlikelihood of a man being sexual assaulted by a trans man is the reason why people are mainly concerned about trans women in the case of self ID.
You were speculating about why a lot of concerns focus around trans women and I have given reasons. The only way I have heard of men a being affected by trans men is when they want a gay relationship with them. As a gay person I don't want to have sex with a man with a vagina or prosthetic penis,
I'd agree with you. How does this warrant intolerance to the vast majority of trans women who aren't advantaged in this way, or those that are who wouldn't do it?
There's something self-similar in transphobic arguments: in lieu of an argument against people living their lives in a way that makes sense to them, it's always: "Well this person committed a crime while trans," and "That person got an unfair advantage while trans." So what? What does that have to do with whether the majority of trans people should be allowed to live their lives?
It doesn't warrant intolerance. I don't see how it could. But certainly some people will see it that way.
There are varieties beyond the typical testes and penis or ovaries and vagina.
These are birth defects though. Being born with an extra finger doesn't make you a new breed of human or being born without a womb this is not viable sexual variation that aids reproductive success.
When a transgender man says "I am a man" he isn't saying "I have XY chromsomes" or "I have a naturally developed penis and testes."
It is not clear what they are saying because the ideology or identity isn't coherent. One I person I spoke said sex or gender is a social construct so I said if sex roles'd people referring to themselves as real women and even some say biological women.
Well if you go on trans subreddits you can see that a lot of them talk about enjoying how they look in a dress and make up. A lot of people post photos for affirmation to see whether they pass (these are heavily moderated affirmation only spaces.) How much of being a woman is based on how you look? That is reinforcing the prejudice against gender non conformity.
"Well this person committed a crime while trans," and "That person got an unfair advantage while trans." So what? What does that have to do with whether the majority of trans people should be allowed to live their lives?
No one is making this argument.
The concern with trans women committing crime at the same rates as biological men is a concern for the safety of vulnerable women and children. There are lots of other arguments being made against trans ideology such as opposition to telling gay children they are trans and grooming vulnerable children and putting people on dangerous chemicals and giving people surgery that can cause horrible side effects including gangrene, heart attacks and osteoporosis.
"NHS gender clinic ‘running conversion therapy for gay children’"
I suspect the answer is that trans women are a perfect storm: they inspire the hatred of radical (now mainstream) feminists for being male, the hatred of misogynists for being female, and the hatred of homophobes for being, in some sense, queer.
:up:
If you take the square root of women with dongs, subtract What Happens In Thailand Stays In Thailand, divide by wanking to t-thots on Pornhub, you get an old fashioned poofter, which if you multiply with a bloke you get poofter again.
For the record, I will be reporting that website to the UK police.
This has been done, for the following reasons.
The website, far from the credible source Andrew seems to think it is, is the product of some pretty fucked-up people scouring the media (tabloid press, social media) for claims of trans women (very loosely defined) committing crimes. The website shows the full name (including dead name if applicable) and photographs (as male and female where available), along with tags the website authors believe we should label these people with.
The website authors claim it exists to protect cis women from trans women, however most of the crimes appear to be unrelated to crimes against women and girls, ranging from driving offenses and minor drug offenses to violent offenses against men, making their inclusion irrelevant.
Many of the supposed trans offenders who were imprisoned transitioned in prison, after they committed their crimes as cis men, making their inclusion irrelevant.
The website includes persons never charged, and persons charged and acquitted; in fact, these significantly outnumber the meagre number of individuals they confirmed as charged (although they don't seem very completist about this), making their inclusion irrelevant.
The website claims to be targeting trans women, but casts the net very wide in terms of what it may call trans, including transvestites and other cross-dressers, their inclusion irrelevant.
Sources the website use include rabid paedo-hunter--type Facebook groups and the worst and most hyperbolic of the UK tabloid gutter press. The MO of the site is very simple: to by any means maximise the number of crimes, whether they be true, false, alleged, or acquitted, it can try to lay at feet of a small minority group of people.
This is a clear case of publishing open hostility toward the transgender community, which is a hate crime in UK law.
As for you @Andrew4Handel, I'd say more reputable citations in future would be good, but it's not like it was tricky to gauge. I assume you knew what you were doing -- it generally seems to be the case that prejudiced, phobic people don't really care what people think of their evidence, and you'll likely be smirking yourself to sleep tonight. I haven't engaged with your responses since because on the basis of that I sense you're an irrational, hateful individual. And, to be honest, I'm still reeling from that website. God knows where else you go when you're working yourself up into a frenzy, but I'd rather not go there.
I wanted insight and I guess I got it, but there's no answer to my question to be had from you. I suppose it's an argument of sorts, but it's an argument driven by barefaced bullshit and hate, not quite what I was after. All I've really learned is how mentally disturbed transphobes can be.
"These MOJ statistics show that transgender women exhibit a male-type pattern of criminality. We conclude that transwomen in prison exhibit a propensity to sexual crime that matches their birth sex and not their gender identity. This is relevant and necessary information when making legislation and policies designed to keep women safe."
https://fairplayforwomen.com/campaigns/prisons/
"(...)So in 2017 we published our own new research showing that half of all known transgender prisoners require max security or specialist sex offender prisons. Despite numerous attempts by others to discredit our work the MOJ has now confirmed the accuracy of our findings. Official figures released by the MOJ in 2018 show that half of all known transgender prisoners counted in April 2017 had at least one previous conviction for sex offences."
"The public has been shocked to learn that since 2016 male prisoners in the UK have been allowed to ask to be transferred to a women’s prison. All they need to do is self-identify as a woman. Legal or medical transition is not required for permission to transfer meaning that legally-male prisoners complete with a penis are currently living alongside women in prison."
"Transgender prisoners are five times more likely to carry out sex attacks on inmates at women’s jails than other prisoners are, official figures show.
Male prisoners who were transferred to women’s jails during gender reassignment and women inmates who are transitioning committed seven of the 124 sex attacks recorded between 2010 and 2018. They occurred at HMP Low Newton in Co Durham, Foston Hall in Derbyshire, Peterborough, Bronzefield in Middlesex and New Hall, West Yorkshire."
Quotes by prominent trans women academics and authors
“Getting fucked makes you female because fucked is what a female is.” Andrea Long Chu
"The asshole [is] a universal vagina through which femaleness can always be accessed" Andrea Long Chu
"While I never really believed the cliché about women being good for only one thing, that sentiment kept creeping into my fantasies.
"It’s called forced feminization... transforming the loss of male privilege into the best f*ck ever." Julia Serano
"I think there are a lot of gay men out there who are gay men as a consolation prize because they couldn’t be women. That was certainly true of me." Juno Dawson (Formerly James Dawson)
Reply to Andrew4Handel If you’re arguing from the position that specific behavioral and affective dispositions are associated with biological gender, are you also making a distinction between chromosomal gender and biological gender? For instance, are there gay men who belong to the extreme effeminate end of a Kinsey behavioral scale and who consequently are likely to lack the aggressivity traits you are pointing to in trans women? If so , would you concede that there are intermediate psychological genders that the male/ female binary doesn’t capture?
"The asshole [is] a universal vagina through which femaleness can always be accessed" Andrea Long Chu
Isn't that what you actually believe though? That secretly wanting to be fucked in the ass is a way of wanting to be a woman?
(1) Trans women are women. (Assumption for reductio)
(2) All women have vaginas. (Premise)
(3) Trans women's bums are vaginas OR trans women do not have vaginas (Premise)
(4) Trans women's bums are vaginas (3, disjunctive syllogism, from 2 on pain of contradiction)
(5) Bums are not vaginas (Premise)
(6) Not (Trans women's bums are vaginas) (from 4,5 and Modus Tollens)
(7) Trans women don't have vaginas. (discharging the disjunction in 3)
(8) Trans women aren't women. (2, 7, allegedly modus tollens)
Fallacy though, all you can conclude is the negation of the conjunction of the other premises.
Either that (trans women are women) is false, that (all women have vaginas) is false or that Bums really are vaginas.
Personally, I side with bums really being vaginas because diversity is important to me.
It is a spectrum of behaviour not a spectrum of gender. You don't change sex or gender by just being a man who is not violent
You can change the gender -related behavior of animals with hormone replacement. This is an effect on the brain, not the sex parts or genes. Male mammals and birds behave differently than females. Have you ever owned a car or dog? Why’s isn’t this behavior a spectrum of gender?What is it that is at the very core of what we mean by gender, vaginas and penises or behaviors such as sexual attraction, masculinity and femininity? If I put you in a time machine and took you back to the womb , and then altered the hormonal environment to change your psychological gender , it wouldn’t change your biological
gender but every aspect of you style of interacting with your world would change in a gender -related way.
Women lose their virginity when they have sex.
Whenever women lose their virginity, their hymen breaks.
Anal sex makes women lose their virginity.
Only vaginas have hymens.
Therefore bums are vaginas.
It isn't from a scientific perspective. How has it become so accepted as a concept?
I think it's related to the degree of suffering that is caused by the mismatch and the seriousness in regards to what people will do to over come it; relative to the almost non-existent burden it places on society. Not accepting it means my comfort level with your internal state is more important than the suffering caused by it. Which is selfish to the point of evil.
BitconnectCarlosJune 23, 2021 at 21:02#5557120 likes
Cis people generally don't care too much and don't want to rock the boat. Ultimately, we're social beings who are just looking to get along and be accepted and when a cis person out of the blue starts going after trans folks it never looks good.
I understand things might be getting pushed a bit far sometimes, and I understand that people have legitimate doubts about one's ability to "really" change one's gender, but voicing those concerns in public is just kind of a peculiar conversation to have and I don't know why it would be brought up. I don't see what I gain as a cis person by spreading the message that trans folk are "really" their original gender beside ostracizing them.
I don't see what I gain as a cis person by spreading the message that trans folk are "really" their original gender beside ostracizing them.
I have raised a range concerns about gender ideology. Mutilating peoples bodies, undermining peoples health with wrong sex hormones, undermining women's rights and safety, converting gay and gender nonconforming children to trans.
There is no such thing as a cis person.
Not telling the truth about peoples innate biological sex is an unnecessary lie and creates a pervasive delusion. Facts should not be suppressed to spare peoples feelings.
Gender critical conversation like mine is a minority conversation, gender ideology and trans ideology is pushed at us left right and centre and is well funded infiltrating public schools, big business, twitter, reddit and so on. The world revolves around it now, making people declare their pronouns and respect hundreds of fantasy gender identities, censoring people, calling the police and firing people from jobs.
I don't know what planet some of you people have been on recently.
This is why I started the thread asking is this forum Woke and Politically correct.
Gender critical conversation like mine is a minority conversation, gender ideology and trans ideology is pushed at us left right and centre and is well funded infiltrating public schools, big business, twitter, reddit and so on. The world revolves around it now, making people declare their pronouns and respect hundreds of fantasy gender identities, censoring people, calling the police and firing people from jobs.
How do you explain the lack of a threat it poses to other people? No one is trying to change your gender against your will I hope.
I think it's related to the degree of suffering that is caused by the mismatch and the seriousness in regards to what people will do to over come it; relative to the almost non-existent burden it places on society.
" relative to the almost non-existent burden it places on society"
I just started this whole thread raising a wide range of concerns that I have just restated in my latest post concerning the reasons it does affect society. I assume you didn't read any of the thread.
There is the harmful treatments that are classed as trans health care which have many deleterious effects on health such as wrong sex hormones leading to conditions like osteoporosis, arthritis, and increased risk of heart attack etc.
Mastectomies (now called top surgery) being irreversible and carrying the risk of future chronic pain.
Gender non conforming and gay children being groomed to believe they are trans. Women being sexually assaulted by female identifying males in spaces supposed to be for women alony for their safety.
Not accepting it means my comfort level with your internal state is more important than the suffering caused by it. Which is selfish to the point of evil.
I don't know what you mean. Someone believing they are born in the wrong body is having their suffering caused by a delusion and it is possible to make someone think they were born in the wrong body by lying and endorsing this ideology rather than telling them no it is not possible.
If someone is suffering mentally I would advocate therapy and psychiatric medication not body mutilation. I have posted evidence here that these treatments afore mentioned don't decrease gender dysphoria suicidality etc. But pretending to be the opposite sex is at others peoples expense people get engaged in a societal lie that they don't know what the original sex of a person was but are changing their language and society to pander.
I don't know what you mean. Someone believing they are born in the wrong body is having their suffering caused by a delusion and it is possible to make someone think they were born in the wrong body by lying and endorsing this ideology rather than telling them no it is not possible.
You don't really know what that suffering is like, but it seems to be a serious matter so why not show some humanity and let them do what they need to do. I don't have any interest in your evidence.
Lots of people suffer including myself that does not justify claiming you are the opposite sex or having multiple invasive surgeries and a life time on hormones and other meds.
Why is the only route to eliminating suffering, body modification and making people pretend you are the opposite sex, allowing men to compete against women in sports when they have obvious biological advances. Why the need to groom other people and society because of ones own gender crisis? It is all unreasonable solutions.
Someone believing they are born in the wrong body is having their suffering caused by a delusion and it is possible to make someone think they were born in the wrong body by lying and endorsing this ideology rather than telling them no it is not possible.
Let me know when you've figured out how these physical changes come about as a result of an underlying delusion.
I also note that the Swedish study you referenced showed female likelihood of sexual violence if proper psychological care was provided to trans women. So the converse argument is possible too, that given the fact certain groups of trans women have female levels of violence those are really women then. Or maybe it's just not a very good indicator.
I think that some people project so much onto transgender individuals, and that is why they have issues with individuals who are gender dysphoric or wish to transition.
Reply to bongo fury Why is it a lie? There's "sex" what your body looks like, and "gender" what you feel and how you think about yourself and therefore "identify" as.
If someone is suffering mentally I would advocate therapy and psychiatric medication not body mutilation.
There is the harmful treatments that are classed as trans health care which have many deleterious effects on health such as wrong sex hormones leading to conditions like osteoporosis, arthritis, and increased risk of heart attack etc.
Mastectomies (now called top surgery) being irreversible and carrying the risk of future chronic pain.
Expert consensus regarding the treatment of adults has been arrived at after many years of clinical experience. Attempts to engage individuals in psychotherapy to change their gender identity or expression are currently not considered fruitful by the mental health professionals with the most experience working in this area...
Although treatment with exogenous estrogen or testosterone carries a risk for medical side effects, both have been associated with improvement with respect to anxiety, mood, and mood stability, as well as overall satisfaction and quality of life for both transgender women and transgender men. Similarly, review of the available literature demonstrates the benefits of surgery in alleviating GD and the rarity of postsurgical regret.
In a 2015 survey of nearly 28,000 people conducted by the U.S.-based National Center for Transgender Equality, only 8 percent of respondents reported detransitioning, and 62 percent of those people said they only detransitioned temporarily. The most common reason for detransitioning, according to the survey, was pressure from a parent, while only 0.4 percent of respondents said they detransitioned after realizing transitioning wasn’t right for them.
The results of a 50-year survey published in 2010 of a cohort of 767 transgender people in Sweden found that about 2 percent of participants expressed regret after undergoing gender-affirming surgery.
The numbers are even lower for nonsurgical transition methods, like taking puberty blockers. According to a 2018 study of a cohort of transgender young adults at the largest gender-identity clinic in the Netherlands, 1.9 percent of adolescents who started puberty suppressants did not go on to pursue hormone therapy, typically the next step in the transition process.
Recent case series, however, suggest that gender dysphoria is separate from psychosis and often predates the onset of psychotic symptoms (11, 12).
...
Clinicians will need to recognize the difference between the bizarre beliefs expected in delusions and the marked sense of incongruence between gender identity and sex assigned at birth that may persist long after optimized treatment of psychosis (11).
"Individuals who would likely be considered transgender today are evident throughout the historical record.1 "
In the past you couldn't be transgender in the modern sense because you could not have your breasts removed or penis inverted or go on hormones, all you could do is cross dress and perform roles attributed to the opposite sex.
This is conflating gender non conformity with transsexuality. A woman is not someone who wears dresses or works as a nurse, she has ovaries, a womb, periods, menopause etc none of these things are available to the opposite sex.
"Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population. Our findings suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism, and should inspire improved psychiatric and somatic care after sex reassignment for this patient group."
In the past you couldn't be transgender in the modern sense because you could not have your breasts removed or penis inverted or go on hormones, all you could do is cross dress and perform roles attributed to the opposite sex.
This is conflating gender non conformity with transsexuality. A woman is not someone who wears dresses or works as a nurse, she has ovaries, a womb, periods, menopause etc none of these things are available to the opposite sex.
You're confusing transgender with transsexuality. They are not the same thing. You can be transgender without changes in sex.
In the past you couldn't be transgender in the modern sense because you could not have your breasts removed or penis inverted or go on hormones, all you could do is cross dress and perform roles attributed to the opposite sex.
This is conflating gender non conformity with transsexuality. A woman is not someone who wears dresses or works as a nurse, she has ovaries, a womb, periods, menopause etc none of these things are available to the opposite sex.
The modern sense of being transgender doesn't depend on being able to "have your breasts removed or penis inverted or go on hormones".
Gender dysphoria is "the condition of feeling one's emotional and psychological identity to be at variance with one's birth sex."
Gender non-conformism may include gender dysphoria but also includes those whose emotional and psychological identity is not at variance with their birth sex but who nonetheless present in a manner that differs from that expected from someone of their gender identity. For example I'm a man and I wear eyeliner, which isn't typical of men in my culture and so is to some degree gender non-conforming.
This suggests that even though sex reassignment alleviates gender dysphoria, there is a need to identify and treat co-occurring psychiatric morbidity in transsexual persons not only before but also after sex reassignment.
Those with gender dysphoria are more likely to have comorbid disorders than the general population, and it is perhaps these comorbid disorders -- along with the fact that transgender people are often mistreated, discriminated against, and told by others that they are delusional and mutilating their bodies -- that is responsible for the higher suicide rate.
According to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_dysphoria#Causes
"The specific causes of gender dysphoria remain unknown, and treatments targeting the etiology or pathogenesis of gender dysphoria do not exist"
This means the causes could be societal, familial and mental illness and not brain differences or being trapped in the wrong body.
They say prevention is better than cure.
As someone with long term mental health problems I have always believed my problems have been caused by family and society, religion etc. But I have been on medication for ages but this benefits the big pharmaceuticals and it and a lot of therapies blame the individual or his or her brain and not society and family.
So what is being medicalised is dysfunction and the dysfunction is not going away but being multiplied. But the "cures" are highly profitable and do not require anyone else or society to change.
Are you saying that if someone performs like the average male on a mental rotation task that means they are male or have become male after testosterone injections?
"Sex Differences in Mental Rotation Ability Are a Consequence of Procedure and Artificiality of Stimuli"
Put in terms of criminality trans women have the same pattern of criminality and behavioural problems as biological males.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. From the article you linked to, it's also the case that "female-to-males had higher crime rates than female controls (aHR 4.1; 95% CI 2.5–6.9) but did not differ from male controls. This indicates a shift to a male pattern regarding criminality and that sex reassignment is coupled to increased crime rate in female-to-males. The same was true regarding violent crime."
This is why women are concerned about their safety.
...
May be you think that it is transphobic to simply have a private belief that sex is immutable and binary?
So what about female-to-male transgender people? Should we say that "sex is immutable and binary" and so female-to-male transgender people are women and belong in women's prisons, despite their male pattern regarding violent crime? In which case having a male pattern regarding violent crime isn't a reason to preclude male-to-female transgender people from women's prisons. Or should we say that female-to-male transgender people belong in men's prisons because they have a male pattern regarding violent crime? In which case birth sex isn't a reason to preclude male-to-female transgender people from women's prisons.
Reply to Andrew4Handel I'm saying girls with gender dysphoria are physically different enough from other girls that it's measurable. So the idea it's a delusion seems misplaced. Your study shows that if you change procedure and stimuli, differences between boys and girls disappear. That is in no way contradictory with the study I cited. Girls with gender dysphoria already perform the same as boys without adjusting procedure and stimuli.
I'm saying girls with gender dysphoria are physically different enough from other girls that it's measurable.
Based on a study that has not being replicated involving 21 gender dysphoric girls.
There are over 33,000 people on GoFundMe raising funds for top surgery. https://uk.gofundme.com/f/gendercare-fees
How many have these people have participated in this kind of test to assess whether they have "masculine" brain activation.
Psychology and neuroscience has had a replicability crisis where a large percentage of studies were unable to be replicated so it is by no means authoritative. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
I have a degree in psychology and you learn that you have to test every study for confounding factors and also sample size is important the smaller the sample size the weaker the findings. On the other hand a qualitative not quantitative study of one person can be valid because of it's depths.
One thing I would have done on a study like you cited is look for differences between non trans identifying gender non conforming women, lesbians and gender dysphoric females. Differences in sexuality may also correlate to brain differences.
Lots of people suffer including myself that does not justify claiming you are the opposite sex or having multiple invasive surgeries and a life time on hormones and other meds.
Why is the only route to eliminating suffering, body modification and making people pretend you are the opposite sex, allowing men to compete against women in sports when they have obvious biological advances. Why the need to groom other people and society because of ones own gender crisis? It is all unreasonable solutions.
It's the same reason you ask some one their name; instead of give them one. You aren't really in a position to say what is justified to alleviate other people's suffering. You treat people like the gender they appear to be all day long. It takes zero effort on your part to allow some else to live their life the way they choose. Have you ever spoken with or known anyone that's transgender? If your only knowledge is the adverse reaction to their personal medical needs, then your over looking quite a bit.
What if I don't approve of your lifestyle? What right do I have to judge it?
I can sort of understand that objection, but I don't think that that's Harry's objection. His objection seems to be that his definition of "woman" is the correct one, and so people who use the word differently are incorrect and even delusional.
Not that it's the "correct" one, but the consistent, non-sexist one.
Imagine that we are surrounded by dogs and cats. Imagine that I point to a cat and say, "cat". I point to a dog and say "dog". Then I point to another cat and say, "dog" and at another dog and say, "cat". Now, imagine your confusion as you attempt to understand the similarities and differences I am trying to draw your attention to.
My definition of "man" and "woman" is so narrow that it excludes many behaviors that most people associate with men and women, like wearing dresses, make-up and long hair as opposed to wearing pants and not wearing make-up and having short hair. These are not behaviors that are dependent upon one's sex and would therefore be sexist to expect one sex or the other to adhere to those expectations.
Systemic sexism exists as those behavioral expectations that cultures have of each of the sexes. Those expectations are not what makes one a man or a woman. Biology determines what makes one a man or a woman. So when a trans-person declares that they are a man or a woman because they engage in those behaviors that their culture expects of men or women, they are reinforcing the systemic sexism that exists. You can still wear pants and be a woman and wear a dress and be a man.
It's the same reason you ask some one their name; instead of give them one. You aren't really in a position to say what is justified to alleviate other people's suffering. You treat people like the gender they appear to be all day long. It takes zero effort on your part to allow some else to live their life the way they choose. Have you ever spoken with or known anyone that's transgender? If your only knowledge is the adverse reaction to their personal medical needs, then your over looking quite a bit.
What if I don't approve of your lifestyle? What right do I have to judge it?
People are given their name when they are born, and if you want to change it you have to get it approved by a court.
Why does sex/gender get special treatment when it comes to being able to control other's speech? I don't identify as a racist or an idiot, but I am called these names on this forum. Why are we not raising hell to stop everyone from calling people names for which they do not identify with and are offensive? What makes sex/gender so special?
What if I identify as a Dark Lord of the Sith and expect you to address me as "My Master" and get my feelings hurt if you don't comply? Again, what makes sex/gender so special in this regard?
The other side could use the same argument and ask why you are judging them for exercising their right to speak freely.
The Jazz Jennings case presents an interesting paradox. She was affirmed as trans from an early age and put on puberty blockers. But because the blockers halted her puberty she ended up with an underdeveloped penis that could not be turned into a neo/pseudo vagina by the normal procedures so she ended up having several surgeries with painful complications.
"Doctors had to use a new technique because she started using hormones at such a young age. Since she hadn’t developed enough tissue to construct a vagina, Jazz's doctors used tissue from her stomach lining."
A part from that she has exhibited mental health problems despite affirmation from an early and under a hypnotherapy expressed a concern that her family would have rejected her if she had been gay.
People are given their name when they are born, and if you want to change it you have to get it approved by a court.
Why does sex/gender get special treatment when it comes to being able to control other's speech?
You need a court to change your name on legal documents, but you’re free to change your name in everyday life just by telling people that that’s your name. Pretty sure that’s the same with gender.
The specific causes of gender dysphoria remain unknown, and treatments targeting the etiology or pathogenesis of gender dysphoria do not exist"
What they're saying is gender dysphoria (a mental state) is either genetic or environmental or a combination of both. That is, they don't anything about its rooot cause. It also says they can't target the cause because they don't know it, which means there's no specific medical treatment or societal change to administer to resolve that mental state. Those who have it must therefore live with it without any expectation it will subside due to a particularized response.
Based upon that, surgical modification seems reasonable. If we can't fix the underlying mental state, we can alter the body. We do, after all, know what causes a man to look like a man and we can change that. Wiki tells us the mental state is beyond our treatment. Quoting Andrew4Handel
As someone with long term mental health problems I have always believed my problems have been caused by family and society, religion et
Yeah, but who cares what you think? You've already demanded that this discussion be scientific. You've got your anecdotes and I've got mine, but that's not science. It's just blather. Quoting Andrew4Handel
But I have been on medication for ages but this benefits the big pharmaceuticals and it and a lot of therapies blame the individual or his or her brain and not society and family.
So what is being medicalised is dysfunction and the dysfunction is not going away but being multiplied. But the "cures" are highly profitable and do not require anyone else or society to change.
Stay on point and stop telling me about your bumpy life.
We just established from the first quote of yours above that we don't know the etiology of gender dysphoria. Why are you suggesting we require anyone else or society to change to remedy it? Your proposed solutions indicate that you have established gender dysphoria is caused by either (1) choice or (2) environment. Why? It could be genetic but you've arbitrarily dispensed with it and offered up two new therapies ignoring that it could be genetic. Your two propsex solutions are: (1) change your mind therapy or (2) change society therapy.
Assuming these new therapies are in order here (which we've extrapolated as necessary based upon the Wiki article that gender dysphoria is of unknown etiology), how do I go about changing a transsexual's mind or how do I dismantle societal influences?
Yeah, but who cares what you think? You've already demanded that this discussion be scientific. You've got your anecdotes and I've got mine, but that's not science. It's just blather.
I was going to use this response elsewhere. However: Transgenderism is self diagnosis and the solutions involve self diagnosis.
I am speculating about the causes of my mental health problems. When causes are unknown you can look to plausible causes found in peoples lives and environments and there are plenty of those.
The reassignment interventions for trans identified people are amongst the most invasive and irreversible with many complications. That is an extreme response to a condition which is self diagnosed and has no known causes.
People are given their name when they are born, and if you want to change it you have to get it approved by a court.
Sounds like this started off as a counter-point, and a lightbulb came on. Either way, it's honest commentary. Quoting Harry Hindu
Why does sex/gender get special treatment when it comes to being able to control other's speech?
To me this sounds like false victimization. I don't want to accuse you of that, so if you can explain why it isn't; maybe I'll understand where you are coming from. We both know you have never been controlled in this sense. Quoting Harry Hindu
I don't identify as a racist or an idiot, but I am called these names on this forum. Why are we not raising hell to stop everyone from calling people names for which they do not identify with and are offensive?
Probably, because people interpret the lack of empathy for transgender folk as a willingness to hurt others for some type of self-gratification. Which is morally wrong. To answer your question directly; it's invalid argument because it equates some ones identity as being as significant as an internet insult. Which it isn't. Quoting Harry Hindu
What if I identify as a Dark Lord of the Sith and expect you to address me as "My Master" and get my feelings hurt if you don't comply? Again, what makes sex/gender so special in this regard?
Your repeating a false equiveillance, but using an extreme example. It is a dishonest argument and you know it, because it's ridiculous. Quoting Harry Hindu
The other side could use the same argument and ask why you are judging them for exercising their right to speak freely.
And back to you are the victim here. All I hear is I'm threatened by these people and I want them to suffer so I feel better about myself. I've never felt threaten or burdened by transgender people so I don't understand why you do. To me they seem like an easy target and you have got something driving you to take shots at them. Am I missing something here?
You need a court to change your name on legal documents, but you’re free to change your name in everyday life just by telling people that that’s your name. Pretty sure that’s the same with gender.
Proper nouns and common nouns are apples and oranges when it comes the ease of changing the nouns that are used to point to things. Common nouns are what we are talking about in this thread and this is addressed in my prior post that was a reply to you, but instead of addressing that, you'd rather grab at the low hanging fruit of another's post? :sad:
Probably, because people interpret the lack of empathy for transgender folk as a willingness to hurt others for some type of self-gratification. Which is morally wrong. To answer your question directly; it's invalid argument because it equates some ones identity as being as significant as an internet insult. Which it isn't.
Casting insults at anyone is exercising a lack of empathy. Your distinction between calling people names for which they aren't doesn't make any sense. Again, your making sex/gender out to be some special case that should be protected against mis-identification. Why?
Your repeating a false equiveillance, but using an extreme example. It is a dishonest argument and you know it, because it's ridiculous.
It was once considered ridiculous to claim the be a woman when you were born a man. That's the point you don't seem to get. What makes identifiying as a Dark Lord of the Sith less plausible than identifying as a woman when you aren't?
And back to you are the victim here. All I hear is I'm threatened by these people and I want them to suffer so I feel better about myself. I've never felt threaten or burdened by transgender people so I don't understand why you do. To me they seem like an easy target and you have got something driving you to take shots at them. Am I missing something here?
I'm not wanting anyone to suffer. Talk about mis-judging people... Look in the mirror.
I'm asking questions that no one is willing to ask. Questioning people's deep-seated assumptions about themselves and the world can often make them feel offended, but their feelings and emotional attachments to their assumptions shouldn't prevent people from asking honest questions.
Ok, we can agree on that much that wanting others to suffer is morally wrong.
Do you acknowledge that transgender folk alleviate their own suffering by their actions?
There is no evidence that gender reassignment improves mental health. One study claimed that in 2020 but they have to recant their findings due to statistical errors.
I can cite several recent cases of post op trans people committing suicide.
The surgery and hormones cause suffering and shorten life spans.
Have you ever spoken with or known anyone that's transgender?
If you read the thread you would know the answer to that. I have known four trans people they all had mental health problems.
Two of them are autistic like myself and the other two presented as autistic.
None of them passed as the opposite sex. I mentioned a conversation I had with one of them which was incoherent saying gender was a social construct but trying to transition into something they described as invented.
Reply to Andrew4Handel You have a degree in psychology, haven't submitted anything but two studies that don't support the point that gender dysphoria is a delusion and yet insists calling gender dysphoria a "delusion" even when confronted with a study that suggest it's not? I maintain that that's inappropriate especially for a psychologist. The best you can say is that the etiology is unclear (which the researchers would confirm because they only say it "suggests" something or other).
There is no evidence that gender reassignment improves mental health. One study claimed that in 2020 but they have to recant their findings due to statistical errors.
If I thought this was a fact it would probably have an effect on my conclusions. Do you mean to say there is no evidence that you personally acknowledge, because there are transgender people who subjectively experience some relief.
"Pimozide is used in its oral preparation in schizophrenia and chronic psychosis (on-label indications in Europe only), Tourette syndrome,[1] and resistant tics (Europe, United States and Canada).
It was also shown to alleviate gender dysphoria.[7]"
?Andrew4Handel You know that's in one person nearly 30 years ago?
Yes but we don't know how effective this treatment would be in general because it is not being tried.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20209883/
"From time to time in scientific literature there are descriptions of a diagnosis of psychotic disorders in persons previously diagnosed and treated as transsexuals, in whom the transsexual thinking disappears after using antipsychotic agents. Coexistence of transsexualism and schizophrenia causes a lot of doubt--it is observed in scientists opinions but also in the diagnostic criteria of DSM-IV and ICD-10. Moreover, delusions of sex change are probably more frequent than it is thought. It causes, that in some cases the differential diagnosis of psychosis and gender identity disorders may be very difficult. Transsexuals treatment is on one hand connected with expected effects but on the other hand with many serious, often irreversible health consequences (e.g. cardiovascular disease, risk of neoplasma development, infertility, consequences of surgical sex reassignment). That is why the differential diagnosis of transsexualism and schizophrenia should be made carefully and thoughtfully."
"I am a 48-year-old transgender man. I was thrilled when the medical community told me six years ago that I could change from a woman to a man. I was informed about all the wonderful things that would happen due to medical transition, but all the negatives were glossed over. Since then, I have suffered tremendously, including seven surgeries, a pulmonary embolism, an induced stress heart attack, sepsis, a 17-month recurring infection, 16 rounds of antibiotics, three weeks of daily IV antibiotics, arm reconstructive surgery,lung, heart and bladder damage, insomnia, hallucinations, PTSD, $1 million in medical expenses, and loss of home, car, career and marriage. All this, and yet I cannot sue the surgeon responsible—in part because there is no structured, tested or widely accepted baseline for transgender health care."
"During my post-operation 17 months of sheer survival, I discovered that transgender health care is experimental and that large swaths of the medical industry encourage minors to transition due, at least in part, to fat profit margins."
"The truth was that I didn’t fit in as a dominant, aggressive, assertive lesbian. "
Since then, I have suffered tremendously, including seven surgeries, a pulmonary embolism, an induced stress heart attack, sepsis, a 17-month recurring infection, 16 rounds of antibiotics, three weeks of daily IV antibiotics, arm reconstructive surgery,lung, heart and bladder damage, insomnia, hallucinations, PTSD, $1 million in medical expenses, and loss of home, car, career and marriage.
I mean, when I read it, it just reads like propaganda to me. This part especially:
One night I simply couldn’t take it. I wanted to die. I crawled to bed and had another hallucination. My children’s lives flashed before my eyes, and I saw the devastation my death would cause them. Right then, I made a deal with God, the universe, whatever you call it, that if my life were spared, if I were allowed to be here for my kids, I would help other kids by ensuring people knew what the experimentation of transgender health care really entails. I remember my whimpers: “God, an eye for an eye—in reverse. I will fight with a mother’s passion for others if I can be here for my kids.”
Um, what? Isn't that an oddly specific thing to promise God in the throws of suicidal ideation?
Up to that point I felt sorry for the person, but then it switched gear and just began to read like a pamphlet, making me doubt the veracity of the story since it was the most basic manipulation: sympathetic story as bait, talking points as the hook.
"UK — Manchester, England. In July 2018, Jess (né Josh) Bradley, the first person to be elected Britain’s ‘transgender students’ officer’ by the National Union of Students (NUS), was suspended for allegedly posting explicit photographs on an online blog. Images on the website include an individual flashing while sitting in a train carriage, in a public park and at a bus stop. Additionally, a photograph shows male genitals being exposed in an office close to a curved wooden desk that appears identical to a picture of a work desk posted on Bradley’s Facebook page. The blog was exposed by the Twitter account @xNoMoreSilencex, which tweeted numerous examples of alarming posts attributed to Bradley.
Are those services which have been well known to stop the distribution of propaganda?
Maybe the story is true. Propaganda requires truth to work, after all. I have sympathy for the pain if it's true, but find it hard to feel that sympathy when it's turned into a propaganda model -- it's more of a duty than a feeling.
No, they shouldn't have underwent such horrific events, and yes, it'd be better if trans healthcare was better -- up to and including positive and negative side effects of surgeries. These are reasons to improve healthcare, not wake up to God's calling of warning children and spinning out propaganda for newsweek.
You haven't justified the claim it is propaganda. There are lots of trans people reporting how reassignment surgery damaged their health. I mentioned the case of Jazz Jennings earlier.
She was put on puberty blockers that meant her penis was not big enough to turn into a neo/pseudo vagina. Puberty blockers make gender reassignment surgery even more harmful.
I can cite numerous cases of botched surgery and detransition but people will still claim "It's only a tiny minority"
In comparison affirming someone as gay requires no surgery, no lifelong medication, no stunted puberty, no infringement on women's rights, no possibility of turning someone else gay.
Interestingly Scott Newgent is still living as a man. That may be because a lot of reassignment procedures are irreversible and reconstruction surgeries would cost another pile of cash.
Reply to Andrew4Handel You do realise not every member of a reddit has to be trans right, despite its name? Just how you're not a philosopher but you're still here?
Reply to Andrew4Handel You haven't provided evidence. You've asserted that certain people suffer from a delusion without the evidence necessary to make such a claim. That makes you unqualified as a psychologist. That you don't understand why psychologists ought to refrain from diagnosing mental illness without actually doing either the research or having treated people, is worrisome.
You also don't know what an ad hom is. Read the ad hominem, schlominem thread. Zero points.
I am not a psychologist and I didn't diagnose anyone as delusional. Anyhow anyone who thinks a man can become a woman and vice versa is delusional from a non psychiatric perspective but from a perspective of understanding the restraints of reality.
Reply to Andrew4Handel Oh right, so when you use the word "delusional" it doesn't have a psychological meaning even when you're trying to prove it by referring to psychological research. That makes no sense whatsoever, especially when admitting the etyology of gender dysphoria isn't established (but with strong indications its accompanied by physical changes in the brain).
So when people are diagnosed with gender dysphoria you nevertheless maintain both the psychologist and the patient have a false belief based on what? False information? No proof offered so far. The status of research at this point is the best information we have to go on. Dogma? No proof of that either and the fact it exists across time and across cultures definitely suggests otherwise. Illusion? About what exactly?
I said that I know 4 trans people and someone who refused to read most of my posts asked me if I knew any trans people.
Just get an eye test and read and respond to my actual posts or continue to be a burden on humanity.
I don't give a shit about anecdotal evidence. I've had several trans colleagues over the years. They're perfectly happy with their choices. Maybe the fact you're surrounded by people with issues have to do with a) your personal interests or b) the type of person you are yourself and the people you therefore attract or c) a combination of both. Not interesting that you know them and not interesting why either.
Oh right, so when you use the word "delusional" it doesn't have a psychological meaning
I never claimed it was an academic term.
It is a fact that men cannot become women and vice versa. Why do you believe otherwise?
How does surgery and hormones turn a man into a woman. Can that woman have periods, give birth, have uterus, menopause etc.
That is what I mean by delusional.
Most of my evidence has not been anecdotal. Trans "women" exhibit male patterned criminal behaviour. Trans "Men" are not assaulting people and winning athletic trophies from men and trying to enter male prisons and sexually assaulting men.
I pointed out that studies (very few) claiming reassignment surgery produces benefits have mainly been retracted. That is not anecdotal that is a fact I provided evidence for.
So when people are diagnosed with gender dysphoria you nevertheless maintain both the psychologist and the patient have a false belief based on what?
Gender dysphoria does not mean that you were born in the wrong body. Just like a diagnosis of anorexia does not mean you are fat.
Try impregnating a trans woman and see how far that gets.
I am not questioning the existence of people dissatisfied with their sex. I am dissatisfied with humanity as everyone should be but that does not entail spending thousands of pounds/dollars/euros on bogus reassignment surgeries that shorten your life span.
Trans "women" exhibit male patterned criminal behaviour.
This again. As I already pointed out:
me:I also note that the Swedish study you referenced showed female likelihood of sexual violence if proper psychological care was provided to trans women. So the converse argument is possible too, that given the fact certain groups of trans women have female levels of violence those are really women then. Or maybe it's just not a very good indicator.
Why would it be delusional if I thought I was a cat but not if I thought I was a woman?
It is ridiculous that people think that you can be a man trapped in a woman's body and vice versa with no coherent explanation (unless you think 21 dysphoric women and brain imaging in mental rotation test decides gender over having a womb or penis)
Apparently chopping your penis and testicles or breasts off triumphs over sexual dimorphism.
The only science involved in this is the science of plastic surgery. Not the science of biology, reproduction or psychology. It is not psychologist creating pseudo vaginas.
me:I also note that the Swedish study you referenced showed female likelihood of sexual violence if proper psychological care was provided to trans women
If you gave every man oestrogen I am sure it would reduce crime rates.
Chop a mans arms off it will reduce crime rates.
Most trans criminals identify as such after the crime which is rather late.
"Beate Schmidt (born Wolfgang Schmidt October 5, 1966) is a German serial killer. From October 1989 to April 1991, Schmidt murdered five women and an infant. Schmidt is a trans woman."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beate_Schmidt
So the reason Beate killed six people is because she wasn't offered puberty blockers and gender reassignment.
"In 2010, Schmidt was investigated for raping and causing another transgender inmate to attempt suicide"
Why would it be delusional if I thought I was a cat but not if I thought I was a woman?
This again comes down to you not understanding the difference between sex and gender. There's examples abound in nature of animals mimicking other animals. Ducks acting like cats, wanting to be treated like cats. Cats barking like dogs. etc. It's not about physical appearance.
Gender dysphoria is not about people thinking they are women or men while having the opposed sex; it's about identifying with the opposite gender than their sex. And this can cause all sorts of mental problems. It would indeed be delusional to think your sex is male when in fact you have a vagina and breasts but that's not what's going on here.
Reply to Andrew4Handel Arguing against trans-ism today is like arguing against gay rights in the 1970s or against BLM last summer. Trans proponents grant across-the-board consistency and validity to those who claim they can transition from one sex to another sex, man to woman, woman to man. Trans-dissenters are automatically classed as bigots, transphobic, stupid, etc.
I too have known a few transsexuals, going back to the 1970s--maybe... a dozen altogether. They were extremely varied, ranging from a secular Jewish woman who wanted to be an orthodox man to an alcoholic vet who decided in middle age to become a woman. They were all rational people, no more deluded in their thinking than the average successful citizens--meaning, there was room for at least substantial delusion.
Note to @Benkei regarding "delusion": The majority of American workers believe that with hard work and a bright idea they will become rich. They are deluded in this belief. Donald Trump, and 40,000,000 American conservatives think that the 2020 election was "stolen". This is a delusion.
Americans believe--and say quite often to children--that "you can be anything you want to be. You could be president of the United States." The odds are absurdly small of any child becoming president; the odds are against people trying to be whatever they want to be--ESPECIALLY if they are starting out with no money, a mediocre education, no models, no connections, no nothing. They are deluded.
So it is that parents bring forward 3 and 4 year olds who have decided they want to be girls instating of the boys they are, or visa versa, and demanding treatment. Delusion.
There is room in mass society for people to dress, act, work, and live as if they were the opposite of their biological sex. It seems to make this very small minority of people happier once they figure out how to pull off this act (it doesn't come naturally -- one has to learn it). I do not object to these people finding happiness by changing their costumes.
What I do object to is argument that persons can change their sex. They cannot. No matter how any hormones and surgical procedures are employed, one remains XX or XY -- like it or not.
I'm homosexual. I knew I was different, that I found boys much more interesting than girls from an early age on, though I did not have the vocabulary to say so. Of course, I had no idea in the late 1940s or early 1950s what was involved in having a homosexual life style, or that other people like myself even existed. I would guess that many transsexuals experience something similar at an early age.
Had my parents identified me as homosexual and then facilitated my development as a homosexual from kindergarten onwards, I think I'd have thought myself pretty poorly raised. As poorly raised if they had dragged me to a child psychiatrist to cure me of homosexuality before first grade. Young children have too much plasticity for parents to become too involved in their sexual identity, A mother encouraging her very young son in wearing girls clothes to school is behaving in ways that borders on indecency. Young children need to work through these issues over time, slowly, on their own.
So it is that parents bring forward 3 and 4 year olds who have decided they want to be girls instating of the boys they are, or visa versa, and demanding treatment. Delusion.
The delusion is in trying to establish that at that age. It's too early to tell, doesn't mean the parents are wrong in recognising what their children want to be. My son is 3 and he's very boyish in a lot of respects but sometimes he makes me wonder when he gets angry when we applaud him with "well done, big boy!" and he yells "NO, BIG GIRL!". He probably just wants to be like his big sister for now. But I don't "identify" my kids, that's not my role. I do need to create a safe space where they can freely identify as they wish when they are ready. I don't care whether that's transgender, straight or gay/lesbian. So I purposefully don't (and won't) argue his insistence of being a girl because of it.
What I do object to is argument that persons can change their sex. They cannot. No matter how any hormones and surgical procedures are employed, one remains XX or XY -- like it or not.
I agree. Nevertheless, gender affirming plastic surgery, which colloquially is know as a "sex change operation", is an option for people to further fulfil and support their transition to another gender. As I've stated before, transsexuality is not a requirement for transgenderism, it's optional.
In fact, I just remembered (it was over 20 years ago) I had a roommate for half a year that was an exchange student who was transgender. He was sexually a woman and had no inclination to change his sex and I think I'd describe his gender expression as unisex (what you see on the outside). He had a boyfriend. A lot of people make a big deal out of it and people who are transgender have a hard time admitting to their feelings and ideas as a result. I've always been "meh". I really dont care. You want me to call you a "she"? Fine. Or "xe"? No problem. It's a small effort to make someone comfortable and that holds true irrespective of the etyology of gender dysphoria.
What people do to their bodies when they grow up? None of my business and that's irrespective of the etyology of gender dysphoria. Or we need to start rethinking women's right to breast reductions and enlargements, or people's rights to liposuction, lengthening operations for hypochondriaplasia or anochondroplasia etc.
Reply to Andrew4Handel Gender isn't just a grammatical term and the difference between biological and psychological sexuality has been around for over 60 years. It was first a term of art in psychology, it has made it's way into mainstream vocabulary.
This happens all the time. Take the word "relativity" which has taken on quite a different meaning since Einstein and it took almost 50 years before it became a word laymen would use.
Your personal anecdote that you've been living under a rock and wasn't aware of this meaning until apparently very recently (and apparently didn't pay attention during psychology classes when this definitely came up) is not proof of what gender means.
Transgenderism has historically existed before modern times as well. Just because we didn't have a term before it at that time, doesn't mean it didn't exist. If you studied French, you know what it means when something can be defined a certain way avant la lettre. Which is how I can accurately state my great-grandmother was a feminist.
[In Ojibwe cultures] Sex usually determined one's gender, and therefore one's work, but the Ojibwe accepted variation. Men who chose to function as women were called ikwekaazo, meaning 'one who endeavors to be like a woman'. Women who functioned as men were called ininiikaazo, meaning, 'one who endeavors to be like a man'. The French called these people berdaches. Ikwekaazo and ininiikaazo could take spouses of their own sex. Their mates were not considered ikwekaazo or ininiikaazo, however, because their function in society was still in keeping with their sex. If widowed, the spouse of an ikwekaazo or ininiikaazo could remarry someone of the opposite sex or another ikwekaazo or ininiikaazo. The ikwekaazowag worked and dressed like women. The ininiikaazowag worked and dressed like men. Both were considered to be strong spiritually, and they were always honoured, especially during ceremonies.
Gender may be recognized and organized differently in different cultures. In some non-Western cultures, gender may not be seen as binary, or people may be seen as being able to cross freely between male and female, or to exist in a state that is in-between, or neither. In some cultures being third gender may be associated with the gift of being able to mediate between the world of the spirits and world of humans. For cultures with these spiritual beliefs, it is generally seen as a positive thing, though some third gender people have also been accused of witchcraft and persecuted. In most western cultures, people who do not conform to heteronormative ideals are often seen as sick, disordered, or insufficiently formed.
The Indigenous m?h? of Hawaii are seen as embodying an intermediate state between man and woman, or as people "of indeterminate gender", while some traditional Dineh of the Southwestern US recognize a spectrum of four genders: feminine woman, masculine woman, feminine man, masculine man. The term "third gender" has also been used to describe the hijras of South Asia who have gained legal identity, the fa'afafine of Polynesia, and the Albanian sworn virgins.
In some Indigenous communities in Africa, a woman can be recognized as a “female husband” who enjoys all of the privileges of men and is recognized as such, but whose femaleness, while not openly acknowledged, is not forgotten either.
The hijras of India are one of the most recognized groups of third gender people. Some western commentators (Hines and Sanger) have theorized that this could be a result of the Hindu belief in reincarnation, in which gender, sex, and even species can change from lifetime to lifetime, perhaps allowing for a more fluid interpretation. There are other cultures in which the third gender is seen as an intermediate state of being rather than as a movement from one conventional sex to the other.
Reply to Michael Cool. And here I was still thinking about European examples and this is just further circumstantial proof that transgenderism is not only sociological or political. Of course, social and political situation have a lot of effect on if and how it can be expressed and I think that's why we're seeing such an "increase" today. Transgenders are starting to feel safe to admit to their feelings and thoughts and express them. This can only be a good thing.
What I do object to is argument that persons can change their sex. They cannot. No matter how any hormones and surgical procedures are employed, one remains XX or XY -- like it or not.
If the argument remains in the abstract, as just a debate over word usage, then it seems an unimportant diversion. We can all agree that there is a difference between XX and XY and then we can disagree and debate whether sometimes XX can be called "man' and whether XY be called "woman." The answer to that debate comes down to word usage and social constructs, that I'm sure might make an important difference to someone in a gender studies class or maybe in a philosophy forum, but probably in few other places. I really doubt that most trans people are heavily invested in the outcome of that tangential debate. From what I read, you'd think the battleground is over pronoun use, but I just can't see that's really where the trans person faces their daily struggle.
The question it seems to me is whether transgenderism is real, meaning are there actually people who identify more as their opposite sex, and, if so, what we ought do about it. If surgeries and clothing are cathartic, curative, or even mildly therapeutic, they should be available to those who choose them, with very limited input from me. Or, more simply, if a man wants to live as a woman, and that makes him happy, why the hell am I going to weigh in?
I think you can take one of three approaches here: (1) pragmatic, (2) metaphysical, or (3) ethical. Mine above is the pragmatic response, and I think that's how most medical decisions are made, where there is informed consent and a final decision made by the patient. I don't see why transition surgery should be different.
Your argument smacks of metaphysics, suggesting that it's folly to call a transitioned man a woman because he still is in essence a man because his DNA hasn't been altered. Those who bristle at such claims point out that meaning is use and considerations of essence usually break down as unsustainable. All of this is to say, unless I'm focused on the metaphysics of this, I don't care what the DNA shows.
And then finally there is the ethical, and both sides of the spectrum are guilty of this, where the left claims civil rights violations for standing in the way of trans rights and the right claims the whole thing is an unholy enterprise. And what makes the ethical folks the most difficult is their often failure to admit their approach is ethically motivated. The left insists they are basing their claims on science, yet those claims as to what science says are often inflated. The right also claims their claims are based upon science, yet with a little prodding, there is often more than a hint of confirmation bias, searching for those studies that offer support for the status quo because the time honored tradition just must be right, it just must be.
The left insists they are basing their claims on science
... And decency. And history. Historically we have rejected men dictating womanhood to women, white women dictating womanhood to non-white women, middle class women dictating womanhood to working class women... It's not rocket science to need a better reason to dictate womanhood to trans women than the above had to assert their definitions.
And decency. And history. Historically we have rejected men dictating womanhood to women, white women dictating womanhood to non-white women, middle class women dictating womanhood to working class women... It's not rocket science to need a better reason to dictate womanhood to trans women than the above had to assert their definitions.
This is certainly the moralistic approach, which can blind someone from appreciating critical distinctions between past struggles, and it can cause someone to overlook the limitations available through medical science. That is, I think any fair minded person would agree with you that ostracism, bullying, and moralizing against transsexuals is an evil to be avoided, but it does not follow that the medical response helps reduce the suffering of those who are suffering. You can be pro-transsexual in every way possible and still be against transition surgeries.
You can be pro-transsexual in every way possible and still be against transition surgeries.
Meta-analysis suggests general hesitation about gender-reassignment is misinformed - there's evidence it's on average effective for those who elect to take it.
There's also comprehensive screening for reassignment/gender affirmative surgery - it includes mental health screening. It aims to assess if the person would benefit from the surgery and could cope with it! It's very hard to get the surgery without having sufficient evidence that it's worth the risk. Similarly for hormone therapy.
The risk assessment and screening for these is comparatively higher than the reversible and non-intrusive puberty blockers which can be given to consenting transgender or gender non-conforming youths without many expected side effects AFAIK.
To be sure, someone can be blanket against gender reassignment surgery and pro-trains rights, but I believe only if they don't know how comprehensive the screening is for receiving gender reassignment or puberty blocking treatment. People act like the T Stasi (T-minators?) are going around cutting off children's dicks and sticking them on other children, it's absolutely nothing like that.
You can be pro-transsexual in every way possible and still be against transition surgeries.
Strictly speaking within the current professional vocabulary (as part of psychology and in the Netherlands at least) you can be pro-transgender and against transitioning. Pro-transsexuality is specifically about changing sex.
Strictly speaking within the current professional vocabulary (as part of psychology and in the Netherlands at least) you can be pro-transgender and against transitioning. Pro-transsexuality is specifically about changing sex.
I think a "not" is missing in this post, right?
At any rate, that's a confusing stance because there are many transsexuals who choose not to have surgery to their sexual organs but in all other regards live as the opposite sex. It also overly emphasizes the significance of the sexual organ as identifying the gender.
Reply to Hanover No, I double checked and what I wrote is what I meant. I only learned this last week when I contacted a leading Dutch researcher on this.
Transsexualism isn't really used anymore, because the feeling of gender dysphoria has little to do with (biological) sex according to her. Even though transsexualism was the term we were using 20 years ago.
It isn't from a scientific perspective. How has it become so accepted as a concept?
In what way isn't it possible? Are you defining physical gender based on whether or not they have a dick or vagina? Or are you talking about chromosomes? With the latter, which is more accurate for physical gender, it's not as clear-cut as perceived physical attributes of genders. There are genetic events during development that could alter the physical gender so much that it's not really clear which gender a person really has.
But we also have, as MadFool points out, the mental perception of gender. I presume you are a man? How do you know this? Is it just because of the physical properties of your body? In CIS people, we have the perception of our own gender in line with the physical properties of out body. In order to understand transgender people, you have to imagine that your perception of your own gender, beyond the physical properties of your body, is out of sync with each other. It's a combination of perception of your own behavior, social interactions, cultural identity and sense of physical body. If all of these leans towards a gender that isn't in line with your physical body, then transitioning the physical body will give you harmony in the same way as a CIS person feels in harmony between the mental perception of gender and the physical body.
Before the discovery of hormones and extensive advances in plastic surgery there was no way to live other than in the body you were born in. There is no evidence of mass trans suicides before they could get surgery and hormones.
There's no evidence that it didn't happen either. There's also very little evidence of them since the little that is known about transgender people before modern times showed that they were most often killed and forced to comply with society. Just like women needed to comply with society, not vote, force themselves to keep within living standards and physical norms that the times demanded. Did that mean there were no women who fought against such standards? What do you think happened to women who stood up against the social norms of the time silencing their voices?
It sounds more like you know little about the history of both women and trans people throughout history.
Someone to recommend whenever there's talk about transgender culture, sex changes and related topics is Contrapoints. She's, compared to many in here, an academic philosopher who's been aiming towards explaining many of these things with a scope of philosophy. We also have Philosophy Tube with Olly who just transitioned to Abigail, although she's not really focused on gender-related topics and more focused on pure and time-relevant philosophy.
Transsexualism isn't really used anymore, because the feeling of gender dysphoria has little to do with (biological) sex according to her.
That's a confusing statement. Gender dysphoria means that your internal gender identification is opposite from your physical gender. You're saying that has little to do with biological sex, but I can't see how we can subtract out the biological sex element from the gender dysphoria equation, considering having a mental state inconsistent with biological sex defines dysphoria.
Hanover:That's a confusing statement. Gender dysphoria means that your internal gender identification is opposite from your [s]physical gender[/s] anatomical/biological sex. You're saying that has little to do with biological sex, but I can't see how we can subtract out the biological sex element from the gender dysphoria equation, considering having a mental state inconsistent with biological sex defines dysphoria.
What you say makes sense, I'm just repeating what she said. One way that could work is if gender identity is independent from biological sex. If that's how it works then it's only after that identity is established/expressed that dysphoria may arise but not necessarily.
I think we can recognise that if there's gender identity on the one hand and biological sex on the other then transsexualism relates to changing biological sex and transgenderism is about changing gender identity of which changing biological sex can be a part but not necessarily so.
Reply to BenkeiReply to Michael All these distinctions can be sorted out, but I'm not really buying into all these hyper-technical definitions of terms, as if they are specialized terms of art with consistent usages within particular fields. It sounds like different people use the terms differently and some insist that their usage is more correct than others. You then end up with people correcting you while you're speaking by telling you that you speak imprecisely and that you offensively use terms with negative connotations. And there's the frustration.
While the distinctions might be important, the word play diverts the conversation from how we ought to treat people as opposed to what we ought to call people. My concern over insulting a transsexual person (if that's even the proper term nowadays) isn't because I have any concern I'll do anything malicious, but it arises over whether I might call them the right thing, and honestly, I don't even have reason to believe transsexuals are a hyper-sensitive bunch and would terribly care much. My suspicion is that much of this technical political jargon debate arose in academia and not among the most affected, but I could be wrong.
There's no evidence that it didn't happen either. There's also very little evidence of them since the little that is known about transgender people before modern times showed that they were most often killed and forced to comply with society
The point I made is you could not be trans in to days sense of having cross sex hormones and plastic surgery etc because it wasn't technically possible not because of prejudice. There could only be gender non conforming people.
Nevertheless you can't just claim there was a wave of trans suicides and murders in history without
citations or evidence.
Contrapoints. (..) Philosophy Tube with Olly who just transitioned to Abigail
I have watched both their videos. Is there something they have said you would like to share. They are both cases of adult men who didn't commit suicide due to dysphoria and "transitioned later in life"
Contra actually outed herself as an Autogynephilic which is an unpopular but most supported theory of male to female transsexuality. Contra also debated with Blaire White before Contra transitioned where Blaire described a neo vagina as a wound that you need to dilate regularly to stop it healing and said that gender dysphoria was a mental health problem not something to be celebrated.
Ok, we can agree on that much that wanting others to suffer is morally wrong.
Do you acknowledge that transgender folk alleviate their own suffering by their actions?
In the same way that a person with anorexia alleviates their suffering. They may alleviate some mental suffering at the expense of their body suffering. Having a hole created between your legs to imitate a vagina and having to keep a stent inside to prevent the wound from closing isn't my idea of alleviating one's suffering. The body knows better than the mind what it is as it attempts to heal the damage done to the body by the mind.
BitconnectCarlosJune 30, 2021 at 13:32#5591071 likes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWgnepX54Lg
^A real life situation where a black woman along with other women encounter a transwoman with a penis in a spa changing room and start complaining to management.
I feel really bad for that receptionist because you know it's not her who makes the rules here. In any case, the moment you pull the "we're protecting little girls" line it's no longer an argument, it's an order. Can anyone honestly watch that video and tell me that they'd do any better than the white man who tries to confront the anti-trans black woman? The message is clear: Some portion of women want trans women out of their intimate spaces, and we need to balance acceptance for trans folk against concerns like the one made in the video.
I can't help but think that as a man I'm entitled to less of an opinion on this issue than a woman.
Can anyone tell me the correct philosophical response to: "You're traumatizing my little girls."
Reply to Hanover I don't agree in this case. Those who deny gender as something separate do so for specific reasons. The distinction clearly matters and makes all the difference between those considering gender separate from sex a delusion and those accepting it as a natural occurring phenomena and the latter is only possible if they are indeed different things.
^A real life situation where a black woman along with other women encounter a transwoman with a penis in a spa changing room and start complaining to management.
I feel really bad for that receptionist because you know it's not her who makes the rules here. In any case, the moment you pull the "we're protecting little girls" line it's no longer an argument, it's an order. Can anyone honestly watch that video and tell me that they'd do any better than the white man who tries to confront the anti-trans black woman? The message is clear: Some portion of women want trans women out of their intimate spaces, and we need to balance acceptance for trans folk against concerns like the one made in the video.
I can't help but think that as a man I'm entitled to less of an opinion on this issue than a woman.
Can anyone tell me the correct philosophical response to: "You're traumatizing my little girls."
I'm not sure this is an issue. If the spa had been clear (or maybe even was clear?) on how it deals with transgenders then it's just whatever the house rules are.
And if little girls and boys can get traumatised from just seeing genitalia maybe people need to reconsider what they are teaching kids about sex in the first place. Especially in a spa, which tend to be mixed in the Netherlands anyways, nakedness isn't sexual. I suppose if you're an upstuck Jesus freak this sort of thing will scar you for life but we can squarely blame the parents for that.
I can't help but think that as a man I'm entitled to less of an opinion on this issue than a woman.
Why? The issue effects you as well. If transwomen (whether with or without a penis) are not allowed in women's changing rooms then they'll be in men's changing rooms. And transmen (whether with or without a vagina) want to use men's changing rooms.
BitconnectCarlosJune 30, 2021 at 15:50#5591741 likes
Why? The issue effects you as well. If transwomen (whether with or without a penis) are not allowed in women's changing rooms then they'll be in men's changing rooms. And transmen (whether with or without a vagina) want to use men's changing rooms.
Then maybe a third changing room might be plausible? I can 100% understand why transwomen wouldn't want to be in men's locker rooms.
Transmen in men's changing rooms are not the same as transwomen in women's changing rooms for reasons beyond my control. Somehow you never really hear of transmen traumatizing men with their vaginas in changing rooms.
And if little girls and boys can get traumatised from just seeing genitalia maybe people need to reconsider what they are teaching kids about sex in the first place. Especially in a spa, which tend to be mixed in the Netherlands anyways, nakedness isn't sexual. I suppose if you're an upstuck Jesus freak this sort of thing will scar you for life but we can squarely blame the parents for that.
Then the problem is Judeo-Christian morality, but good luck convincing America of that. What is the replacement value system here, by the way? Do we know of an alternative framework we should be shifting to here?
Can anyone tell me the correct philosophical response to: "You're traumatizing my little girls."
Use a cubicle? Have that talk? If the sight of difference traumatises the little girl, I'm not sure that's anyone's fault but the parents'. Otherwise you can use this excuse to excuse many an act of hate.
Then the problem is Judeo-Christian morality, but good luck convincing America of that. What is the replacement value system here, by the way? Do we know of an alternative framework we should be shifting to here?
I know plenty of Christians that go to mixed spa's. So it's not just religion. But in any case, I think expectation management goes a long way and think it's perfectly fine to decide one way or another. I think it's both reasonable to say that you should change in the locker room coinciding with your primary genitalia (penises or vaginas), so sex based, or based on gender identity. I think it shouldn't be an issue either way as long as the rules are clear. Or have cubicles, or have everything mixed from the get go etc. There's plenty of pragmatic solutions possible.
What is the obsession over feeling like we NEED to distinguish human sex?
Human sex is distinguished by observation. Women and girls have uteruses and vaginas. Men don't. It is not a creation or construct it is an observation of biological reality.
This video covers the topic pretty well. But to your point it usually is pretty easy to tell if someone is a transgender person either before or after hormones or surgery.
Reply to TiredThinker Sex/gender is not a spectrum any more than being born with more or less than ten fingers, or with or without a tail is part of a spectrum. Being born with more or less than ten fingers, or with a tail is considered abnormal, or uncommon/rare. Rare events are not considered to be part of a spectrum, rather outliers of the spectrum. A spectrum would be differences that occur commonly, or at a similar rate as the other items in the spectrum.
Biological sex is based on a combination of traits:
- chromosomes (in humans, XY is male, XX female)
- genitals (penis vs. vagina)
- gonads (testes vs. ovaries)
- hormones (males have higher relative levels of testosterone than women, while women have higher levels of estrogen)
- secondary sex characteristics that aren’t connected with the reproductive system but distinguish the sexes, and usually appear at puberty (breasts, facial hair, size of larynx, subcutaneous fat, etc.)
Using genitals and gonads alone, more than 99.9% of people fall into two non-overlapping classes—male and female—and the other traits almost always occur with these. If you did a principal components analysis using the combination of all five traits, you’d find two widely separated clusters with very few people in between. Those clusters are biological realities, just as horses and donkeys are biological realities, even though they can produce hybrids (sterile mules) that fall morphologically in between.
Two widely separated clusters is not the same as a spectrum.
Andrew4HandelFebruary 08, 2022 at 04:20#6525320 likes
Chromosomal sex is not the entirety of sex. There’s also hormonal sex and anatomical sex. If anything, anatomical sex is the original referent of the word, from before we knew anything about hormones or chromosomes. And there are some people naturally born with a chromosomal sex that differs from their hormonal or anatomical sex (women AFAB but with XY chromosomes), and everyone has always referred to them by their anatomical sex (as we usually don’t know anything but anatomical sex about anyone).
Hormonal and genital sex can be changed already, and it’s only a matter of time before chromosomal sex can be changed too (hello CRISPR).
I think this picture of changing sex is insidious. A woman who has her breasts removed because of cancer is not becoming more male. A man with long hair is not becoming more female. There are two distinct sex categories male and female which are need for reproduction one produces sperm, the other eggs and the capacity to grow a baby inside themselves. (We all once lived inside our mothers) This is the sex binary and how we identify males and females. It is not capable being a spectrum.
An inverted penis is not analogous to a vagina or a functional part of a reproductive system. A phalloplasty or metoidioplasty are useless for reproduction and not anything like a functioning penis.
It is a bizarre maybe utopian fantasy that you can gradually change someone into the opposite sex. It seems the ultimate goal is to have some kind of machine where someone can enter and change sex instantaneously if they have the desire to live as the opposite sex and change back if they get tired of doing so.
But pandering to the different stages of this ideal, compromises peoples bodies and women's rights among other things. Sex stereotypes are attached to biological sex. It seems strange to be aspire to be treated like a biological woman whilst never having the biological reality that lead to said stereotypes.
On top of this there is not a unified trans ideology and a complete lack of coherent definition of gender and distinction between it and sex so that some people take on the moniker of woman with no intention of trying to biologically transition but seeing sex/gender id as apparently purely mental.
Still overly concerned as to the contents of other folk's underwear, I see.
Odd.
It is odd. I'm not sure that is where the sexual identity for me lays. I do believe it is more in the mind than the contents of folk's underwear. But that is just my perspective.
For me sexuality and its identity is on a continuum and throughout our lives we move from our starting point. Sometimes life and circumstances move us a little more in one direction from where we started, and life happens again, and we might move the other way.
When I was exploring the idea of being with a woman, it was called just that, exploration.
I didn't consider myself a homosexual, or a heterosexual with homosexual tendencies.
For the duration of that time in my life I never wondered if I was a lesbian, I toyed with the label of being bi-sexual and landed on bi-curious. I only defined it as such, so when I was talking with people, they could kind of grasp what emotions I was encountering and where I felt most comfortable.
I am sure there is another term for it now, but I am not familiar with it yet. Maybe someone who is more knowledgeable about the current definition can tell me.
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff There's this judge where I live who was up for re-election and a gay man was running against him, so the judge held a press conference, with his arm around his wife and his two children by his side, and announced he was bisexual. Perhaps that was to keep the gay man from having a bloc of voters to challenge him so as to divide the vote. I do believe him though that he is actually bisexual.
My thoughts were that I didn't like the timing, as it seemed to be for political reasons, but I was also a bit confused by the monogamy issues that were challenged by the announcement before the wife and the children being a part of dad declaring how he enjoys sex.
I also don't think of bisexuality as an identity issue, but more just something you prefer, although maybe I'm wrong to view it this way. I compare it to a woman proclaiming how much more she enjoys the touch of a vibrator over a man, which likely does describe some women, but it's not really something I need to know and not really something I think affects someone's identity.
A part of it to me is that I don't think how you perform sex acts or who you perform them with is so integral to the person that it ought be who we think that person is. Unless I'm going to be having sex that person, it seems pretty irrelevant whether the person is gay, straight, or anywhere else on the spectrum.
Andrew4HandelFebruary 08, 2022 at 16:55#6526380 likes
Still overly concerned as to the contents of other folk's underwear, I see.
Odd.
This is deliberate nonsense. Thousands of young women have had there breasts chopped off a male swimmer has beaten women's records and there are male rapists in female prisons.
Why do they call this a philosophy forum?
There is lots of evidence trans ideology is harmful to peoples minds and bodies. I have posted links on here including a video by a young man who has penis removed because he thought he could be a woman who now regrets it. So Please stop lying by your glib dismissals.
Female genital mutilation is considered a a horror when it happens in Africa but in the west it is now seen as gender reaffirming surgery and the version in the west causes a woman to be come infertile, have an increased of dementia and heartache, lead to complications such as fistulas, adhesions, arterial bleeds. I think people like you in history will be see on the wrong side and accomplices to grievous harm for reasons only you can fathom.
Reply to Andrew4Handel That you are paying undue attention to the contents of other folk's underwear is terse, but right on point. It's not your business.
You might have entered into a discussion of the place of gender in competition, or of medical ethics. And to be sure there are issues to be addressed here.
But instead you demand of other folk that they must conform to your inadequate notions of sex, sexuality and gender.
To which the only reasonable replies are to laugh at you or to ask you to go fuck yourself.
Deleted UserFebruary 08, 2022 at 21:46#6527370 likes
In what way isn't it possible? Are you defining physical gender based on whether or not they have a dick or vagina?
Mm'no...... I think he's talking about all of the differences that we've known about for years and are, similarly, present in all animals. You know, stuff like what is captured here in these kinds of academic sources:
You know, what we all know to be true, but for some reason are unwilling to admit. There really should be no issue with admitting that the biological differences between men and women are EXTENSIVELY documented in published research, while also making room for the emergent personality type that is now being colloquially referred to as : Trans. The inclination people have to dismiss scientific understandings that are apparent from the phenotypical level, let alone the genotypical level, is an exercise in political possession, not philosophy.
Nota bene: there are plenty more pieces of research to go around on this subject.
DingoJonesFebruary 08, 2022 at 21:47#6527380 likes
Female genital mutilation is considered a a horror when it happens in Africa but in the west it is now seen as gender reaffirming surgery and the version in the west causes a woman to be come infertile, have an increased of dementia and heartache, lead to complications such as fistulas, adhesions, arterial bleeds. I think people like you in history will be see on the wrong side and accomplices to grievous harm for reasons only you can fathom.
The question is one of consent, with children being unable to consent to having their genitals removed and adults being able to consent. The distinction between consent and no consent is not subtle, but it is what distinguishes rape from a loving interaction as one example.
Another critical part of consent in the medical context is the information you have available to you, which is why it is often referred to as informed consent. As long as the person understands the various risks you've presented, the decision is then up to him or her to decide how to act. It does seem ethically improper to have you at their decision making table.
More complicated questions arise in the female genital mutilation among adult women to the extent that occurs at a later age. The question that needs to be addressed in those cases is whether the decision is truly with consent or whether it is being forced upon them. It is also important that the woman accurately be informed of the consequences and that she be provided accurate information regarding whether the surgery truly makes one more pure, or whatever its goal is.
To the extent you are arguing that no rational person could ever choose sexual reassignment surgery and that it is per se evidence of mental illness and lack of capacity, I think you have an uphill battle. You'll need to show something more than that you personally find it nuts.
Andrew4HandelFebruary 08, 2022 at 23:01#6527640 likes
But instead you demand of other folk that they must conform to your inadequate notions of sex, sexuality and gender.
Trans rhetoric makes disputable claims which are open for public scrutiny. I can't control what people think but I can assess the truth value of what they say.
Nevertheless what has happened is to try and redefine sex and identity and the truth of biology and psychology for everyone, so you damn well better think I am going to be concerned.
Affirming gender nonsense is harmful it is not just about the content of one persons mind but how society must be structured so as not to upset this person. You can convince a vulnerable person that they have a gender identity they don't such as claiming there is such things as a hundred genders and they might have been born in the worn body.
More debate and scrutiny is desperately needed so people undergoing gender affirmation are truly well informed on what is entailed.
We are being told mixed messages. First that trans identities are not a mental health issue but then that surgeries and hormones are urgently needed or said person will kill themselves.
This seems to be one of almost the only instances I can think of where someone's belief has to be affirmed by others. It is the equivalent of religious compulsion. You have to act as if you truly think a biological male is a female and if you read posts on this you know that even trans people can sense when you are just pretending to believe they are the opposite sex.
Andrew4HandelFebruary 08, 2022 at 23:07#6527650 likes
The question is one of consent, with children being unable to consent to having their genitals removed and adults being able to consent
Female genital mutilation is called mutilation so that is not a question about consent. This issue is not consent because children don't consent to numerous things. The issue is the surgeries are harmful and stop proper function of a body part and can cause chronic pain. Early transition leads to infertility and patients are even told that.
I mentioned Jazz Jennings earlier whose penis was shrunk by puberty blockers and they needed to do several surgeries with lots of complications to try and turn it into a pseudo vagina because they usually do the surgery on fully developed males.
A woman in her early 30's said she was allowed to consent to gender affirming treatments that could cause infertility but when she desisted and wanted her tubes tied she was told to wait because she might regret it and want children.
Andrew4HandelFebruary 08, 2022 at 23:10#6527670 likes
As long as the person understands the various risks you've presented
This can be impossible for various reasons. 1. The person can easily be said to be mentally disordered often suffering gender dysphoria and other mental health conditions including severe depression and even schizophrenia and psychosis
2. The surgeries are highly experimental.
3. Some of the risks are so severe or have a high probability of happening so that you would have to be mad to consent to them.
Still overly concerned as to the contents of other folk's underwear, I see.
One of the functions of gender/sexual identity is that categorizing people based on it should provide a modicum of safety in certain settings where people are highly vulnerable, such as schools, hospitals, prisons.
A part of it to me is that I don't think how you perform sex acts or who you perform them with is so integral to the person that it ought be who we think that person is. Unless I'm going to be having sex that person, it seems pretty irrelevant whether the person is gay, straight, or anywhere else on the spectrum.
For you as a man it probably matters little whether you share a hospital room with a man or a woman. Or whether the person in the dressing booth next to yours is a man or a woman.
Perhaps you also wouldn't mind peeing while standing next to a woman, the way you don't mind peeing while standing next to a man?
Clearly categorizable gender/sexual identity (ie. a person is either male or female) provides a modicum of shared privacy in public spaces occupied by more people. Arguably, this shared privacy is important to many people for a general sense of safety.
Reply to baker What do you suppose “choose reality”’ refers to? Just the issues that are highlighted of aggression toward women by men deliberately masquerading as females? Or do you suppose this includes a denial of the idea that psychological gender doesn’t necessarily match biological sex?
Arguably, this shared privacy is important to many people for a general sense of safety.
But there are gay people who I am sure would love to jump on top of me and have their way with me while I'm standing at the urinal, but I have no way of distinguishing the gay from the straight, so I stand there vulnerable, hoping to have uneventful toilet experience.
Whatever will they do for me?
The general trend has been to create bathrooms only with stalls or to provide a separate bathroom that can be accessed only one person at a time. That seems a reasonable accommodation. It's pretty rare in any event for rapes and sexual assaults to take place between transsexuals and CIS males in public restrooms. Maybe it's a thing where you live I don't know.
My point here is that all the concerns for safety and whatever other issues you wish to throw out seem pretextual, meaning I really don't think you have these concerns as much as you have a desire not to accommodate people who you believe are irrational and cuckoo.
I mentioned Jazz Jennings earlier whose penis was shrunk by puberty blockers and they needed to do several surgeries with lots of complications to try and turn it into a pseudo vagina because they usually do the surgery on fully developed males
So, all things considered, you wouldn't have done as Jazz did because she's had complications from her surgery that you consider worse than the advantages she gained from the surgery. Why is your assessment of any value to Jazz? If she believes all the surgeries she's been through are worth it and she's happier as the result, why should your concerns be her concerns?
My point here is that all the concerns for safety and whatever other issues you wish to throw out seem pretextual, meaning I really don't think you have these concerns as much as you have a desire not to accommodate people who you believe are irrational and cuckoo.
Your bad faith is duly noted, as usual.
Andrew4HandelFebruary 09, 2022 at 17:46#6530270 likes
If she believes all the surgeries she's been through are worth it and she's happier as the result, why should your concerns be her concerns?
Jazz was operated on and puberty blocked as a child. Jazz started suffering depression after he went on puberty blockers. This was ascertained in a discussion on the reality show.
By the way it is a lie to call a biological male a woman. Pronouns are intended to reflect some semblance of reality.
Jazz wanted to go to Harvard but the process was delayed due to mental health problems.
He said himself he was fine before he went on puberty blockers. Jazz has also said he thinks he'll never have an orgasm and he knows the surgeries have prevented him from creating children.
This is the highest level of self harm we allow other than assisted suicides.
What do you suppose “choose reality”’ refers to? Just the issues that are highlighted of aggression toward women by men deliberately masquerading as females? Or do you suppose this includes a denial of the idea that psychological gender doesn’t necessarily match biological sex?
You'd have to ask the makers of that poster.
Or do you suppose this includes a denial of the idea that psychological gender doesn’t necessarily match biological sex?
Psychological gender is a cluster of traits, but which traits in particular those are for which gender varies from culture to culture, from setting to setting. The same trait can sometimes be considered male, other times, female, or childish.
Andrew4HandelFebruary 09, 2022 at 17:51#6530320 likes
But there are gay people who I am sure would love to jump on top of me and have their way with me while I'm standing at the urinal, but I have no way of distinguishing the gay from the straight, so I stand there vulnerable, hoping to have uneventful toilet experience.
Gay men have been known to congregate in toilets for sexual intimacy. I suppose I feel sorry for the straight men who may have walked in on this.
This kind of sexual practise doesn't happen among lesbians in women's toilets it is the differing sexual persuasions of men and women why we need separate spaces. I admit I went "cottaging" as a young gay man but not in the women's toilets.
I believe men are well of other men's sexual attitudes and behaviours so when they are confronted with the reality of what alterations in the law means for their daughters, partners, and females in general I think they will join the backlash against undermining protections for biological women and sex differences.
If she believes all the surgeries she's been through are worth it and she's happier as the result, why should your concerns be her concerns?
[i]There is no society. There are only individuals.
There are no social norms.[/i]
Andrew4HandelFebruary 09, 2022 at 17:58#6530380 likes
Lili Elbe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lili_Elbe
"In 1931, she had her fourth surgery, to transplant a uterus and construct a vaginal canal.[6][7][31][5] This made her one of the earliest transgender women to undergo a vaginoplasty surgery, a few weeks after Erwin Gohrbandt performed the experimental procedure on Dora Richter.[25]
Elbe's immune system rejected the transplanted uterus, and the operation and a subsequent surgical revision caused infection, which led to her death from cardiac arrest on 13 September 1931, three months after the surgery"
Magnus Hirschfeld of the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft oversaw her surgeries.
This was some of the institutes prior experiments:
"Working off of the research of Eugen Steinach, who had recently succeeded in reversing the sexual behavior of animal test subjects, the institute began testing whether or not transplanting the testicles from a heterosexual man to a homosexual man would cure homosexuality. This method of "curing" homosexuality more often than not grew necrotized and resulted in the testicles having to be castrated and was abandoned by 1924"
Psychological gender is a cluster of traits, but which traits in particular those are for which gender varies from culture to culture, from setting to setting. The same trait can sometimes be considered male, other times, female, or childish.
1m
Let’s take as an example traits within modern Western societies, such as a boy growing up with a constellation of behaviors he has no control over and which causes other boys to label him a sissy. Let’s say he would list these behaviors as including speaking with a lisp, walking and throwing a ball like a girl, playing with dolls instead of toy soldiers and guns. Let’s say he also is attracted exclusively to other males and connects this attraction. with the other behaviors which he regards as feminine. Let’s say further that he does a bit of neurophysiological research and suspects that the constellation of ‘feminine’ behaviors that he was apparently born with are not random or independent of each other but instead are all the result of a kind of brain ‘wiring’ that determines psychological gender (masculine vs feminine behavior and sexual attraction).
This shouldn’t be too controversial since we commonly accept that male and female dogs and cats show recognizable gender-connected behavioral differences.
He could then hypothesize that such biological determinants can interact with culture to produce changing definitions of the masculine and the feminine.
So where does trans fit in here? I think the idea that one must change one’s body to fit one’s psychological gender is only necessary in a culture which
believes that behavior should match genitalia according to rigid norms. In a society which has no such belief , one is free to recognize that body sex and psychological gender are inextricably intertwined such that it becomes incoherent to claim that one was born in the wrong body.
He said himself he was fine before he went on puberty blockers. Jazz has also said he thinks he'll never have an orgasm and he knows the surgeries have prevented him from creating children.
Does she say she's fine now and that she wishes she would have never gone down the road she chose? That seems to be the real question, not whether you regret her decisions for her.
By the way it is a lie to call a biological male a woman. Pronouns are intended to reflect some semblance of reality.
The proper referent to a pronoun is however people use it. That's how language works. I use "her" to denote people who wish to be recognized as female. You use "him" as a bludgeon to remind men who wish to present as women that they're full of shit. Different strokes for different folks I guess. I like my way, but you be you.
Let’s say he would list these behaviors as including speaking with a lisp, walking and growing a ball like a girl, playing with dolls instead of toy soldiers and guns.
Girls throw like girls because no one ever taught them to step with the opposite leg as the throwing arm. It's a simple correction they teach all little boys in little league. I would doubt it's a mistake any girl who played softball would ever make. The whole stepping and twisting motion that goes into a throw is something that is taught, but not something in the gene pool.
It's also something I notice in many Europeans how poorly many of them throw, constantly trying to use their feet to knock down balls as if playing soccer.
Girls throw like girls because no one ever taught them to step with the opposite leg as the throwing arm.
I’m a gay male. Plenty of men tried to teach me to throw like a guy. I spent hours trying to teach myself. I was desperate to get rid of such ‘feminine’ traits but it worked out about as well as that John Wayne scene from La Cage Aux Folles.
Andrew4HandelFebruary 09, 2022 at 19:16#6530680 likes
The proper referent to a pronoun is however people use it. That's how language works. I use "her" to denote people who wish to be recognized as female
Please refer to me as King Andrew now or just your majesty because that is how I prefer to be referred to. I also am a real monarch because that is what my brain is telling me. I can't be wrong about my own intuitions.
So where does trans fit in here? I think the idea that one must change one’s body to fit one’s psychological gender is only necessary in a culture which
believes that behavior should match genitalia according to rigid norms.
Then the fault is with the trans people.
In a society which has no such belief , one is free to recognize that body sex and psychological gender are inextricably intertwined such that it becomes incoherent to claim that one was born in the wrong body.
Many people are simply spoiled and want to be speshal, want to be adored. Just before, I saw a feature about a Spanish (?) singer, currently still a biological male who dresses as a woman and who will have his Adam's apple removed next month. Why? He says it's to have a more feminine voice, and then with the hormone therapy, to have long hair, etc.
This is simply vanity and having too much money.
Please refer to me as King Andrew now or just your majesty because that is how I prefer to be referred to. I also am a real monarch because that is what my brain is telling me. I can't be wrong about my own intuitions.
This is an equivocation fallacy.
The reason I won't call you "king" is that you don't think yourself a king. Transsexuals are not confused as to what their biology is or in what distinguishes them from other people. There is no delusionary thinking and there is no confusion. They are simply using a word to designate themselves with a full understanding of who they actually are.
So, when a biologically born male who is now presenting as a female uses the pronoun "she," she is not then saying she was born a female. She is using the term for one thing and you for another and then you attempt to use your term on her, thus the equivocation fallacy I've pointed out. Her pronoun use doesn't have ontological impact.
That is, if you called yourself "king" because you used that term to describe being the first born in your family, I could not declare you a liar because you aren't a monarch. You never intended the term to be used that way and didn't try to trick anyone into thinking you were actually a king.
Logic schmlogic though. You have a bone to pick with the transsexuals, so go forth and ridicule them and tell them you must be a sheepdog because you feel it in your heart and soul and so you demand to be called Fido.
lenty of men tried to teach me to throw like a guy. I spent hours trying to teach myself. I was desperate to get rid of such ‘feminine’ traits but it worked out about as well as that John Wayne scene from La Cage Aux Folles.
I don't see that as "feminine", but as physically clumsy, perhaps even a neurological problem or otherwise poor eye-body coordination. A problem that is not limited to either sex.
Also, in my native language, an idiomatic phrase like "you throw like a girl" doesn't exist.
Please refer to me as King Andrew now or just your majesty because that is how I prefer to be referred to. I also am a real monarch because that is what my brain is telling me. I can't be wrong about my own intuitions.
You’re making a fool of yourself, and you should be ashamed. This argument has been used a million times and it remains incredibly ignorant. Seriously, I suggest you go educate yourself or at least stop whining.
I’m a gay male. Plenty of men tried to teach me to throw like a guy. I spent hours trying to teach myself. I was desperate to get rid of such ‘feminine’ traits but it worked out about as well as that John Wayne scene from La Cage Aux Folles.
I'm not going to insist you have some hidden throwing talent, and I'll accept you are a particularly terrible athlete, but I did have the task of coaching little league, and we used the (1) Point, (2) Step, (3) Throw method to some success. I also watched the girls play softball, and they definitely could throw.
At any rate, let give this one more go.
So stand up and let's do this. Assuming you're right handed, put a crumpled up piece of paper in your right hand. Square your shoulders with your feet squared underneath with your arms hanging by your side. Now, extend your left arm as if pointing forward directly at the wall with your left index finger pointed forward at the wall. Now step very far forward with your left foot forward, stepping so far that your left knee bends and your right leg is dragged forward and your right shoulder is angled back.
You're now going to spring forward and unravel that tightly spun up manly body of yours and use that pent up energy to propel the ball crushing through the wall.
Now take your right hand and bring it in a circular motion back and then make it pass just above your ear. This part is important! Move it above your ear. If you come in low, you're going to flip your elbow and look, well, like a girl.
Release the paper when the right arm is almost fully extended. Release too early and the paper is going to arc up toward the ceiling, and you'll look like, well, a girl. Release too late and it'll go straight to the ground, and you'll look, well, like a girl.
And this part is important, when you release the paper, growl like an angry tiger, look at the damage you did to the room, and then do a victory pirouette.
?baker So that is what you think trans folk are like? That is what you would base your opinion on?
Is yours an argument to refuse to acknowledge the existence of trans people, or for improvements in the prison system?
One against political correctness.
The "fault" is with folk such as you who are overly concerned with the contents of other people's underpants. You are the reason nearly half of transexual children have attempted suicide. Your attitude is the reason for the abominable statistics on the treatment of trans folk.
So for you, society and social norms exist and must be obeyed when it pleases you, and should be regarded as non-existent and discarded when it doesn't please you, eh?
You are the reason nearly half of transexual children have attempted suicide. Your attitude is the reason for the abominable statistics on the treatment of trans folk.
No, yours is, your bad faith, and your ascribing to people stances they don't hold. Fuck you for this.
I don't see that as "feminine", but as physically clumsy, perhaps even a neurological problem or otherwise poor eye-body coordination. A problem that is not limited to either sex
Not a neurological problem, and not clumsiness. Rather, a perceptual-affective style that differs along a masculine-feminine spectrum. That is, the issue isn’t with the arm, the stance, the coordination. It is with a primordial level of perceptual processing. That is why such a wide range of behaviors ( speech pronunciation, posture, walk, throwing, general bodily comportment, response to stimuli) all are involved and tied together as gender-associated via primordial perceptual-affective style which one is born with.
To understand this is to understand why we recognize a different behavioral style in male vs female dogs and cats.
Andrew4HandelFebruary 09, 2022 at 20:49#6531430 likes
Reply to pfirefry Read the whole thread and refute the evidence I have presented and arguments I have made.
Reply to Banno Yes, children, ordinary or "trans", killing themselves because of other people's bad faith.
I wonder how many people you drove into misery with your bad faith.
So stand up and let's do this. Assuming you're right handed, put a crumpled up piece of paper in your right hand
You’re missing the point. Im not denying that with enough training I could learn to ‘throw like a boy’. The point is that my natural tendency to throw the ball like a girl is related to my natural
tendency to walk in a feminine way, to speak in a way that has feminine characteristics, to have a bodily posture and comportment that tends in the same direction. I could add hundreds of particular behavioral
tendencies to this. What they all have in common is that they are all generated by a primary perceptual-affective neural style that manifests along a masculine-feminine spectrum. A gender-related style of perceptual processing is a fundamental component of , but not the entire basis of, the execution of such things as throwing a ball.
This is why female dogs have recognizably different behavioral styles than male dogs.
Reply to baker What causes the appallingly high suicide rate amongst trans people, including children, is the failure of others to recognise and acknowledge their existence. Here's an example of just that:
So for you, society and social norms exist and must be obeyed when it pleases you, and should be regarded as non-existent and discarded when it doesn't please you, eh?
The shear hypocrisy of this is astonishing. You would refuse to allow trans folk to express their identity. You are imposing your preconceptions of sexuality and gender on others, creating "society and social norms [that] must be obeyed when it pleases you". So are you a hypocrite or just incapable of clear thinking?
No. Soccer is, but we have no "you kick like a girl".
Not a neurological problem, and not clumsiness. Rather, a perceptual-affective style that differs along a masculine-feminine spectrum. That is, the issue isn’t with the arm, the stance, the coordination. It is with a primordial level of perceptual processing. That is why such a wide range of behaviors ( speech pronunciation, posture, walk, throwing, general bodily comportment, response to stimuli) all are involved and tied together as gender-associated via primordial perceptual-affective style which one is born with.
To understand this is to understand why we recognize a different behavioral style in male vs female dogs and cats.
I don't buy this.
I've had cats for almost forty years, males and females, intact and sterilized, but I wouldn't ascribe the differences in behavior to their biological sex. Sure, I'm talking about a sample of altogether about twenty cats, which isn't much, but still. I would ascribe the differences primarily due to size, physical fitness, position in the hierarchy, past experiences of the animal with humans and other animals, character of their owners and upbringing style.
(I know a family that has had German shepherds for years, males and females. All their dogs were the same, regardless of age, size, and sex. All the same aggressiveness and superiority, just like their owners.)
Rather, a perceptual-affective style that differs along a masculine-feminine spectrum.
I know people say this, but it's not clear it is possible to actually empirically prove it. One thing I find most striking about many women nowadays, esp. the younger ones, is that they are so much like what would normally be regarded as male. Rough, stiff, voice in a lower registry, no waist, aggressive, unkind.
Many people nowadays have poor posture and poor gait. This is due to a lot of factors, notably, little exercise (so weak, short muscles and tendons, thus poorer coordination and suboptimal movement), cheap shoes (that force the person to pronate), and tight clothes. I see this in men and in women.
The point is that my natural tendency to throw the ball like a girl is related to my natural
tendency to walk in a feminine way, to speak in a way that has feminine characteristics, to have a bodily posture and comportment that tends in the same direction.
Or, alternatively, you just feel ashamed, self-conscious. Over a long period of time, this can result in a kind of rigidity of bodily movements, with a lesser range of movement, less physical exertion, which then indeed "looks feminine".
Indeed, women are often taught to feel ashamed of themselves and to be self-conscious, but that doesn't make those traits and their physiological expression "feminine".
You would refuse to allow trans folk to express their identity. You are imposing your preconceptions of sexuality and gender on others, creating "society and social norms exist and must be obeyed when it pleases you". So are you a hypocrite or just incapable of clear thinking?
You just want things to be politically correct and shallow. That pays your salary or something?
"Their identity". We're at a philosophy forum. Identity is a construct.
Also, since we're at a philosophy forum, there's that about getting to know the other person's position first before criticizing it, rather than jumping the gun.
I've had cats for almost forty years, males and females, intact and sterilized, but I wouldn't ascribe the differences in behavior to their biological sex.
(I know a family that has had German shepherds for years, males and females. All their dogs were the same, regardless of age, size, and sex. All the same aggressiveness and superiority, just like their owners.)
Maybe you’re not very observant.
“From the data included in this review, it appears that males tend to be more aggressive and bolder than females, whereas a lower level of intraspecific sociability in males was reported. Females seem more inclined to interspecific social interactions with humans in tasks that require cooperative skills, whereas males appear more likely to interspecific social play. Studies of spatial skills underlined a higher flexibility in resorting to a particular navigation strategy in males in an outdoor environment; however, females appear to be better at spatial learning tasks in restricted areas. Lateralization studies seem to support the view that males are preferentially left-pawed and females are preferentially right-pawed; however, some studies have failed to replicate these results. Reports on visual focusing rank females as superior in focus on specific social and physical stimuli. In olfactory monitoring activity, only male dogs are able to discriminate kin.”
“From the data included in this review, it appears that males tend to be more aggressive and bolder than females, whereas a lower level of intraspecific sociability in males was reported. Females seem more inclined to interspecific social interactions with humans in tasks that require cooperative skills, whereas males appear more likely to interspecific social play. Studies of spatial skills underlined a higher flexibility in resorting to a particular navigation strategy in males in an outdoor environment; however, females appear to be better at spatial learning tasks in restricted areas. Lateralization studies seem to support the view that males are preferentially left-pawed and females are preferentially right-pawed; however, some studies have failed to replicate these results. Reports on visual focusing rank females as superior in focus on specific social and physical stimuli. In olfactory monitoring activity, only male dogs are able to discriminate kin. For other stimuli, the use of olfactory recording may be related to the differential relevance that olfactory signals have for males and females.”
Appear, seem.
I find that so much depends on the relationship one has with the animal, however short the interaction. The same animal will act very differently, depending on what human is around and how the human behaves.
For example, one of our male cats gets relatively little cuddling from us, because the rest of the family somehow believe that it is unbecoming to cuddle with a male cat, but much more appropriate to cuddle with a female cat. I surmise that it is because of this that the male is more socially withdrawn than the females, and not because of something inherently male.
I've witnessed female cats fight ferociously over territory.
"Their identity". We're at a philosophy forum. Identity is a construct.
— baker
And you would refuse to allow trans people to construct their identity, insisting that you do it for them.
Nonsense. More of your bad faith.
Identity is a construct, it's a means to an end. And we live in a world where resources are limited. This is why it is only prudent to construct one's identity in line with that.
No; I want children not to feel so disenfranchised that they try to kill themselves. I want the same for trans adults.
Ordinary people don't simply get that kind of enfranchizement, they have to earn it, by submitting to social norms.
Why should one category of people be granted that enfranchizement for free?
If you would to be understood, be understanding. You may deal with the contents of your underwear as you please. Extend that privilege to others.
You've always had the American strategy: The best defense is a good offense. You do that. You start with that. You throw the first stone. Then you cry foul.
And we live in a world where resources are limited. This is why it is only prudent to construct one's identity in line with that...
Ordinary people don't simply get that kind of enfranchizement, they have to earn it, by submitting to social norms.
Yours is a simple demand, that folk conform to you expectations.
In the end, the only genuine response to your posts is pathos. It is tragic that you have had to adopt the attitude you have, that you cannot accept the divergence of others.
I've witnessed female cats fight ferociously over territory.
The question isn’t whether there are individual
differences in personality. It is whether, a robust gender-correlated difference can be extracted , above and beyond these individual differences that you cite. Study after study shows such robust gender-related differences in many different mammals. We already know of the link between testosterone and aggression.
ZolenskifyFebruary 09, 2022 at 22:16#6531870 likes
There is no delusionary thinking and there is no confusion.
What an astonishing comment. Detransitioners have said that they were deluded about their identity.
However. Delusionary thinking can be identified by the content of speech.
If a statement is untrue or concerns an impossibility, speculating about what is in the speakers mind is irrelevant.
The idea that a man can become in any way near to being a biological female or that enacting female stereotypes earns someone the right to be called she is either delusion or pure misogyny. Real women experience what thousands of years of biological females have faced which is often second class status to men (or worse). No man should be entitled to claim that identity. That is why white people claiming to be black are scorned for trying to claim an identity of great historical importance due to persecution.
Nevertheless you apparently have limited access to claims made by trans identified people where several, in the case of men , are adamant that they are biological women and experience period cramps and the menopause. Apparently a man in France has one the right to the legal fallacy of being identified as the child's mother so the child now has no legal biological father. A completely narcissistic, self absorbed request and verdict celebrated by many in the trans community.
Andrew4HandelFebruary 13, 2022 at 02:00#6540990 likes
The reason I won't call you "king" is that you don't think yourself a king.
Schizophrenics have real delusions so are you going to affirm a paranoid schizophrenics delusion that they are being hunted by the mafia because it is a firmly held belief?
You don't know what exactly the content of another persons mind is when they make statement.
I just refuse to make/utter untrue statements unless they are a little white lie to spare someone's feelings or a fiction for entertainment purpose.
If a trans identified individual said they would commit suicide if not called the correct pronoun that would suggest they were very mentally ill. Most biological males and females don't care about misgendering because they don't have a problem with recognising the immutability of their sex or need their identity propped up by others.
What is classed as misgendering is usually correctly recognising someone's sex and what is considered preferred pronouns is being forced to indulge in someone else's fantasies. I will always side with reality and the truth, telling people they can change sex/gender will just increase the number of people fostering and trying to enact this belief.
Schizophrenics have real delusions so are you going to affirm a paranoid schizophrenics delusion that they are being hunted by the mafia because it is a firmly held belief?
Since I have never been deluded into thinking that MtF transsexuals believe they were born with vaginas and that they are actually biological females, helplessly wondering why others don't share their delusion, I can't respond to any of your nonsense.
They view gender as a mental designation. That you use the term differently is obvious, but your attempt to impose your usage on them and then to suggest they must mean what you mean when you use the term is an absurd equivocation fallacy.
If I call dogs "cats," that doesn't mean I think dogs meow. The question becomes what the user of the word wishes to convey with its usage.
Either transsexuality does not exist, or it is incoherent. A male and female cannot transition to the opposite sex because they lack the necessary attributes of the opposite sex to do so.
If a transsexual male claims they have the necessary attributes of a female, then he cannot transition to a female, and the word is essentially redundant.
It only works if matters of fact are mental-dependent. If no females existed as matters of a fact, it would be impossible for a male to 'claim to be one'.
Addressing this incoherence, the word was morphed to 'trans-gender' which includes a series of over 100 different arbitrary identities in order for trans ideology to make sense. Now, anything under this umbrella can make pragmatic 'social sense' because they view man and women are purely arbitrary abstract mental-dependent constructs in spite of clear logical incoherence and incorrectness.
I do think there are legitimate transsexuals, but I do not think transgenderism exists outside of socially normative abstractions. The majority of trans, especially the bored edgy kids today are not trans, and the actual legitimate transsexuals who are much less in number, have been silenced because they reaffirm sex essentialism that makes posers uncomfortable. The silenced minority of legitimate transsexuals have admitted they are incorrect in their thinking with integrity, but not 'wrong' in who they are.
Agent SmithFebruary 13, 2022 at 14:04#6542110 likes
I think there's something terribly wrong about this whole homosexual/transsexual affair.
One possible reason why a woman/girl thinks she/he is a man/boy (transsexual) is that she/he is attracted to other women/girls, but then lesbians (homosexual) don't go through a gender crisis even though they too like women/girls.
The same goes for men/boys who think they're women/girls.
The long and short of it:
Transsexual men have something against lesbians. They don't want to be lesbians.
Transsexual women are anti-gay (secretly, unknowingly, homophobic). They're unhappy being gay.
HeracloitusFebruary 13, 2022 at 14:41#6542160 likes
It's literally scientifically impossible to change sex. Sewing a sausage dick on isn't going to change that. Such a thing is delusional and we should treat it as such.
I'm probably going to get banned for stating this fact.
Harry HinduFebruary 13, 2022 at 16:33#6542470 likes
That you are paying undue attention to the contents of other folk's underwear is terse, but right on point. It's not your business.
It is our business when asking someone out on a date. Straights, lesbians and gays each deserve the right to know what sex they're bringing home with them. If we didn't live in a society where it was law to wear clothes, it wouldn't be an issue.
Agent SmithFebruary 14, 2022 at 03:33#6544990 likes
It's literally scientifically impossible to change sex. Sewing a sausage dick on isn't going to change that. Such a thing is delusional and we should treat it as such.
The BBC World Service has a story about a woman who was taking testosterone and had had her breasts removed who decided (as a "man") that "he" had always wanted to have children. She still had ovaries, a uterus, and the other parts. So "he" stopped taking testosterone and eventually resumed menses. "He" was artificially inseminated and bore a child. The BBC host for this story was very excited that "a man could bear a child."
Extreme bullshit, of course. The "man" in this case was a woman pretending to be a man, and taking male hormones to get a beard and slightly different musculature. What she was doing was elaborate transvestitism.
Men take estrogen, develop breasts, lose their male sex drive, and so on, and dress like women. Parts can be chopped off. In the case of women wanting to look like men, parts can be chopped off, hormones taken, and sausages sewed on. They remain the men or women that they were born as, just more chopped up.
Transsexualism and transvestitism is an elaborate sexual masquerade--and certainly not the only sexual and non-sexual masquerade which humans perform. But let's stay honest: A man wearing a dress (even if an artificial vagina has been created) is still a masquerading man. A woman wearing a beard and a suit (even if an artificial penis has been created) is still a masquerading woman.
I don't have any objection to people masquerading, as long as they--and society--are clear and honest about what they are doing.
HeracloitusFebruary 14, 2022 at 08:35#6546050 likes
I don't have any objection to people masquerading, as long as they--and society--are clear and honest about what they are doing.
:100: agree. Demanding that the rest of society play along with the charade is the problem. Better refer to random fragile being as xer person who menstruates on Tuesdays and chestfeeds on Fridays, otherwise they will cry and shit their pants. Madness. Surgeons are mutilating bodies for coins. Doesn't that go against the hyppocratic oath? Wth is going on?
Transsexualism and transvestitism is an elaborate sexual masquerade--and certainly not the only sexual and non-sexual masquerade which humans perform. But let's stay honest: A man wearing a dress (even if an artificial vagina has been created) is still a masquerading man. A woman wearing a beard and a suit (even if an artificial penis has been created) is still a masquerading woman.
What determines someone to be a man or a woman? Genotype? Phenotype? Psychology? Social role? Naming?
Exactly. So it is our business in certain contexts and it's not really that it isnt our business in other contexts. It's just that we don't care in other contexts because it's irrelevant.
Another situation it is relevant, besides mating, is in sports.
Biological sex is based on a combination of traits:
- chromosomes (in humans, XY is male, XX female)
- genitals (penis vs. vagina)
- gonads (testes vs. ovaries)
- hormones (males have higher relative levels of testosterone than women, while women have higher levels of estrogen)
- secondary sex characteristics that aren’t connected with the reproductive system but distinguish the sexes, and usually appear at puberty (breasts, facial hair, size of larynx, subcutaneous fat, etc.)
Using genitals and gonads alone, more than 99.9% of people fall into two non-overlapping classes—male and female—and the other traits almost always occur with these. If you did a principal components analysis using the combination of all five traits, you’d find two widely separated clusters with very few people in between. Those clusters are biological realities, just as horses and donkeys are biological realities, even though they can produce hybrids (sterile mules) that fall morphologically in between.
When pronouns, "he" and " her" are a reference to one's sex, not gender - whatever that is if it's not the same as sex.
The rules we abide by for having the sexes behave a certain way is so that we can identify the sexes in a society where it is a rule that you wear clothes in public.
The question isn’t whether there are individual
differences in personality. It is whether, a robust gender-correlated difference can be extracted , above and beyond these individual differences that you cite. Study after study shows such robust gender-related differences in many different mammals. We already know of the link between testosterone and aggression.
The question is whether they behave a certain way because they are female or male, or whether there are alternative explanations.
Yours is a simple demand, that folk conform to you expectations.
In the end, the only genuine response to your posts is pathos. It is tragic that you have had to adopt the attitude you have, that you cannot accept the divergence of others.
You demand that people conform to your expectations.
Even at a philosophy forum, for you, some things are simply off limits, as if this would be a watercooler conversation.
Transsexualism and transvestitism is an elaborate sexual masquerade--and certainly not the only sexual and non-sexual masquerade which humans perform. But let's stay honest: A man wearing a dress (even if an artificial vagina has been created) is still a masquerading man. A woman wearing a beard and a suit (even if an artificial penis has been created) is still a masquerading woman.
This isn't "being honest" so much as its being willfully ignorant. The mapping of gender roles onto the biological sexes (which is itself nowhere near so black and white as folks like you like to imagine) is itself an arbitrary social convention, its already a "masquerade" in the first place. Transsexualism (which is not the same as transvestitism) is no different in this regard, and pretending otherwise is just a post-hoc rationalization for personal prejudice. But points, I guess, for being open and honest about your own irrational prejudices; better an open bigot than a secret one, right?
Well, yes, not surprisingly. My "take" is that the overwhelming majority of H. sapiens are born as male or female. True, a small percentage are born with sexual anomalies. True, many are born with personality or mental traits that are conventionally associated with the opposite sex. True, some are born with or develop sexual object arousal that are unusual (fetishists). Most people are born and identify as straight, some are born and identify as gay.
In fact, moray eels can change sex, people cannot. People can masquerade and pass as members of the opposite sex, as long as they are in costume. Moray eels cannot.
Everybody else says "trans", to indicate how they self identify and how they want to be addressed.
In America anyway, this is pretty mainstream, if still a little awkward sometimes.
Fine, trans can call it whatever they want.
Self-advocacy groups sometimes over-reach. In my opinion, the gay rights movement over-reached on marriage and family. "Marriage" with the prospect of children is essentially a heterosexual expectation. That doesn't mean that gay people should thus lead marginalized, lonely existences. Two men, two women can have meaningful and fulfilling relationships (or not--break-ups occur either way).
Yes, I understand that two men, two women, or singles can raise a child. The question for 'gay liberation' is more a matter of what gay people have given up to gain acceptance and the 'normality' of heterosexual-type family life.
In my opinion, trans people (that better?) have over-reached as well.
So where does trans fit in here? I think the idea that one must change one’s body to fit one’s psychological gender is only necessary in a culture which
believes that behavior should match genitalia according to rigid norms. In a society which has no such belief , one is free to recognize that body sex and psychological gender are inextricably intertwined such that it becomes incoherent to claim that one was born in the wrong body.
The notion that someone was born in the wrong body is fairly common. One has the "wrong" hair color, the "wrong" height, the "wrong" eye color, the "wrong" mass and distribution of fat or muscle, and so on. The idea that one is "a male born in a female body" or a "female born in a male body" is on this spectrum of rejecting one's current body and wanting another body.
It's simply indicative of our society's obsession with appearance, with the superficial. Giving in to this obsession is not virtuous.
Let’s take as an example traits within modern Western societies, such as a boy growing up with a constellation of behaviors he has no control over and which causes other boys to label him a sissy. Let’s say he would list these behaviors as including speaking with a lisp, walking and throwing a ball like a girl, playing with dolls instead of toy soldiers and guns. Let’s say he also is attracted exclusively to other males and connects this attraction. with the other behaviors which he regards as feminine. Let’s say further that he does a bit of neurophysiological research and suspects that the constellation of ‘feminine’ behaviors that he was apparently born with are not random or independent of each other but instead are all the result of a kind of brain ‘wiring’ that determines psychological gender (masculine vs feminine behavior and sexual attraction).
I wouldn't say any of that.
Children accusing another child of being a sissy is not limited to boys. Girls, too, will call another girl a sissy, if they deem her weak or incompetent.
Effective parents and teachers assume that a child should have control over his or her behaviors, that's the whole point of raising a child.
It's convenient to conceive of a person's identity as somehow a given, a neurological, physiological given. Because this way, we feel justified to like or dislike the person; we feel that our persistent liking or disliking of someone is justified.
Conceiving of a person's identity as somehow a given feeds our general craving for externalization and our reticence to take responsibility for our thoughts, feelings, desires. By taking such responsibility I mean seeing our thoughts, feelings, desires as constructed, conditioned, as subject to arising and cessation, and subject to our volition, not as givens.
We actually learn to take such responsibility early on (a child needs to do so in order to do his homework, for example), but people vary in how consistently they do this.
It's just subversion of rationality by the obstruction of one of the most basic concept of life
Of course it's not possible, it's about "accepting" it
Transsexuals only want _some_ of the physical traits of the sex they are transitioning into.
A man chemically and surgically "transitioning" "into" a woman wants only some female traits, but not all. He doesn't want to have a body that will eventually go through menopause, lose hair and get brittle bones. He also doesn't want to have a body that has the ability to become pregnant even when the owner of said body doesn't want it to. Hell, he surely doesn't want to have a body that readily accumulates fat and leaks blood every few weeks. No, he just wants some of the socially and economically accentuated perks of "femininity", but not others.
The issue at hand might well be the inability of some folk to deal with the complexities of the real world.
Most people have some difficulty to face in life. A makeover of one's appearance (whether it's in the form of hiring a stylist to choose one a new wardrobe, having a facelift, or a sex change operation) doesn't solve anything in the long run.
The problems that can be solved by changing one's external appearance (whether it's dying one's hair or changing external sexual characteristics) are not problems worth solving.
HeracloitusFebruary 14, 2022 at 20:32#6548950 likes
Reply to baker My expectation? What I have done is point tot the incoherence of your statements. If that made you uncomfortable, look to yourself rather than to me.
Reply to baker To me this indicates how little you have understood of the plight of transexuals. Suggesting that all they need is a new haircut is extraordinarily numb.
Every little thing comes down to money. Companies scramble to present a PC image so as to avoid losing their share of the market. That's why I, a healthcare worker, have been trained to be sensitive to trans issues.
Sniff all you want. There's nothing you can do about it.
Every little thing comes down to money. Companies scramble to present a PC image so as to avoid losing their share of the market. That's why I, a healthcare worker, have been trained to be sensitive to trans issues.
Sure. But why should this political correctness extend to discussions at philosophy forums?
It's convenient to conceive of a person's identity as somehow a given, a neurological, physiological given. Because this way, we feel justified to like or dislike the person; we feel that our persistent liking or disliking of someone is justified.
Conceiving of a person's identity as somehow a given feeds our general craving for externalization and our reticence to take responsibility for our thoughts, feelings, and desires.
I think your failure to understand psychological gender in terms of a perceptual-affective style that we are born with comes from a larger inability to understand cognition in embodied terms , as attuned by an affective , valuative background , a pre-given global possibility space which contributes the particular relevance that experience has for us. You seem to think of behavior in atomistic, reductionist behavioral terms. This reminds me of Skinner’s attempts to explain language learning via stimulus response theory. What you’re missing is a ‘transformational grammar’ of personality. Your way of understanding behavior reduces it to disconnected conditionings and prevents you from achieving a truly intimate empathy with others. People arent stimulus response machines or Cartesian rationalizers. They are embodied sense forming pattern seekers, and gender is one factor in how we stylistically organize those patterns.
I think your failure to understand psychological gender in terms of a perceptual-affective style that we are born with comes from a larger inability to understand cognition in embodied terms , as attuned by an affective , valuative background , a pre-given global possibility space which contributes the particular relevance that experience has for us. You seem to think of behavior in atomistic, reductionist behavioral terms. This reminds me of Skinner’s attempts to explain language learning via stimulus response theory. What you’re missing is a ‘transformational grammar’ of personality. Your way of understanding behavior reduces it to disconnected conditionings and prevents you from achieving a truly intimate empathy with others. People arent stimulus response machines or Cartesian rationalizers. They are embodied sense forming pattern seekers, and gender is one factor in how we stylistically organize those patterns.
*sigh*
The only thing I "fail" to internalize is a particular popular notion of gender/sex. I don't give it the kind of prominence and importance as many people do.
The only thing I "fail" to internalize is a particular popular notion of gender/sex. I don't give it the kind of prominence and importance as many people do.
Please indulge me and tell me what you know of embodied, enactive approaches within cognitive psychology and how they differ from earlier models.
As I said , I don’t think this is simply about there are gender-connected constellations of behavior. The larger issue concerns what it is we are born with when our parents fist. price how our personalities differ from each other, how one has a temper and the other is shy. If you were to simply deny gender-related claims but support the idea that personality traits give us global styles of perception that are robust, then I would say your thinking and mine weren’t far apart.But my guess is you want to deny any connection between personality and cognitive style, because when it comes down to it, gender is a personality style.
Reply to Joshs No, you misread the source and direction of my view.
Basically, I think people should focus on work. Not on "developing identity" and pursuing luxuries.
I have found that all men and women do not fit the stereotypical. It is impossible for me to say that I feel like a man or a woman inside because I do not know how other people feel. Because of this, I am often skeptical when someone claims that they know how any particular gender feels or is supposed to feel.
One of the oldest philosophical maxims is the "Know thyself." "Who are we?" and "What are we?" are of the highest level of philosophical inquiry. To those who believe they have solved these inquiries to the extent of adding or removing body parts, the philosophical audacity is beyond me.
I have formed a reasonable belief of my reproductive abilities and societal role. My belief is not only based on a subject feeling that I have, but upon an objective analysis of my observations garnered from my senses. If a person "feels" like one gender, but their organs look and feel like that of another gender, they can't be certain of their identity. Changing organs surgically and dressing like a particular gender will not clarify the issue. If a person has a sex change operation and dresses like a particular gender, it is primarily to make society believe that they were born with the reproductive organs of the gender they are emulating. This isn't fair to society at large which has vested interest in quickly identifying as many characteristics of its members as possible.
Basically, I think people should focus on work.
— baker
"Work sets you free".
And she says I'm right wing.
Cheap shot, but that made me laugh. A lot.
Over my life I have known many transgender people - young and old. Some very brave folk who were out there thirty years ago and really took risks to become the person they are now. No one I have met is transgender for laughs or as a stunt. People's biology doesn't need to limit their gender expression and changing sex may be an efficacious pathway to good mental health and full participation in community life. I can't pretend to understand this phenomenon experientially but I can support people and wish them the best. There are few things less noble than resenting or undermining people for who they are.
I can't pretend to understand this phenomenon experientially but I can support people and wish them the best.
You support thousands of young women including teenage girls having healthy breasts removed, the indoctrination of children, undermining women's rights, the existence of 100 genders and so on.
So there is nothing noble about your position. Maybe you didn't read any of the thread?
"Lia Thomas, 22, smashed two U.S. swimming records at an Akron, Ohio contest
Thomas won the 1,650 freestyle in a record time of 15:59.71 beating her closest rival Anna Sofia Kalandaze by 38 seconds
She left rivals floundering in a 500 freestyle beating them by 14 seconds "
Andrew4HandelFebruary 15, 2022 at 01:15#6551040 likes
"A devastated young transgender woman says she has been left 'disfigured and feeling like a freak' following two botched gender reassignment operations.
Kia, 26, from Wales, says she was forced to seek private treatment after the NHS procedures left her in near-constant pain and with her urethra permanently exposed, which she says means she is unable to have sex or urinate properly.
She says doctors also failed to inform her she had effectively been 'castrated' by the operations - as the procedures have left her with limited sensation.
The 26-year-old, who is suffering from anxiety, says she is still a virgin, has never had a boyfriend, and is desperate to lead a 'normal life'."
"What eventuated was a botched job, mutilating her genitals to the point where she can't perform the simplest physical tasks and leaving her stranded on an invalids benefit."
Andrew4HandelFebruary 15, 2022 at 01:19#6551070 likes
"9 Transgender Patients Complain Of Mutilation, Botched Sex-Change Surgeries In Oregon"
All gender affirmations surgeries are botched because by nature the are mutilating healthy body parts. But I can link you to endless stories of the side effects of these surgeries which are being promoted as health care. Hippocrates would be rolling in his mausoleum.
Would you refer to someone with XX male syndrome using "he" or "she" (or both or neither)?
This person is intersex, as it says on the wiki. People with abnormal or mixed-sex characteristics/traits have always been "intersex". Intersex is uncommon and a fact. Just like male and female. There are males, females and then intersex. This is the only time the 'they/them' pronoun makes any form of sense outside of arbitrary made-up identities. I respect the intersex and they must be protected. The other arbitrary trivial identities are just that.
It is very simple. The necessary attributes in order to constitute X, all said 'parts'. What are the 'necessary' attributes of Sodium? Sodium is not 'radium' because it lacks the necessary attributes to be so. There are factual distinctions that make a difference between males and females, which is why we make the scientifically interesting distinction between the two. This is untrue for 'gender', which is a completely arbitrary concept that anyone can insert anything into, which is why you are confused. I do not care about gender at all, or 'man and woman' because it is a made up concept. A male in a dress is not a female, so who gives a flying fk if he wears a dress to go against something abstract concept of 'man'. This is a trivial offensive way to view a female, and mockery of genuine transsexual individuals because the reality is, a 'male or female' without dysphoria can wear anything and still not feel a need to augment themselves.
Gender is a concept held dearly by those suffering from body-idealistic narcissistic solipsism, yes, including the trad-conservative cornballs and the trangenders, and other gender and race fetishtists.
The rich are making money off the people who genuinely think a woman in a suit that grunts is less of a woman in the factual, which is absolutely insane. These people are no different from the traditionalist disgusting conservatives reaffirming gender roles while dishonestly claiming to abolish them by being the male that wears a dress, who reaffirms the traditionalist conservative magical-thinking nutjobs that also think he is less of a man as a matter of necessary factual maleness because he put on a dress.
I am sex essentialist, and funnily enough, so are silenced transsexuals, which is why although impossible, I sympathize with their condition more than the transgenders that are completely made up unicorns, like 'man and woman', the concepts that are just magical-thinking trad-con fetishes the transgenders continue to reaffirm instead of progressively moving on from 'gender-thinking'.
In order to be considered 'trans', you must have the necessary traits and attributes to be so, if the medical professional is doing their job correctly, this is why a random cannot claim to be trans and receive hormones without meeting the necessary criteria. A trans that lacks X, Y, Z necessary traits is not 'trans'.
Females with strong male-like characteristics are known to have hormonal abnormalities, she is still female, but this is recognize medically as an abnormal deviation. This is not a 'transgender' or 'trans' person, this is a female with a beard, because she lacks the necessary attributes to be 'trans' (dysphoria), etc..
This question itself is a strong refute transsexualism as is, because if there are no necessary attributes that make X and Y, there are no necessary attributes to 'transition' to - or to lack/claim to have, which appeals to some form of agender society, which does not work, in so far as female and males (and this intuitive) distinction exists as a matter of fact in a non-arbitrary non-abstract world.
Transsexualism makes a direct claim, or implies to a series of series necessary attributes that exist in the opposite sex to either "be" or "not be," such as observed differences in trans brains that correspond with the 'sex' they claim to be (although not in fact), which justifies their transition or need to.
It appeals to a binary system, which is why the term was changed to be arbitrary and include 'gender' which does not exist in any real form.
There is nothing real about gender. There are no 'biological genders' like there are no 'biological races', it is a made up cash-grab like masculinity and femininity, yet nutjobs still think Transgenderism exists in any real fashion.
While it is impossible to transition from one sex to another, it is entirely reasonable to grasp the concept of transsexualism in so far male and female exists as a matter of fact, while transgenderism does not exist in no interesting way that is not solely mental dependent (or indistinguishable from mental disorder). Transsexualism falls a part where the trans individual starts making claims that a transition (of X to Y) has occurred.
The trans person has augmented themselves, not 'transitioned' because they lack the necessary attributes of the opposite sex to become one, hence, why they augment themselves.
Every little thing comes down to money. Companies scramble to present a PC image so as to avoid losing their share of the market. That's why I, a healthcare worker, have been trained to be sensitive to trans issues.
Sniff all you want. There's nothing you can do about it.
Before retirement from social work, I occasionally provided services to trans persons. I treated them with respect and sensitivity, as expected, as trained. I've known a number of transsexual persons since... about 1974. I accepted them as part of the gay community (which early on was the only community they could belong to) just as I did fems, butches, fats, thins, drug users, hairy, hairless, straights, bisexuals, and so on. I've listened to trans people describe their situation, how it manifested itself in their lives, and have heard about and observed the difficulties they've had,
So I get it. And, sniff: no, there is nothing I can do about it. I checked my last long range plan, and fixing trans people isn't on my TO DO list. Just so you know.
Medical and social service workers should of course respect their clients. That doesn't mean believing everything they say, or accepting as truth everything they believe in. I don't believe everything that I have believed in the past, and some ancient truths now seem pretty crappy. So, I maybe buy half of what many trans people say about transsexualism / transgenderism.
Hey, I don't believe everything that gay people say about being gay, either. Or, straight people, or young people, or old people, or anybody else. In fact, I don't even agree with everything I'VE said about being gay.
It depends on educational system and how modernity has increased in the recent years. Until 1992 these people were considered sick for UN. but in the recent days, there is not problem at all for being a transexual, except for all of those countries which are religious.
I think it has become accepted because (Western civilization) made a tendency of inclusion during XXIth century. It is well seen when a country does not prosecute the so called minorities.
I the other hand, I do not really know if we really reached a good point of empathy towards LGBTIQ group because far-right political leaders and parties are increasing a lot... But why should they be bothered about transsexuals? I can't answer... They say, this system of progress destroy the traditional concept of "family"
More than being accepted, I guess we all should respect it, just for empathy
HeracloitusFebruary 15, 2022 at 08:28#6551670 likes
You support thousands of young women including teenage girls having healthy breasts removed, the indoctrination of children, undermining women's rights, the existence of 100 genders and so on.
So there is nothing noble about your position
:100:
There are many, many cases of post-operation regret but for some reason that part never gets highlighted. (That would perhaps put a stop to the delusion that science can change sex organs). The operations are simply body mutilations. This is not something praiseworthy and neither is encouraging children to take puberty blockers.
There are factual distinctions that make a difference between males and females, which is why we make the scientifically interesting distinction between the two.
This person is intersex, as it says on the wiki. People with abnormal or mixed-sex characteristics/traits have always been "intersex". Intersex is uncommon and a fact. Just like male and female. There are males, females and then intersex. This is the only time the 'they/them' pronoun makes any form of sense outside of arbitrary made-up identities. I respect the intersex and they must be protected. The other arbitrary trivial identities are just that.
Words like "male", "female", "him", and "her" existed long before we knew anything about DNA. DNA is just the blueprint that directs how a foetus develops. Typically the presence of a Y chromosome is required for a penis and testes to develop, but when the SRY gene is included in an X chromosome it also causes a penis and testes to develop.
On what grounds would you say that having a Y chromosome is a necessary characteristic of being a man? As someone who is partial to Wittgenstein's approach to language, I can't see the connection. I could (at least historically) understand the connection between the use (and so meaning) of the word "man" and the presence of a penis and testes (amongst other observable traits), and so that male and female refer to phenotypes, and so that an XX male is a male (as the condition explicitly says), but genotypes seem to me to be irrelevant.
In a 2015 survey of nearly 28,000 people conducted by the U.S.-based National Center for Transgender Equality, only 8 percent of respondents reported detransitioning, and 62 percent of those people said they only detransitioned temporarily. The most common reason for detransitioning, according to the survey, was pressure from a parent, while only 0.4 percent of respondents said they detransitioned after realizing transitioning wasn’t right for them.
The results of a 50-year survey published in 2010 of a cohort of 767 transgender people in Sweden found that about 2 percent of participants expressed regret after undergoing gender-affirming surgery.
The numbers are even lower for nonsurgical transition methods, like taking puberty blockers. According to a 2018 study of a cohort of transgender young adults at the largest gender-identity clinic in the Netherlands, 1.9 percent of adolescents who started puberty suppressants did not go on to pursue hormone therapy, typically the next step in the transition process.
HeracloitusFebruary 15, 2022 at 10:36#6551910 likes
Reply to Michael A survey conducted by by a trans rights activist organisation is sure not to have a pro trans agenda. Right? Surely not a conflict of interest. This is propaganda. Just like all western mainstream media has a pro trans agenda.
Reply to emancipate Then could you link me your non-biased source that shows a high degree of transition regret?
Also I don't think https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24872188/ or https://www.jsm.jsexmed.org/article/S1743-6095%2818%2930057-2/fulltext were surveys conducted by a trans rights activist organisation.
HeracloitusFebruary 15, 2022 at 10:45#6551930 likes
The survey in 2015 was conducted by national center for transgender equality. I would present you a non-bias source but unfortunately the entire western media is pumping out pro trans propaganda
The survey in 2015 was conducted by national center for transgender equality.
And the other two surveys weren't.
I would present you a non-bias source but unfortunately the entire western media is pumping out pro trans propaganda
Are you saying that you don't have a source? If not then why do you believe that there is a high rate of regret? If your opinion is based on some evidence that show me the evidence.
HeracloitusFebruary 15, 2022 at 12:11#6551990 likes
Reply to Michael Studies about trans regret from unbiased sources get blocked due to fears about political correctness. For example
A therapist says he is "astonished" by a university's decision to stop him studying people who decide to reverse gender reassignment operations.
James Caspian wanted to write a thesis on "detransition" as part of his master's degree in counselling and psychotherapy at Bath Spa University.
He said it was rejected by the university's ethics committee because it could be "politically incorrect".
Mr Caspian, a counsellor who specialises in therapy for transgender people, told Radio 4: "I was astonished at that decision.
"I think that a university exists to encourage discussion, research - dissent even, challenging perhaps ideas that are out of date or not particularly useful."
He says he wanted to study people who had swapped gender and then changed their minds after coming across evidence of a growing number of people who regretted having the surgery and finding no research had been done into the subject.
Better 'not to offend
He amended his proposal - to include people who had transitioned to men and reverted to living as women but without reversing their surgery - and resubmitted it, but it was rejected by the ethics committee.
"The fundamental reason given was that it might cause criticism of the research on social media and criticism of the research would be criticism of the university and they also added it was better not to offend people," he said.
According to the Times, it was rejected because "engaging in a potentially politically incorrect piece of research carries a risk to the university".
American transgender activist Riki Wilchins said studies on transgender people could have a "political undercurrent" and potentially have a negative effect on the way they are treated.
"People have been launching studies that undercut transgender people's access to surgery for decades now," she told Radio 4.
But Mr Caspian said older studies were out of date and the research was necessary "to help people".
He added: "The whole field has completely changed over the last few years.
"The idea that we might use the information from the research I was going to do in a way that wouldn't help people is completely wrong."
He is considering a legal challenge but is waiting for the university to conclude an internal investigation.
This researcher ultimately submitted and lost a legal challenge. Go free speech!
HeracloitusFebruary 15, 2022 at 12:28#6552020 likes
Are you saying that you don't have a source? If not then why do you believe that there is a high rate of regret? If your opinion is based on some evidence that show me the evidence
A total of 156 cases met age criteria and were undergoing assessment in the specified time period (47 male-bodied young people; 109 female-bodied young people). Four cases were excluded due to dropping out after one session, 20 female-bodied young people were excluded due to intending to pursue medical interventions in adult services, 4 cases that gave practical reasons as to why they were not seeking medical interventions at that time were also excluded (two males; two females). Of the remaining 128 cases, 12 cases (9.4%) met criteria for GD emerging in adolescence, were actively requesting medical interventions at outset of assessment and ceased wishing to pursue medical interventions and/or no longer felt that their gender identity was incongruent with their biological sex.
...
Out of the 12 cases, the majority had not received a formal diagnosis of GD.
So only 9.4% wanted to pursue medical intervention but then changed their mind, and of them a majority had never even been formally diagnosed with gender dysphoria.
And from that you want to conclude that of the people who have been formally diagnosed with gender dysphoria and have actually transitioned there's a high rate of regret? That's very bad logic.
Do you have an actual study that concludes that there is a high rate of regret amongst people who actually transitioned?
HeracloitusFebruary 15, 2022 at 12:47#6552090 likes
It took you 3 mins to come to a conclusion that affirms your biases. Nope I will not provide you with more studies that you will not read.
Harry HinduFebruary 15, 2022 at 12:58#6552130 likes
This person is intersex, as it says on the wiki. People with abnormal or mixed-sex characteristics/traits have always been "intersex". Intersex is uncommon and a fact. Just like male and female. There are males, females and then intersex. This is the only time the 'they/them' pronoun makes any form of sense outside of arbitrary made-up identities. I respect the intersex and they must be protected. The other arbitrary trivial identities are just that.
Intersex people do not have an equal amount of male and female characteristics. They have mostly one or the other, therefore they would fall into one of two clusters I mentioned in my post to Michael.
Harry HinduFebruary 15, 2022 at 13:27#6552190 likes
When pronouns, "he" and " her" are a reference to one's sex, not gender - whatever that is if it's not the same as sex.
— Harry Hindu
According to who or what?
How we actually use language determines what words mean and pronoun-usage in the modern age is more complex than it may have been historically.
— Michael
You say "complex", I say "confused".
How is it that "gender" became part of a discussion on changing "sex" if they aren't both related or the same thing?
How is it that "gender" became part of a discussion on changing "sex" if they aren't both related or the same thing?
You said that pronouns refer to sex. In modern usage pronouns refer (also) to gender.
Jack CumminsFebruary 15, 2022 at 15:27#6552470 likes
I don't know why everyone makes such a big issue out of sex chromosomes. The majority of people have not had chromosome tests and would not even know if they had an abnormality. Such abnormalities only come to light if there is some reason to do a test. Just imagine someone realising that their chromosomes were not as they thought late on life. What effect would it have on their identity? I am sure that would be variable to a large extent on many factors.
This thread is an utter nonsense. People freely express their transphobic views, using extreme examples to make gross generalisations. Moderators engage in an argument instead of reinforcing the site guidelines:
Racists, homophobes, sexists, Nazi sympathisers, etc.: We don't consider your views worthy of debate, and you'll be banned for espousing them.
People express negative attitudes towards the minorities. No one is unhappy about surgeons in general, or the government, or about straight people who endanger their bodies to accentuate their sex. Straight men ruin their bodies with steroids. Straight women overdo plastic surgeries and suffer from bulimia. No one has expressed their disapprovement of straight people, but the thread is filled with negative attitude towards transgenders. I'm disappointed in some forum members and even more so with the moderators who allow clear violations of the site guidelines to happen.
HeracloitusFebruary 15, 2022 at 18:58#6553400 likes
Reply to pfirefry Point out one example of transphobia in this thread.
Reply to emancipate Tom Storm expressed support towards transgender people, and got criticized with a dumb argument that being transgender equals to a specific set of extreme examples. That's a gross generalization, and it's a clear example of inappropriate transphobia.
You support thousands of young women including teenage girls having healthy breasts removed, the indoctrination of children, undermining women's rights, the existence of 100 genders and so on.
Tom Storm expressed support towards transgender people, and got criticized with a dumb argument that being transgender equals to horrible things. That's a gross generalization, and it's a clear example of inappropriate transphobia.
Apparently your reading comprehension is lacking. So desperate to virtue signal..
It's not virtue signalling to object to some of the comments in this thread. Whether any of them break the rules is another issue and something we're looking into.
I think we can draw a distinction between the question of whether transsexuals should be fully respected and embraced in our community and whether the current surgical procedures available to them are efficacious. I would consider rejection of transsexuals based upon moral grounds inappropriate. They, sort of like everyone else here, are people too.
So, the question then seems to hinge upon whether the surgery does what the doctors say it will and whether the recipients are satisfied with their decision. To the extent someone undergoes gender reassignment surgery fully aware of the risks and rewards and they are satisfied with the results, I can't see how anyone would have standing to object.
If you scoff at a man in a mini-skirt and find the visual absurd and laughable, just admit to that bias and stop with the talk about whether this or that cosmetic procedure is or isn't reasonable. The truth is that the acceptability of women in mini-skirts and men not is a social custom of no ethical consequence. The fact that a woman can wear men's slacks and that not be considered degrading, humiliating, or sexually deviant is all social construct and has nothing to do with nature or morality.
This is all to say that unless you have a real moral reason why men must act as traditional men and women as traditional women and all you wish to do is remind us of your adherence to traditional Western mores, then what else do you have to add to this conversation other than telling us of the obvious complications that accompany various surgical procedures?
HeracloitusFebruary 15, 2022 at 20:53#6553960 likes
...then what else do you have to add to this conversation other than telling us of the obvious complications that accompany various surgical procedures?
Complications? Yeah I'd say it's pretty damn complicated to do the impossible.
Andrew4HandelFebruary 15, 2022 at 20:58#6553970 likes
but the thread is filled with negative attitude towards transgenders.
I don't believe anyone can change sex or that anyone should be able to legally be declared the opposite sex because I value truth, facts and reality.
I cannot change my evidence based beliefs due to peoples feelings and their desire to impersonate the opposite sex.
You can silence me on the internet but not change the way I perceive the facts of reality about the immutability of biological sex. Why not try and defend trans ideology rather than attack the tone of the thread?
Trans advocates have successfully censored numerous people on twitter and YouTube and got governmental support and institutional capture and this one place where can can freely give our opinions.
Forcing people believe in trans identities is like forcing people to believe in someone else's religion.
No one should be forced to endorse your beliefs about your self or compromise their own values for someone's self perception.
Andrew4HandelFebruary 15, 2022 at 21:04#6553980 likes
People express negative attitudes towards the minorities.
Being in a minority is not a protected or virtuous status. Serial killers are a minority.
I am not attacking a minority just not believing an ideology. There are lots of different people using the trans label including nonbinaries and a-sexual's and they don't even agree amongst themselves about definitions.
The so called "truscum" (not my name for them) believe you have suffer from gender dysphoria and have surgeries to be classed as true trans but other like Eddie Izzard believe you simply have to identify as the opposite sex to earn your preferred pronouns and enter women's spaces.
Transsexualism and transvestitism is an elaborate sexual masquerade--and certainly not the only sexual and non-sexual masquerade which humans perform. But let's stay honest: A man wearing a dress (even if an artificial vagina has been created) is still a masquerading man. A woman wearing a beard and a suit (even if an artificial penis has been created) is still a masquerading woman.
Actually, all fetal genitalia are the same and are phenotypically female, so all men are not men but masquerading women. We've both got frick'n nipples for Christ's sake! We can even lactate.
The question for 'gay liberation' is more a matter of what gay people have given up to gain acceptance and the 'normality' of heterosexual-type family life.
What have they given up?
Andrew4HandelFebruary 15, 2022 at 21:14#6554020 likes
Tom Storm expressed support towards transgender people, and got criticized with a dumb argument that being transgender equals to a specific set of extreme examples. That's a gross generalization, and it's a clear example of inappropriate transphobia.
Andrew said: You support thousands of young women including teenage girls having healthy breasts removed, the indoctrination of children, undermining women's rights, the existence of 100 genders and so on.
What extreme examples are you referring to? I have highlighted several cases of people having gender affirmation surgeries that ruined their health. Most trans "women" don't have their penis inverted and castration (70-90 + percent.) Those that do usually have complications.
"Days before her death, Alex told a media outlet called The Cue that she became a victim of “gross medical negligence” during her gender confirmation surgery in June 2020 at a private hospital called Renai Medicity. “My private part looks like a piece of meat,” she said in a video interview. “I want to conduct a resurgery. I want justice.”
Lia Thomas has undermined all women's right to a fair sporting arena.
Thousands of young women on just giving asking for money to remove breasts is not an extreme example it is the new norm and a historical anomaly.
I feel Your only object here is to get people censored. No trans identified person is being forced to read this thread.
Andrew4HandelFebruary 15, 2022 at 21:24#6554060 likes
No one is unhappy about surgeons in general, or the government, or about straight people who endanger their bodies to accentuate their sex. Straight men ruin their bodies with steroids. Straight women overdo plastic surgeries and suffer from bulimia. No one has expressed their disapprovement of straight people,
Lots of people are unhappy with botched surgeries and people who have cosmetic surgeries are often criticised and the surgeons condemned as unethical. Most people want to avoid surgery and medication wherever possible and don't want to become life long patients.
I personally do not believe trans people exist because I don't believe you can transition from one sex to another or one gender to another. I disapprove of people trying to make me believe they were either born in the wrong body, have changed sex, deserve to be treated as the opposite sex and a range of other beliefs under the trans umbrella. This the only ideology where people are allowed to try and force people into sharing someone else's mental states.
If there was no trans activism or trans ideology this combative situation wouldn't have a risen but people are trying to force other people to share their false and delusional beliefs about sex and gender. People are being interviewed by the police for "misgendering people on line" and being fired from jobs for thought crimes/not being rehired.
Unfortunately. I think on top of the untold harm that has already happened we have many more years of this. No Frankenstein surgeons or, academic ideologs or trans advocates will be held accountable.
This the only ideology where people are allowed to try and force people into sharing someone else's mental states.
Surely you're not this dense though and you realize that your mental state is not formed a priori. What that means is that there is no pre-societal norm for what constitutes male versus female behavior. That you cut your hair a particular way, wear particular clothes, engage in certain societal roles, and do whatever it is that you think is male oriented behavior is not something that exists outside societal dictates. It is not inherently morally right or wrong to act like a red, white, and blue American girl or boy. It's just a social norm for the here and now.
What this means is that if I live in a society where the social norm is for men to wear pants and not skirts, then that ideology is forced upon me. I am forced to share the mental state of that community. You can't claim a trans person is imposing her beliefs on you anymore than you are trying to force your beliefs on her. All you can say is that the two of you have different world views, neither of which are more moral than the other.
The big difference however between you and the trans person is that your norms dominate society and you've never been asked to consider any views other than your own. Well, today is a new day and your norms are no longer implicitly accepted.
What a happy world it was when everyone thought and acted just like you. The good old days, right?
Andrew4HandelFebruary 15, 2022 at 23:13#6554330 likes
What this means is that if I live in a society where the social norm is for men to wear pants and not skirts, then that ideology is forced upon me
I disagree with this analogy obviously. I don't think most men look good in women's clothes. Women's clothes are designed for the reality of women's bodies and their feminine appearance. Some women look better in less feminine clothes.
I wear what feels comfortable and am glad that sensible looking clothes are available.
There is a difference between someone wearing women's clothes to deceive someone into thinking they are female and someone wearing feminine clothes to conform or not conform.
I would certainly not deny society operates by force. You won't get another argument out of my on that but at the same time we can reject societies ideals in our head and reject society without being told that we cannot even disagree with a societal norm. Saying I have to call a man "she" is undermining my evidence based logically formed beliefs.
Anyhow. There is a difference between societal norms and biological facts. A woman is a biological immutable reality with a womb, ovaries and in whom we all grew as babies, not a societal trend. A woman is not a cervix haver or people carrier. It is not an imposition to state biological reality.
I went bald in my mid twenties and have never attempted to rectify that. I was born with undescended testes and then I discovered I only actually had one testicle and that has since went back up inside my body leaving me with an empty scrotum. (I Don't no whether I am infertile). I mainly hung around with girls in primary school/kindergarten and I don't like sport and mechanics or guns. I am hardly a male stereotype or rampant conformist.
However if you conform to the latest fashions and standards for men and women it doesn't usually entail self harm or body modification/mutilation.
The only way you can say trans ideology is harmless is if you say any harm is automatically negated by the mental state of a trans person. So allowing a man to beat women in swimming is no longer a harm because it increases the overall good feeling in a trans persons brain. It is insane and it is being forced on us. I grew up in a religious cult I am well versed in brainwashing and psychological manipulation.
Reread the articles and links to the extreme distress people face after having genital mutilation. I can provide loads more links and don't ask me to accept this. Fistulas, adhesions, UTI's arterial bleeds etc
There is a difference between someone wearing women's clothes to deceive someone into thinking they are female and someone wearing feminine clothes to conform or not conform.
They seek no gain from making you believe they're a woman. Unless they wish to date you, they can dress as they want, or does just the thought of their dress piss
you off? Quoting Andrew4Handel
A woman is a biological immutable reality with a womb, ovaries and in whom we all grew as babies, not a societal trend. A woman is not a cervix haver or people carrier. It is not an imposition to state biological reality.
But appearances are changeable, and so a man that wants to look like a woman can do that and she can call herself "she" and her friends can do that as well, and you can cross your arms and refuse, and they can call you a dick and you can say "fine," and they can say "fine" back. That's where this goes. I'm just wondering why that's your preference. Quoting Andrew4Handel
I went bald in my mid twenties and have never attempted to rectify that. I was born with undescended testes and then I discovered I only actually had one testicle and that has since went back up inside my body leaving me with an empty scrotum. (I Don't no whether I am infertile). I mainly hung around with girls in primary school/kindergarten and I don't like sport and mechanics or guns. I am hardly a male stereotype or rampant conformist.
Thanks for telling me about your nads. Mine are bold and made of brass. A true sight to behold. Quoting Andrew4Handel
So allowing a man to beat women in swimming is no longer a harm because it increases the overall good feeling in a trans persons brain. It is insane and it is being forced on us. I grew up in a religious cult I am well versed in brainwashing and psychological manipulation.
You are aware it's possible to be supportive of the trans community without supporting trans MtF competing in biological female sports?
And sorry about your cult experience. I'm getting a lot of side info here in not sure what to do with. Maybe harness those feelings of being an outsider and empathize with others who feel ostracized. I'm just asking you appreciate you're attacking not some massive political force trying to command your thoughts, but what you're actually doing is beating up on our most vulnerable and fragile. Quoting Andrew4Handel
Reread the articles and links to the extreme distress people face after having genital mutilation. I can provide loads more links and don't ask me to accept this. Fistulas, adhesions, UTI's arterial bleeds etc
You've read the horror stories and have decided you wouldn't have this surgery done regardless of how you identify. That's a fair call, but not everyone is like you and others choose otherwise. Why do you get to choose for them?
Andrew4HandelFebruary 16, 2022 at 02:46#6554950 likes
They seek no gain from making you believe they're a woman.
Yes they do. If I want to make people believe I was in the twin towers on 9/11 I want to implant a false belief about me in peoples mind.
People get gratification arousing responses in other people. Isn't that the whole point of wanting to be a celebrity?
Reading on trans subreddits and elsewhere people clearly need almost everyone to affirm their identity whereas I don't need anyone to affirm my identity and you will not find me asking you to believe or affirm anything about myself.
Sometimes my nieces and nephews call me aunty probably because they have one uncle (alive) and 5 + aunties.
A personal identity that needs validating by everyone else is unstable in my opinion.
Andrew4HandelFebruary 16, 2022 at 02:51#6554960 likes
You are aware it's possible to be supportive of the trans community without supporting trans MtF competing in biological female sports?
Caitlyn Jenner has spoken out against biological men in women's sports and he has been derided as a transphobe on trans subreddits likewise any other trans person who doesn't agree.
The point about sports and acting awards and the like is that calling a man legally a woman entitles him to compete with women in this sphere. Otherwise if you don't let these men in women's, sports, prisons and acting competitions you are essential acknowledging they aren't women.
Only a few trans people have spoken out in favour of limiting men's access to spaces and awards but most of these still want access to some women's spaces like toilets.
Andrew4HandelFebruary 16, 2022 at 02:55#6554980 likes
Thanks for telling me about your nads. Mine are bold and made of brass. A true sight to behold.
This response suggests you are not really interested in real peoples real identities over pandering to an touchy feely (as portrayed) ideology. Just because people didn't identify under the attention seeking gender umbrella doesn't mean they are all virile confident stereotypical members of some stupid cis gender identity forced on us by the gender religion, with perfect lives and bodies.
Accepting your biological sex reality does not say anything about you other than that you are in touch with one aspect of reality. Do we support acknowledging reality or not?
Andrew4HandelFebruary 16, 2022 at 02:57#6555010 likes
Maybe harness those feelings of being an outsider and empathize with others who feel ostracized.
What feelings of being an outsider?
You just randomly introduced that sentiment to me.
Being in a minority does not make someone an outsider.
Everyone is is some kind of minority but socialise based on shared human traits. Indulging someone else's delusions is not my idea of embracing someone into the human fold.
Andrew4HandelFebruary 16, 2022 at 03:01#6555040 likes
I have being wondering about starting a separate thread on enforced beliefs for months now. But if I do the point is very important philosophically.
I agree with Descartes that the only thing I can't doubt is my own existence. So any other belief I formulate is going to be constantly subject to scrutiny and scepticism.
Legally making me call a male a female and vice versa or lose my job is anathema to this. It is a good reason to oppose censorship.
Andrew4HandelFebruary 16, 2022 at 03:02#6555060 likes
You've read the horror stories and have decided you wouldn't have this surgery done regardless of how you identify. That's a fair call, but not everyone is like you and others choose otherwise. Why do you get to choose for them?
What makes it unethical for a person to knowingly consent to the procedure?
This study of 214 patients evaluated 20 years after their surgery states, "One hundred eighty-one (85 percent) patients in our series were able to have regular sexual intercourse, and no individual regretted having undergone GAS."
What makes it unethical for a person to knowingly consent to the procedure?
This study of 214 patients evaluated 20 years after their surgery states, "One hundred eighty-one (85 percent) patients in our series were able to have regular sexual intercourse, and no individual regretted having undergone GAS."
That is, after 20 years, zero regrets.
Before I examine your study let us point this out.
I gave links to several people people who regretted having surgery, or had serious health problems and some even committed suicide.
So before I even click on the link to your study I doubt it's validity.
Reddit's detransition now has nearly 30,000 members and there are many stories on there of peoples regretting transition.
So presenting me something that mentions zero regrets I find almost laughable.
Before I even click on the study I assume it is self report on a minority of people who had the surgeries.
I was unaware that surgical ethics revolved solely around subjective feedback if so I find that rather staggering. I have no doubt medical ethics is a highly flawed area but having no objective measure of harm is ridiculous.
Jazz Jennings and several other children have been minors when having life altering irreversible treatments on them. Do you actually want to post pictures of botched surgeries and mutilated bodies on here.
Also 214 people out of nearly 8 Billion humans. Very persuasive.
Reply to Andrew4Handel Anecdotal evidence as found on social media has no validity. The accounts are not verified and they provide no statistical validity because there's no way to determine if the outliers are over-represented.
If you're interested in the actual studies, as opposed to searching for data supportive of your conclusions, you can start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detransition
I'd also point out that your argument from the data isn't entirely coherent because your specious moral argument makes it ultimately irrelevant to you.
That is to say, if your objection is to the primitive state of medical science, then the solution would be to promote advances in those medical technologies as opposed to condemning transsexuals.
Andrew4HandelFebruary 16, 2022 at 04:59#6555310 likes
Anecdotal evidence as found on social media has no validity. The accounts are not verified and they provide no statistical validity because there's no way to determine if the outliers are over-represented.
I posted evidence of real Trans identified people including one person who committed suicide after a botched attempt to turn a penis into a vagina.
It is not anecdotal. It is not social media. It is news reports on what trans peoples said and did.
You presented a study which averaged to ten people a year which claimed they said they were satisfied with gender confirmation surgery.
There was not enough detail to validate these claims. I am very certain I can link to you to more cases other than the dozens I have already highlighted of people regretting affirmation surgeries.
Do you think a 214 people is an adequate representation of a study effecting 7-8 billion humans? In my university studies I was taught these kind of small figures are not significant.
Your study was based on 10 people a year having these surgeries not the thousands of young woman trying to raise funds to have healthy breasts removed on Just giving so. I feel you are acting in bad faith. It would be great if only 10 people a year were having these surgeries!!
As a Gay male. If I saw a study involving 214 people I would assume it didn't represent me.
I am not sure what your stance is. Whether you are actually pushing for more men to have their penises turned into pseudo vaginas?
all fetal genitalia are the same and are phenotypically female
Yes, that's the case, until the xx and xy chromosomes are activated and the pubic hump is differentiated into female or male body parts. The rest of the body is differentiated as well -- pelvic width, musculature, bone length, CNS, etc. This is true for mammalian development across the board (except for duckbilled platypuses (platypusi?). Nipples, likewise, again across the board. But men don't start lactating without a major hormonal push.
Men are men, women are women. East is east, west is west, and never the twain shall meet. (Kipling. Not a serious quote)
Might-have-been history is always fun to write, if unreliable.
"What was given up" probably won't be visible to younger gay people, let alone heterosexuals. Even old folks like myself are too young to remember some aspects of "gay liberation". But briefly:
forming gay all-male communities
outsider status
an alternative set of values
Stonewall, 1969, was not the beginning of gay liberation: It was a landmark that was latter mistaken for the beginning. Pieces of gay liberation had been happening for the previous 80 yers, here and there. Whitman's Calamus poems (1859) were about "the manly love of comrades"--eros, not agape or brotherly love. Gay men were around before then, of course, but mostly unacknowledged--which is what made it possible for them to exist (carefully) in plain sight.
Sex and companionship were a key part of the early gay community, and its forms could develop outside of the mainstream culture because, again, it was scarcely acknowledged. To the extent that gay men violated norms on sex roles, race, class, and age, the less visibility to the outside world, the better.
There were some high ideals in the Stonewall era too, but by the mid-1970s, gay activism was focused on opening the American military to gay men (Leonard Matlovich). Some of us never thought that that fight was worthwhile. BUT, high ideals had given way to across the board acceptance in everything from the military to marriage.
Outsider status is a valuable element, in that those who have it are free to develop a culture as they see fit. Join the mainstream, and that's no longer possible. Gay men developed a sexual culture of having many partners with less emphasis on long-term commitments. The mainstream objections to gay culture were about morals, and how promiscuity was immoral. Later (1980s) the health risks of unprotected promiscuity were highlighted, and true enough, there were avoidable risks. But the upshot was, "settle down with one partner", which is the heterosexual solution.
A major piece of public health effort was aimed at eliminated the locations where gay men met. Under cover of disease prevention, the key infrastructure of the gay male sexual community was lost.
Grindr has had a less liberatory benefit than one might think. By individualizing / privatizing the search for a suitable sexual partner, social settings like gay bars have been seriously diminished.
Marriage, children, and mortgages are a time-tested way of pacifying men. Once married, once having a mortgage, and maybe children, one takes on commitments that mean one had better comply, be compliant, else one may be fired, making the marriage/mortgage burden all that much heavier.
I personally do not believe trans people exist because I don't believe you can transition from one sex to another or one gender to another. I disapprove of people trying to make me believe they were either born in the wrong body, have changed sex, deserve to be treated as the opposite sex and a range of other beliefs under the trans umbrella. This the only ideology where people are allowed to try and force people into sharing someone else's mental states.
Do you happen to believe that gay people exist? Do you believe that it is possible to change sexual preference from the opposite gender to the same gender? Do you disapprove of people trying to make others believe that they're engaged in same-sex relationships? What do you think about forcing same-sex marriage ideology onto others?
Harry HinduFebruary 16, 2022 at 12:17#6556030 likes
So it's one's physical appearance that determines whether or not one is a man or a woman (rather than one's genes)?
Like I've said twice in this thread:
Biological sex is based on a combination of traits:
- chromosomes (in humans, XY is male, XX female)
- genitals (penis vs. vagina)
- gonads (testes vs. ovaries)
- hormones (males have higher relative levels of testosterone than women, while women have higher levels of estrogen)
- secondary sex characteristics that aren’t connected with the reproductive system but distinguish the sexes, and usually appear at puberty (breasts, facial hair, size of larynx, subcutaneous fat, etc.)
Using genitals and gonads alone, more than 99.9% of people fall into two non-overlapping classes—male and female—and the other traits almost always occur with these.
You seem to be focused on the XX chromosomes and not the rest of the characteristics.
You said that pronouns refer to sex. In modern usage pronouns refer (also) to gender.
The problem is that you haven't defined gender in such a way that makes it useful to use if it's not related to sex. What is gender if not sex? And why do trans genders attempt to change their physiology if gender doesn't have to do with physiology?
Harry HinduFebruary 16, 2022 at 12:23#6556050 likes
But appearances are changeable, and so a man that wants to look like a woman can do that and she can call herself "she" and her friends can do that as well, and you can cross your arms and refuse, and they can call you a dick and you can say "fine," and they can say "fine" back. That's where this goes. I'm just wondering why that's your preference.
Well, yeah. Free speech and all that. Your rights to do what you want stop at infringing on my rights to do what I want. We've all been called names we don't identify with. Get over it.
And I can dress like a Dark Sith Lord and demand that you address me as "My master". What is so special about sex/gender that people can identify as a sex they are not, but identifying as something else you are not, well that's just crazy?
Biological sex is based on a combination of traits:
- chromosomes (in humans, XY is male, XX female)
- genitals (penis vs. vagina)
- gonads (testes vs. ovaries)
- hormones (males have higher relative levels of testosterone than women, while women have higher levels of estrogen)
- secondary sex characteristics that aren’t connected with the reproductive system but distinguish the sexes, and usually appear at puberty (breasts, facial hair, size of larynx, subcutaneous fat, etc.)
Using genitals and gonads alone, more than 99.9% of people fall into two non-overlapping classes—male and female—and the other traits almost always occur with these.
You seem to be focused on the XX chromosomes and not the rest of the characteristics.
Yet you accepted that someone who is XX male is male and so clearly it's false to say that "in humans, XY is male, XX female". It may be that incidentally 99.9% of men have XY chromosomes, but given that there are men who don't have XY chromosomes it follows that having XY (or XX) chromosomes isn't a measure of biological sex. It certainly may influence biological sex, but the reality of genetics is that other things can influence it as well, even if they don't occur as often.
There are people who have XX chromosomes (which you admit is possible for men), that have high levels of testosterone and low levels of estrogen, do not have breasts, and do have facial hair. What determines whether or not such a person is a man or a woman? Does it depend on them having a penis and testes? What if they lost them in an accident?
An easy way to think about it; if your brain were transplanted into a body with breasts, a vagina, a womb, ovaries, etc., would you identify as a man or a woman? I'd still identify as a man.
What is so special about sex/gender that people can identify as a sex they are not, but identifying as something else you are not, well that's just crazy?
Are you kidding me? If I were to snap my fingers and change your gender-related brain dynamics, you would be astonished at the huge variety of ways in which your perceptual-affective style of processing your world , including but far exceeding sexual attraction, would change in an instant. You would still be you, but a significant aspect of your personality would undergo a shift.
And I can dress like a Dark Sith Lord and demand that you address me as "My master". What is so special about sex/gender that people can identify as a sex they are not, but identifying as something else you are not, well that's just crazy?
The critical difference between your example and that of a transsexual is that your claims of dysphoria are in bad faith. In fact, they're not meant to be taken seriously, but are meant as mockery and are contemptuous.
So, there's that.
Transsexuals are dysphoric, meaning they're at unease with their physical state of being because their mental state tends to the feminine, and so they attempt to bring alignment of their mind and their body. There is (again) a critical distinction to be made. They are not delusional, but are dysphoric. If they were delusional, a man might actually think he was indistinct from a woman and then go about calling himself what he clearly was not. That would be like if you thought yourself a Sith, the problem wouldn't be a dysphoria, but it would be a delusion, meaning you had lost touch with reality.
To the extent there is actually a person out there who is dysphoric and so intimately identifies as a Sith that he insists upon being referred that way, then you might have an analogous situation, but the thing is, that's not really a thing. It's just the joke you wanted to tell, and so you told it.
Deleted UserFebruary 16, 2022 at 19:41#6556890 likes
And I can dress like a Dark Sith Lord and demand that you address me as "My master". What is so special about sex/gender that people can identify as a sex they are not, but identifying as something else you are not, well that's just crazy?
Ask yourself: why is the above laughable rationalization more important to me than being friendly and somewhat accomodating to transsexuals? Why don't I want to be friendly and somewhat accomodating to transsexuals?
You don't care if all the transsexuals think you're a dick - and they do. They do and that's fine with you.
character: the mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual.
Men are men, women are women. East is east, west is west, and never the twain shall meet. (Kipling. Not a serious quote)
The ballad reveals its fuller meaning in subsequent lines.
[i]Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,
Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God's great Judgment Seat;
But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,
When two strong men stand face to face, though they come from the ends of the earth![/i]
In the end distinctions of geography, breed, birth, or sex, do not matter at all when those with integrity meet. If you met Caitlyn Jenner would you refuse to use her preferred pronouns? It would seem rude to do otherwise.
Reply to praxis I would use her preferred pronoun because I am at least semi-civilized, and and would not want to make a scene. That doesn't mean I think she has changed her sex.
I have know several transsexuals well, and I know that they go through a LOT of sturm and drang on their way to a satisfactory conclusion. A lot of homosexuals go through a lot of sturm and drang before they reach self-acceptance. Making any major change in life can be quite difficult.
There are two questions here:
a) Does the trans individual believe what they are saying about their sex/gender?
b) Can one change one's sex/gender in fact?
I think the adult transsexual believes what they are saying.
I do not think that transsexuals can change their sex/gender, but they can, through 'art', appear to have done so, without close examination.
Is transsexualism a delusion? Yes. That's not as dismissive as it sounds. Human beings maintain a variety of "necessary delusions" to get through life. Hard hearted/hard headed examination reveals delusions, but it doesn't make them less necessary.
Example: I think I am an exceptionally good person--fair, honest, kind, etc. A closer examination will reveal instances of unfairness, dishonesty, cruelty, etc. A mentally healthy person can admit their serious flaws, at least in private, but they will want to give priority to the delusions which make them feel like they are decent human beings.
My guess is that the delusion of trans people requires an unusually strong commitment to maintaining the delusion.
People have equally strong commitments to political and religious positions Strong though their commitments may be, they may be altogether mistaken.
Eh. Some say homosexuality is a just a state of confusion that can be remedied by good medical care.
I don't have x-ray vision into people's souls so that I can sort out who's deluded and who's living their truth by the their lifestyle choices. Why do you think you do?
Some say homosexuality is a just a state of confusion
In some cases it is. As you know, only a small percentage of men are exclusively homosexual--about 2.5%. They are not confused. (One group that is confused about this is gay advocates who want to inflate the number of gay people as possible for political purposes.) A much larger share are exclusively heterosexual; they aren't confused either. Most men, though, are somewhere in the range described by Kinsey, varying in what they fantasize about and what they actually do. The confusion is a conflict between what they are doing and what they fantasize about. So married fathers may fantasize about sex with men, but perform sex with women. That (seems to be) much more common than men who have sex with men but fantasize about sex with women. A prison setting comes to mind.
Bisexuality, which is perhaps the norm for a large number of people, has a "bad reputation" among both gays and straights, because they fail gay and straight individual's expectations (not in terms of performance but in terms of group identification). "B" was added to "GL" early on. That's probably less of an issue now than say, 40 years ago, because the "gay community" as such has become more vague and amorphous.
Then there is polymorphous perversity, but that's difficult to pin down and analyze. I am not sure how, but I am absolutely sure that Donald Trump lives on many levels of polymorphous perversity.
I don't have x-ray vision into people's souls so that I can sort out who's deluded and who's living their truth by the their lifestyle choices. Why do you think you do?
Well, fuck. You should have gotten the upgrade of Soul Vision when it was on sale! It will cost you an arm and a leg, now.
I believe there is an objective reality, but one important aspect of reality is that humans are delusional. My theory is that everybody is deluded to varying degrees. It is a question of "how much" and "about what". Delusions and illusions are the human stock-in-trade. "Mental health" means having some awareness of how much distance there is between our de- and il-lusions (derived from ludere, play) and harsh reality (that 'reality' is soft, rose-tinted, and gauzy is a delusion). Merely knowing that we are deluded doesn't make the delusions go away.
Freud thought that religion was one big fat delusion.
I have known several transsexuals well...
...
Is transsexualism a delusion? Yes.
I've only been acquainted with a couple, who I don't really know at all. They never seemed delusional to me. I find it extremely hard to believe that a transsexual doesn't realize what they are. I would think that they would tend to be keenly aware of themselves and their sexuality, much more so than ordinary folk at least, who have less of a reason to be self-conscious. If a trans person somehow forgot their transness I imagine that other people would remind them, and perhaps not always politely.
Most men, though, are somewhere in the range described by Kinsey, varying in what they fantasize about and what they actually do
It’s interesting and perhaps revealing that your description of gender mentions only who one is sexually attracted to, and nothing about what I would consider to be a more central aspect of gender for many in the gay community , which has to do with a global perceptual-affective style, of which sexual attraction is merely one small aspect. For those who dont grasp this , it is incoherent to talk about gayness outside of sexual attraction, and I think that is part of the problem.
interesting and perhaps revealing that your description of gender mentions only who one is sexually attracted to, and nothing about what I would consider to be a more central aspect of gender for many in the gay community, which has to do with a global perceptual-affective style
I will have to plead guilty to your charge.
When it comes to "being gay" which as you say involves a global perceptual-affective style, I find myself with a deficient vocabulary to adequately express what I experience. I meet men in ordinary social settings and we may immediately recognize each other as gay, but I find it difficult to pin down exactly what the signals are. This may be one reason I have always preferred to look for sexual partners in places where "pre-sorting" had taken place--bath houses, gay bars, night-time cruising areas in parks. Some people seem to be able to walk through a figurative Grand Central Station and reliably find prospective partners.
These is something abut deportment, grooming, details of dress, speech patterns, interests, and so forth that together add up to a strong signal. It's like art -- I know it when I see it. Some people are better at this than others, and some people with sharp gaydar are actually pretty straight. An some very gay guys (part of the 2.5%) don't signal their gayness very strongly. And some straight people see gay, but are not. But, gay signals and gaydar work well enough most of the time.
Gay men perhaps display a less guarded posture with perhaps more relaxed musculature; they seem a bit more carefully groomed; slightly better put together clothing -- regardless of what they are wearing; a more open sort of verbal expression. Perhaps one is more likely to find gay men at an art gallery than a used car auction, but I know people who contradict that. Gay men do seem to regard (see, evaluate) other men more carefully than straight men.
Reply to praxis A devout Christian can believe in his or her own salvation, know well the theology of their faith, perform worship and good works splendidly, and still be deluded. What they are deluded about is the truth of what they believe in. The delusion is invisible.
Many Americans believe their country is the home of the brave, land of the free, the best place on earth -- by objective standards. That is a delusion (maybe one of those 'necessary delusions').
find it extremely hard to believe that a transsexual doesn't realize what they are. I would think that they would tend to be keenly aware of themselves and their sexuality, much more so than ordinary folk at least, who have less of a reason to be self-conscious.
Under ordinary circumstances, transsexuals are not deluded about how they feel, what they wish to accomplish trough therapy, the kind of sexual experiences they have. What they are deluded about is the idea that one can change one's sex from male to female or visa versa. What they can do is change their appearance, but not the underlying biology.
A successful trans person is not deluded about their fully passing as a woman or man (or, unhappily, failing to pass). Other people provide the evidence that one is passing, or (possibly very cruelly) that one is not.
Nor are they deluded about wanting to change from one sex to another. The delusion is thinking that one can change their biology.
I believe there is an objective reality, but one important aspect of reality is that humans are delusional. My theory is that everybody is deluded to varying degrees. It is a question of "how much" and "about what". Delusions and illusions are the human stock-in-trade.
I believe there is an objective reality, but one important aspect of reality is that humans are delusional. My theory is that everybody is deluded to varying degrees. It is a question of "how much" and "about what". Delusions and illusions are the human stock-in-trade.
This doesn’t really make sense, does it? If we are deluded and delusion is our stock-in-trade then “objective reality” must be part of our delusion, being that delusion is all that we have to work with. We can certainly have faith in objective reality, just as anyone can have faith in their religion, or faith in the possibility of changing their sex.
Yes, it make sense. First, there is objective reality. Second there is us, the observers. We are both capable of observing objective reality (which is why we have science) and we can delude ourselves and others in various ways. Delusions are objectively observable in people. Donald Trump and a few million Republicans have "stolen election delusions". Most Republicans and Democrats are not affected by "stolen election delusions". They recognize that Trump lost the election.
We name "delusion" for beliefs which have no objective support. A belief in an afterlife (hell or heaven) is delusional because there is zero evidence that such a thing exists. A belief in a 6 day creation is delusional because there is extensive evidence that the stars first shone 13 billion years, and so on.
It seems that I have much more faith in the idea that we’re all deluded (cannot know reality) than you do.
That's probably so, especially if you say it. Delusions are, as I said, our stock-in-trade. Why, if we can perceive reality, do we cling to delusions? Because reality is often harsh, cold, and in ever so many ways, unpleasant. We literally can not bear an unrelenting diet of harsh reality without some sort of comforting delusions. To what extent delusional thinking is a feature or a bug varies, depending.
Take happiness: Freud summed up our situation this way (paraphrasing): "Happiness just isn't in the cards." We long for happiness but it evades us. We respond with delusional thinking to cover over our serious disappointments and painful experiences. Delusions help many people carry on, doing what needs to be done.
Reply to praxis No, there is ample, hard evidence that life sucks. Reality is a bitch and then you die. And the dead stay dead, nothing more. So in the meantime, gather ye roses while ye may. or whatever it is you like.
I think the only worthwhile discussions to be had are what to do about bathroom stalls, sports and spa and the like. I think that particularly with sports there's a good argument to insist on classification by birth sex irrespective of gender expression. That's more about keeping it fair.
The rest can be a decision by the establishment and should be clearly communicated. Either by gender self-identification or sex, both are, from what I understand at this point, valid positions. I personally can't give two shits about being surprised at a urinal because someone shows up and whips out a dick when I thought she was a woman.
I think the only worthwhile discussions to be had are what to do about bathroom stalls, sports and spa and the like.
Bathroom stalls are easy (cubicles for all), sports are easy (who gives a fuck).
Of far more importance, I think, is addressing the concerns of women about safe spaces, reporting of crimes against women, the security of lesbians (and gay men) as protected identities...
Society doesn't discriminate against dresses and long hair, it discriminates against women. Right from birth. If that discrimination remains then redressing it requires the identification of the oppressed group and the limiting of measures of redress to that group, not to anyone who might want to join later, after all the privileges of their birth sex have been enjoyed.
Notwithstanding, the more urgent issue is the degree to which the resolution of such issues is being dealt with in an increasingly hostile and partisan way, ensuring that moderate voices on both sides are muffled in favour of the more media-friendly dogmatists who seem to be increasingly the only voices given air.
Of far more importance, I think, is addressing the concerns of women about safe spaces, reporting of crimes against women, the security of lesbians (and gay men) as protected identities...
That is important but not quite the subject of this thread. Or am I missing something you're alluding to that I'm not understanding?
Notwithstanding, the more urgent issue is the degree to which the resolution of such issues is being dealt with in an increasingly hostile and partisan way, ensuring that moderate voices on both sides are muffled in favour of the more media-friendly dogmatists who seem to be increasingly the only voices given air.
That's the nature of news. The news reports on negative divergences from the norm. Nobody cares about what the silent majority thinks. It's why complaints about "cancel culture" from right wingers who then turn around and prohibit the teaching of evolution theory or critical race theory should simply be ignored. Unfortunately, the narrative that appears to stick is that "right-wingers get cancelled by neo-Marxists" which they then get all the room in the world for to lie about.
The other nature of news nowadays is a lot reporting on opinions, instead of facts. "such-and-such said X" (OMG! SHOCK! HORROR!) without any consideration of whether it's true.
I try to not read the news anymore unless it's an investigative journalism piece.
All the toilets at a nightclub I go to are unisex.
Yeah, compared the efforts (though still woefully inadequate) to ensure disabled access to buildings, baulking at putting up a few MDF partitions seems like a manufactured problem to me.
That is important but not quite the subject of this thread. Or am I missing something you're alluding to that I'm not understanding?
Reading through, there seems to be a central issue about the tri-fold difference between self-identification as a criterion for 'womanhood' vs identification on the basis of various indicators of biological origin vs the deliberate medical creation of those indicators. It's the resolution of this issue that impacts the concerns I mentioned. For example, if 'womanhood' is universally measured by self-identification, then redress for discrimination (based on biological features of birth) becomes impossible.
Of course, a very simple solution exists, which is to have criteria for 'womanhood' vary by context. Which is why I mentioned the toxic environment in which these matters are discussed, an environment which essentially excludes nuance and contextualisations.
complaints about "cancel culture" from right wingers who then turn around and prohibit the teaching of evolution theory or critical race theory should simply be ignored.
Should they? I'd rather both than neither. If you ignore their complaints are you not handing them ammunition to ignore ours. The issue seems to be about whether we 'cancel' on the basis of intent to harm or mere disagreement. The moment we set the criteria to mere disagreement (from a left wing agenda), we put in place social structures to do exactly that same thing (from a right wing agenda) depending entirely on who has most social capital at the time. I think that's a dangerous place to be.
The other nature of news nowadays is a lot reporting on opinions, instead of facts.
The threshold of justification at which an opinion can be declared 'fact' is a social agreement and as such vulnerable to political influence. We've seen (in this topic, and others recently) considerable leverage applied to redefine that agreement and render a range of propositions as 'fact' because of political expediency.
Yet you accepted that someone who is XX male is male and so clearly it's false to say that "in humans, XY is male, XX female". It may be that incidentally 99.9% of men have XY chromosomes, but given that there are men who don't have XY chromosomes it follows that having XY (or XX) chromosomes isn't a measure of biological sex. It certainly may influence biological sex, but the reality of genetics is that other things can influence it as well, even if they don't occur as often.
There are people who have XX chromosomes (which you admit is possible for men), that have high levels of testosterone and low levels of estrogen, do not have breasts, and do have facial hair. What determines whether or not such a person is a man or a woman? Does it depend on them having a penis and testes? What if they lost them in an accident?
YOU were the one that used the term "male" to refer to someone with XX chromosomes:Quoting Michael
Would you refer to someone with XX male syndrome using "he" or "she" (or both or neither)?
Why did you use the term "male" if ONLY having XX or XY makes one a female or male? It's a combination of these attributes and not necessarily all of them, but most of them, that one possesses that makes one a female or male. Since YOU were the one to label someone with XX chromosomes as "male", what would YOU refer to them as?
People are born with abnormalities. Some people can be born with extra fingers, or missing fingers, or born with a tail, etc. All of these cases are very rare. They are outliers. This is not to say that they don't deserve the same rights as everyone else. It is only to make the observation that these cases are uncommon or rare. We don't then create new categories of hands with or without 10 fingers, or categories of people with or without tails. We're only trying to do that with sex. Why? What makes sex so special? Who is it that is really concerned about what is in who's pants here? It seems that the left are the ones with a fetish for sex.
An easy way to think about it; if your brain were transplanted into a body with breasts, a vagina, a womb, ovaries, etc., would you identify as a man or a woman? I'd still identify as a man.
Is that what transpeople are saying - that their brain was transplanted into another body?
There are a few problems with your example, not to mention how outlandish it is and your use of Wikipedia to support your claims.
You seem to be missing the part of how hormones affect the processes of the brain and is why some trans-people take hormone treatments so that they're brain operates more like the opposite sex. So I find it hard to believe that you would still identify as a man if you had estrogen in your system and you observed your body as that of a woman. Have there been any studies that show that trans-people have the body of one sex and the brain of another? If that were the case, then why would trans-people need hormone treatments to feel more like the opposite sex if they already felt like the opposite sex?
Not only that but this flies in the face of your example above because now you're saying that having breasts, vagina, womb and ovaries is a body of a woman, while your brain is a man. You seem to be adding a characteristic to what makes one a man or a woman - the structure and functioning of the brain.
And in your example, you have memories of being a man. Transgenders don't have prior memories of being one sex that conflict with their actual sex. They claim to have always had these feelings. So you seem to be saying that doctors transplanted their brains just after birth.
Wikipedia:Sex is distinct from gender, which can refer to either social roles based on the sex of a person (gender role) or personal identification of one's own gender based on an internal awareness (gender identity).[1][2][3][4] While in ordinary speech, the terms sex and gender are often used interchangeably,[5][6] most contemporary social scientists,[7][8][9] behavioral scientists and biologists,[10][11] many legal systems and government bodies,[12] and intergovernmental agencies such as the WHO[13] make a distinction between gender and sex.
The two types of gender described above are contradictory. One describes a social construction, which is an agreement between two or more people to fulfill expectations of the others in the group by abiding by the roles that were agreed on (wearing a dress if you're a woman and wearing pants if you're a man). Because we have to wear clothes, we need ways to identify the sex of others when performing mating games.
This is the complete opposite of a personal feeling - one that isn't agreed upon with the rest of the group when playing mating games. Not only that, but they are identifying as the opposite sex, not a different sex than the two we know. So they are reinforcing binary gender roles by stating that wearing a dress makes you a woman or wearing pants makes you a man. If gender neutrality is the goal, this is not how we reach it. The goal is realized when we stop expecting women to wear dresses and men to wear pants. Men can wear dresses and still be men. Wearing a dress doesn't make you a woman. That would be sexist and abandoning the goal of realizing gender neutrality.
Harry HinduFebruary 17, 2022 at 15:02#6558870 likes
Are you kidding me? If I were to snap my fingers and change your gender-related brain dynamics, you would be astonished at the huge variety of ways in which your perceptual-affective style of processing your world , including but far exceeding sexual attraction, would change in an instant. You would still be you, but a significant aspect of your personality would undergo a shift.
Who is kidding who here? How does this answer my question? Both you and Michael seem to be saying that trans-genders had brain transplants at birth. Are you both conspiracy theorists?
Harry HinduFebruary 17, 2022 at 15:15#6558910 likes
The critical difference between your example and that of a transsexual is that your claims of dysphoria are in bad faith. In fact, they're not meant to be taken seriously, but are meant as mockery and are contemptuous.
So, there's that.
No. It's an example of a slippery slope. Your faith in transgender's claims are what is being questioned here. It is very possible that some of them make their claims for attention. Some people crave attention and don't necessarily care whether it is good or bad attention - just that they are getting attention (many celebrities come to mind). This isn't to say that there might be some that actually have a condition that they can't help, just like anyone with delusions. What I'm saying is that we're going about addressing the problem the wrong way, like reinforcing the ideas a person with anorexia has by agreeing with them that they do look fat and should loose more weight.
Is a schizophrenic mocking and being contemptuous when making claims stemming from their delusions? How do you know that I'm not delusional or schizophrenic? You'd be mocking a person with a biological condition that they can't help.
I could have used a host of other examples as a slippery slope. People can identify as another race, or even species. Again, what makes sex so special?
Transsexuals are dysphoric, meaning they're at unease with their physical state of being because their mental state tends to the feminine, and so they attempt to bring alignment of their mind and their body. There is (again) a critical distinction to be made. They are not delusional, but are dysphoric. If they were delusional, a man might actually think he was indistinct from a woman and then go about calling himself what he clearly was not. That would be like if you thought yourself a Sith, the problem wouldn't be a dysphoria, but it would be a delusion, meaning you had lost touch with reality.
To the extent there is actually a person out there who is dysphoric and so intimately identifies as a Sith that he insists upon being referred that way, then you might have an analogous situation, but the thing is, that's not really a thing. It's just the joke you wanted to tell, and so you told it.
How would a person of one sex know what the mental state of the other sex is like? You seem to be confusing the wide variety of behaviors of humans with specific behaviors of the sexes. Men can behave in feminine ways but still be men. Not only that, but how did they come to believe that their mental states are the opposite sex? Were their brains transplanted at birth like MIchael and Joshs believes? Or were they raised by parents that wanted a child of the opposite sex so they raised their child as if they were the opposite sex? In other words, are the causes biological or cultural?
Harry HinduFebruary 17, 2022 at 15:22#6558940 likes
Ask yourself: why is the above laughable rationalization more important to me than being friendly and somewhat accomodating to transsexuals? Why don't I want to be friendly and somewhat accomodating to transsexuals?
You don't care if all the transsexuals think you're a dick - and they do. They do and that's fine with you.
It seems to me that you are more concerned about what people that you don't know and have never met, and probably never will, think of you.
The fact that you and Hanover dismiss my example is just evidence of what I am saying - that you easily dismiss the claims of anyone that says that they are something that they aren't except if it were sex. How do you and Hanover know that my claim is "not to be taken seriously, but are meant as mockery and are contemptuous."? How do you know a trans-gender person isn't doing the same - mocking social roles in a society where it is a law to wear clothes and that we have agreed that certain sexes behave in certain ways so that we can tell who is who when playing mating games?
What would gender be in a society where there are no clothes, or social roles expected by the sexes?
Both you and Michael seem to be saying that trans-genders had brain transplants at birth. Are you both conspiracy theorists?
But what about gay men and lesbians? Do you think that they had , if not ‘ brain transplants’, then a gender-determining event prior to birth that makes their brains , in many cases, different than heterosexuals i. terms of a robust and stable perceptual-affective style?
I recognize that whether someone should surgically alter their body as a result of this is a separate question.
YOU were the one that used the term "male" to refer to someone with XX chromosomes:
I linked to an article about a condition known as "XX male syndrome" and asked you if you would refer to a person with such a syndrome using "he" or "she". You said that you would refer to such a person using "he".
If you prefer then I'll rephrase the question. Is a person with XX chromosomes but also an SRY gene that is responsible for the development of a body that is typically associated with a person with XY chromosomes a man or a woman?
Is that what transpeople are saying - that their brain was transplanted into another body?
No, but I suspect that the way they feel about themselves and their body is analogous to the way that I would feel about myself and my body were my brain to be transplanted into a body with different genitalia.
And in your example, you have memories of being a man. Transgenders don't have prior memories of being one sex that conflict with their actual sex. They claim to have always had these feelings.
My feelings of being a man would be a product of having lived as I did before my brain transplant; their feelings of being a man would be a product of whatever it is that is responsible for transgender people feeling the way they do. Both of us have an inner sense of being a man that is incongruent with the actual body we have.
So regardless of why we feel the way we do, the fact that you can understand that I can identify as a man even after having my brain transplanted into a body with breasts, a womb, ovaries, a vagina, etc. shows that you can understand gender as distinct from biological sex.
What would gender be in a society where there are no clothes, or social roles expected by the sexes?
It would be what it is, a robust and stable perceptual-affective style that subtly accompanies all of our behavior. It is what allows dog experts and breeders to quickly recognize make from female dog personality features. The same gender-associated behavior distinctions can be seen in most other mammals, including us. If such powerful, global perceptual-affective effects can be produced between biological males and females, then we already know that there can be all sorts of intermediate forms of gender.
Reply to Harry Hindu I know the solipsistic consequences of infinite doubt. That's the slippery slope you reference and it's not interesting or enlightening.
I trust the man who tells me he prefers men despite the lovely argument I could offer him that he's just choosing to act that way to be shocking.
The same holds for the man who identifies as female or the female who identifies as male. To the extent you can accommodate their situation without damaging another's, tell me why you need to intervene.
The same holds for the man who identifies as female or the female who identifies as male. To the extent you can accommodate their situation without damaging another's, tell me why you need to intervene.
Because Reply to Harry Hindu doesn’t grasp ( and is perhaps threatened by) the concept that his brain, like every other human , has been perceptually organized from birth along a gender dimension that dictates a ‘certain’ personality’ style. He can likely get the concept of personality traits like temperament, shyness or extraversion being inborn, but he has no category for gender as also a kind of personality trait. It is invisible to him because he has never had the experience of being a make among a community of makes who from his earliest memories sensed that he was different in all sorts of subtle ways, beyond his control, that where somehow all interconnected on the basis of a perceptual-affective style that marked him as more ‘feminine. Harry would argue that these were all socialized, much the way Skinner argued that language was all about s-r associations until Chomsky showed an innate patterning to language. There is an innate patterning to gender also.
How do you and Hanover know that my claim is "not to be taken seriously, but are meant as mockery and are contemptuous."? How do you know a trans-gender person isn't doing the same - mocking social roles in a society where it is a law to wear clothes and that we have agreed that certain sexes behave in certain ways so that we can tell who is who when playing mating games?
I know you don't think you're a dark sith. But, if I'm wrong, convince me otherwise. Swear to it. Put your personal integrity on the line and tell me you do. Show me examples of how you've lived your life that way. Give me names of those who can verify this for me. Prove your seemingly absurd claim and shame me for my rush to judgment
You act like deciphering intent and motive is all that difficult. We each do it 1000s of times a day. For someone so interested in human nature and what it entails, the abilities of social animals in social settings seems to be something you think non-existent.
They seek no gain from making you believe they're a woman.
Of course they do! That's the whole point!!
They make themselves look like a woman in order to get the social and economical benefits that women have.
Some examples:
In poor Asian countries, many young men transition into women because this way, they can more easily find work as female(-looking) singers, dancers, and prostitutes.
A petite, balding man is generally not considered attractive as a man; but if he transitions into a woman, he makes for an average or even above average good-looking woman with the psychological, social, and economical perks that come with that.
If a woman is stuck in a lowly job or doesn't climb up in her career, nobody bats an eyelid; but expectations are higher for men. So some men, afraid of career failure, transition into a woman where career failure is not so heavily stigmatized.
Male-to-female athletes: those men couldn't cut in the men's league, but they can outperform women. (How about female-to-male athletes??)
What makes it unethical for a person to knowingly consent to the procedure?
By consenting to such a procedure, they express their disdain for social norms, and they want their disdain to be respected by those who hold to the social norms.
They want to have a special place. They want to be one of the special categories of people who do not have to engage in mutually reciprocating and mutually acknowledging relationships with others. Historically, these categories have been the royals, the aristocracy, the clergy, and the generally wealthy and powerful. They could look down on the commoners and the plebeians and despise and abuse them, and it wasn't considered problematic to do so, they got away with it. Who wouldn't want to be in such a special category?!
And I can dress like a Dark Sith Lord and demand that you address me as "My master". What is so special about sex/gender that people can identify as a sex they are not, but identifying as something else you are not, well that's just crazy?
— Harry Hindu
Ask yourself: why is the above laughable rationalization more important to me than being friendly and somewhat accomodating to transsexuals? Why don't I want to be friendly and somewhat accomodating to transsexuals?
Transsexuals and some other groups are demanding uneven, non-reciprocal relationships with people who are not part of their category.
I'm supposed to be accomodating and friendly toward a trans, but the trans doesn't have to be accomodating and friendly toward me. No shit.
You act like deciphering intent and motive is all that difficult.
No, aggressively projecting onto others is easy.
Your favorite is to presume ill will by default and to act in bad faith. So you "are" always certain about what the other person is thinking, eh.
You don't talk, you don't listen, you impose. You hit first, and if the other person doesn't fend off your attack to your satisfaction, you consider yourself to be right and to know the truth about the other person. Facts be damned.
Rather typical for a lawyer, but not conducive to open and meaningful communication.
What determines someone to be a man or a woman? Genotype? Phenotype? Psychology? Social role? Naming?
No, the question is what determines the importance of whether one is a man or a woman, or something other.
Personally, I think gender/sexual distinctions are important for organizing social and economical life, primarily for practical reasons. So that people know which public toilet to go to, or which part of a clothing store to go to, and such.
Beyond that, I think issues of gender/sexual identity are trivial, superficial, transitory, and a waste to invest into. Regardless if it is a heterosexual woman investing into making herself look particularly female, or a heterosexual male investing into making himself look particularly male, or someone undergoing a sex change operation. Things like that are a waste of money.
The larger issue concerns what it is we are born with when our parents fist.
This is just the starting point, the initial "cards one has been dealt". After that, development can proceed in many ways.
how our personalities differ from each other, how one has a temper and the other is shy.
Having a temper or being shy used to be considered marks of bad character back in the day, and a person was expected to eliminate those marks. Nowadays, the terminology has changed ("having a temper" falls under "emotional dysregulation" and "being shy" falls under "social anxiety" or "risk aversion") but those are again and still, considered undesirable traits.
If you were to simply deny gender-related claims but support the idea that personality traits give us global styles of perception that are robust, then I would say your thinking and mine weren’t far apart.But my guess is you want to deny any connection between personality and cognitive style, because when it comes down to it, gender is a personality style.
I see no reason to think that either personality or cognitive style are permanent or pervasive.
It's sometimes convenient to think they are. And many people tend to persist in theirs, so this makes for the impression that they are permanent and pervasive.
But on the other hand, people who want to improve thier life are told to "change their mindset", "overcome limiting beliefs" and such, which goes to show that neither personality nor cognitive style are necessarily (deemed) permanent and pervasive.
Beyond that, I think issues of gender/sexual identity are trivial, superficial, transitory, and a waste to invest into.
You re lucky you have the luxury of not having had to grow up a feminine acting gay male who was endlessly reminded by his male and female peers of how non-trival, non-superficial and non time-wasting gender behavior was to them. And it was precisely because they assumed my behavior was merely an arbitrary and silly choice, a learned phenomenon, that they were able to justify their ridicule and bullying to themselves.
We are born with many personality traits that are robust and stable. to recognize them in others is to see their style, the art of their being with you. Recognizing the art of their personality style allows you a greater intimacy with them. Gender behavior is an art of being, and not seeing it deprives both you and others of this intimacy of relation.
There are few things less noble than resenting or undermining people for who they are.
... people for who they are?
The way the term "identity" is used in discussions of people's identity, is a misuse, compared to what the term means in logic. At best, it's a misleading use.
"Identity" implies permanence, context-independence. A square is a square, even if it s among a thousand circles, and a circle is a circle, even if it is among a thousand suqares, or looked at under UV light, or whatever. Human "identity" is not like that, because human "identity" is subject to change, subject to arising and cessation, and it's context-dependent. The same person is sometimes a teacher, a patient, a customer, a husband, but not all at the same time in the same place; sometimes, their skin color is relevant, other times, it isn't. And so on.
Things that are subject to change are not fit to be regarded as self.
This still doesn't mean that those who question the nature of human identity are "resenting or undermining people for who they are".
Do you understand that?
You re lucky you have the luxury of not having had to grow up a feminine acting gay male who was endlessly reminded by his male and female peers of how non-trival, non-superficial and non time-wasting gender behavior was to them. And it was precisely because they assumed my behavior was merely an arbitrary and silly choice, a learned phenomenon, that they were able to justify their ridicule and bullying to themselves.
What do you know of my growing up, or of my present?!
We are born with many personality traits that are robust and stable. to recognize them in others is to see their style, the art of their being with you. Recognizing the art of their personality style allows you a greater intimacy with them. Gender behavior is an art of being, and not seeing it deprives both you and others of this intimacy of relation.
For one, I'm fairly certain that you don't want to be intimate with the majority of people on this planet. I'm fairly certain that you don't want to be intimate with me, heh.
For two, the topic of this thread seems to be particularly close to your heart,and associated with trauma, which might still be too fresh to discuss this topic at a forum like this.
, people who want to improve thier life are told to "change their mindset", "overcome limiting beliefs" and such, which goes to show that neither personality nor cognitive style are necessarily (deemed) permanent and pervasive.
Personality style has nothing to do with cognitive beliefs, knowledge, rationality, experience. Style is not a content of thought. Can you overcome shyness? Yes, but the underlying disposition is still there. One simply learned to channel it. People on the autism spectrum don’t line to be considered pathological. They prefer to be considered as having a cognitive style. One can say the same of those with Wilson’s syndrome and many other inborn dispositions that give distinct personality profiles. Is autism a belief that one could or should outgrow?
More importantly, mine is a genuine question. I'm actually not sure whether you understand what I'm talking about. There have been discussions about identity at the forum, but I don't recall correctly whether you participated and to what extent.
Can you overcome shyness? Yes, but the underlying disposition is still there. One simply learned to channel it.
Thinking of such traits as permanent might actually be a coping mechanism.
I think people are more flexible and more malleable than the official discourse acknowledges them to be.
People on the autism spectrum don’t line to be considered pathological. They prefer to be considered as having a cognitive style. One can say the same of those with Wilson’s syndrome and many other inborn dispositions that give distinct personality profiles. Is autism a belief that one could or should outgrow?
Life is hard enough. Thinking that one should be accepted and respected "for who one is" is for the most part a dangerous idealism.
They make themselves look like a woman in order to get the social and economical benefits that women have.
Some examples:
In poor Asian countries, many young men transition into women because this way, they can more easily find work as female(-looking) singers, dancers, and prostitutes.
A petite, balding man is generally not considered attractive as a man; but if he transitions into a woman, he makes for an average or even above average good-looking woman with the psychological, social, and economical perks that come with that.
If a woman is stuck in a lowly job or doesn't climb up in her career, nobody bats an eyelid; but expectations are higher for men. So some men, afraid of career failure, transition into a woman where career failure is not so heavily stigmatized.
Male-to-female athletes: those men couldn't cut in the men's league, but they can outperform women. (How about female-to-male athletes??)
Other than in the harsh reality of living in abject poverty in a third world country where men find their only option for survival is to physically alter their gender in order to enter the sex industry so they can offer themselves up to Westerners, your other examples are pretty much nonsense.
Setting that aside, determining one's motives for gender reassignment surgery doesn't require armchair psychoanalysis and speculation into their mental states, but it only requires that you ask them. Unless you're committed to there being universal conspiratorial fraud among the sisterhood of transsexuals where they all provide false reasons for their desires for transition, I think we have to take their word for why they wish to transition. The surveys don't indicate they're doing it because they're old and bald and don't get the winks and stares they once did, so they now want to install some pretty breasts on themselves to get attention.
I can say that this thread has shaken out some pretty crazy and entertaining posts, and I do thank you for your contribution in that regard. Quoting baker
By consenting to such a procedure, they express their disdain for social norms, and they want their disdain to be respected by those who hold to the social norms.
I think the social norm they disdain is that normally they are disdained and they ask not be disdained. They want not be considered abnormal, which sounds normal enough to me, but it's also contrary to what you argued above, which is when you said that they relish being different and enjoy the freak show they throw in your face. That is, they alter their sexual organs just to make your head spin, which they wouldn't do if there weren't people like you. It's all about you I guess.
Let me switch gears just a bit so that I can tease out more of your opinions. Is what you say of transsexuals applicable to gay people? That is, do men have sex with men and act effeminately in order to gain attention and do they then try to normalize their behavior by creating laws allowing them to marry and not be discriminated upon based upon their sexual preference?
Gay men perhaps display a less guarded posture with perhaps more relaxed musculature; they seem a bit more carefully groomed; slightly better put together clothing -- regardless of what they are wearing; a more open sort of verbal expression. Perhaps one is more likely to find gay men at an art gallery than a used car auction, but I know people who contradict that. Gay men do seem to regard (see, evaluate) other men more carefully than straight men.
A homosexual man told me that most homosexual men are macho types like heterosexual men.
In my experience, the quickest way for a woman to find a good friend is among homosexual men. But I don't think this has to do with the man being homosexual per se, but rather that he, as a person, had to work through some quite difficult things (due to "not being ordinary"), and if successful, emerged as a decent, sensible person.
The most sensible persons I have known have all been homosexual men.
I think people are more flexible and more malleable than the official discourse acknowledges them to be
Flexibility and malleability without a self-consistent thread of intelligibility is nothing but chaos and confusion. You seem to believe that things like dispositions and styles are nothing but prisons that hold us back. I admire your desire for personal growth and transformation. We all desire that, but sheer novelty is meaninglessness. Meaningful change can only take place through pre-existing channels of thought that make such change relevant and coherent to us. A life is an evolving theme or style, not a random lurching from one meaning to the next. We are never the same person from one moment to the next, but we continue he to be the same differently.
The people who know you will be able to say that you’ve changed a lot in your life, but they will also be able to say you’re the same person you’ve always been.
That’s your evolving style, gendered and otherwise.
You seem to miss the essential role that style plays in allowing us to venture forward in life.
But, gay signals and gaydar work well enough most of the time.
I alluded to this in a different context in this thread, but I do think humans have very strong innate social skills that allow us to navigate our complicated social world, not the least of which is the ability to locate potential sexual partners. All those unidentifiable clues come together easily for some and are impossible for others. I've heard women complain about what else they have to do for the guy to notice them, and I've seen guys asking me whether they think a girl likes them after the girl has practically thrown themselves at the guy.
I was just in a restaurant with my wife the other day and we saw our waiter stroking the hair of an attractive waitress as they talked by the cash register. My wife and I both quickly exchanged glances, and I said, "must be his bestie," which she agreed. We had both registered previously he was gay and we were figuring out why he'd be getting so cozy with the attractive waitress.
This is also why it's so difficult to alter our gender identification. The slightest clue will let us know that man in the dress is not a woman. We're just way too good at noticing little clues.
A homosexual man told me that most homosexual men are macho types like heterosexual men.
Some gay men are even more macho than straight men, but maximum-machismo is sometimes more 'art' than 'nature'. That is, some gay men cultivate machismo (and so do some straight men). Lots of men and women find machismo attractive, though maybe not as a steady diet.
the quickest way for a woman to find a good friend is among homosexual men.
Yes. Gay men can be close friends with women because they are not sexually interested in the women. They are 'safe'. Conversely, a woman may make a very good friend for a gay male because there is no sexual attraction. Gay men can, of course, be very close friends with each other, but there is often a sexual tension between gay men that also exists between straight women and straight men.
Reply to Hanover Insightful observations about extraordinarily complex behaviors and mental processes.
Good observational skills can be developed, but they also require that one be open to the flow of cues, signs, subtle behaviors, and so on. Sometimes I have 'closed the door' to the clues others are broadcasting for a sort of self-protection from too much information.
I can say that this thread has shaken out some pretty crazy and entertaining posts, and I do thank you for your contribution in that regard.
I do hope that your bad faith will somehow come back to haunt you.
But if it doesn't, then that's just proof that might indeed makes right, and you actually have nothing to complain about.
A homosexual man told me that most homosexual men are macho types like heterosexual men.
If you knew more about the gay community, you’d learn that that’s a pose. Whereas for many straight men, a non self-conscious macho comes naturally, it’s more of a deliberate performance for many gay men, such as in the leather community.
Andrew4HandelFebruary 18, 2022 at 19:54#6564610 likes
This is shocking insanity but is apparently the new norm: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/gabriel-mac-essay.html
"On the day I heard that my penis would be huge, I sobbed."
"When I’d asked the surgeon how big my impending penis was going to be, he could only guess, pointing to the reusable water bottle in my hand, a metal cylinder nine inches in circumference: “Smaller than that.”
“I would rather have died on the table than not had the surgery,” one Korean American guy with great sweaters responded (and, like everybody here, gave me permission to repeat), to a chorus of nodding Zoom heads."
"One of the nodding heads in the group belonged to a nonbinary white person who was still horizontal in recovery from having had, a week prior, the worst happen, which was that after their procedure, in which all the fat and skin had been stripped from their left forearm from wrist to nearly elbow, along with major nerves, an artery, and veins, and then shaped into a tube and connected, in careful layers, to skin and blood vessels and nerves in their pelvis, their new penis had failed."
"But here they were, already getting ready for their surgeons to harvest a whole other part of their body within the month with zero hesitation. Because those three days they’d had their penis, they said, before being rushed into an eight-hour surgery that couldn’t save it — the feeling of it, even just for one moment, even still bloody and painful and packed with stitches: worth it."
"I woke up last December in a hospital bed and before even glancing toward my lap, the room spinning from anesthesia and my lungs partially collapsed from four and a half hours on surgical ventilation and hundreds — plural — of stitches and a 40-square-inch hole in my thigh where I’d been skinned down to the muscle, I could suddenly feel, in a way I could never have fathomed, that this was what being alive was."
"I woke up last December in a hospital bed and before even glancing toward my lap, the room spinning from anesthesia and my lungs partially collapsed from four and a half hours on surgical ventilation and hundreds — plural — of stitches and a 40-square-inch hole in my thigh where I’d been skinned down to the muscle, I could suddenly feel, in a way I could never have fathomed, that this was what being alive was."
Just shows you what lengths people will go to to find self-acceptance in a culture where the concept of psychological gender is still uncomprehended. I’m glad you at least comprehend the distinction between biological sex and gender. You will help to one day make such surgeries unnecessary. Because, of course, that’s the only thing that’s really going to stop it.
Do you think other people owe it to you to accept you and comprehend you?
They owe it to themselves to understand themselves, because failing to do so will cause unhappiness both in isolation and with others. This requires recognizing the bond between personal growth and overarching styles and themes of perception.
It’s interesting and perhaps revealing that your description of gender mentions only who one is sexually attracted to, and nothing about what I would consider to be a more central aspect of gender for many in the gay community , which has to do with a global perceptual-affective style, of which sexual attraction is merely one small aspect. For those who dont grasp this , it is incoherent to talk about gayness outside of sexual attraction, and I think that is part of the problem.
You seem to be saying that ignorance of gender identity theory is part of the problem and Bitter Crank seems to be saying that “delusion” is problematic, or rather that sex/gender cannot be changed. It’s not clear if BC believes sex and gender can be more or less independent of each other.
Personally, I have no problem with separating biological sex and gender identity or ‘style’. It makes me wonder where sexual attraction fits best though. Is sexual attraction more biological sex or more a part of psychological gender? The fact that some transsexuals are not gay seems to indicate that it’s more biological sex, and also that many gay people’s gender matches their biological sex.
Deleted UserFebruary 22, 2022 at 05:29#6577500 likes
The reason I won't call you "king" is that you don't think yourself a king. Transsexuals are not confused as to what their biology is or in what distinguishes them from other people. There is no delusionary thinking and there is no confusion. They are simply using a word to designate themselves with a full understanding of who they actually are.
Yes, but this is a fallacy of composition. For the vast majority of humans, and most other species, sexual traits are intrinsic and easily identifiable phenotypically and consistent with the genotype of that entity. There is nothing wrong with the fact that transexuals exist outside of the understood norm, but there is a problem with using a uniquely small smaple of an entire species as a predicate for an argument that has implications for all members of that species.
So, when a biologically born male who is now presenting as a female uses the pronoun "she," she is not then saying she was born a female. She is using the term for one thing and you for another and then you attempt to use your term on her, thus the equivocation fallacy I've pointed out. Her pronoun use doesn't have ontological impact.
Well no, the violation of reason begins with the violation of the law of identity. A male is a male forever, as determined by the male's genetic composition. "She" will always maintain the final authority over her own usage of words and the manner in which they are employed. However, I will maintain the exact same authority in the opposite direction. And her pronoun does begin to have an ontological valence at the very moment that the individual in question places an expectation of a particular kind of usage of language on the part of others. Especially a usage that violates a persons individual paradigm and coherent understanding of a concept, or word. If that isn't a factor, there is no issue.
That is, if you called yourself "king" because you used that term to describe being the first born in your family, I could not declare you a liar because you aren't a monarch. You never intended the term to be used that way and didn't try to trick anyone into thinking you were actually a king.
Then you should let these people know that such a manner of usage is expected on their part to not only be employed by them consistently, and not ambiguously, but inquired of others as to whether or not they are also voluntarily willing to participate. Otherwise, it is authoritarianism lite. Keep in mind such a standard is, in fact, a fallacy of ambiguity, so the responsiblity for keeping the peace as regards usage is that of the person using language differently than established usage on the part of majority of the population.
Logic schmlogic though. You have a bone to pick with the transsexuals, so go forth and ridicule them and tell them you must be a sheepdog because you feel it in your heart and soul and so you demand to be called Fido.
No, I don't think so. I think he has an issue with the idea that science is being disregarded, in favor of whim. Which I too have a problem with. The more this kind of accusation get's tossed around, the more people will embody this accusation just to piss off whoever is doing the tossing.
Well no, the violation of reason begins with the violation of the law of identity. A male is a male forever, as determined by the male's genetic composition. "She" will always maintain the final authority over her own usage of words and the manner in which they are employed. However, I will maintain the exact same authority in the opposite direction. And her pronoun does begin to have an ontological valence at the very moment that the individual in question places an expectation of a particular kind of usage of language on the part of others. Especially a usage that violates a persons individual paradigm and coherent understanding of a concept, or word. If that isn't a factor, there is no issue.
Language is not mandated by ontology. Language is determined by use. There is no male "essence" that can be reduced to anything, including chromosomes. If a person walked about and looked in every way like a man, you would call him a man, even should you later learn of some strange chromosomal variation. This is to say that you don't use the word "man" to reference an XY constitution, but you use it to reference a host of factors, many of which are not entirely consistent from case to case. The usage of the word "man" finds itself evolving.
When I was growing up, we learned the pronoun "he" was to be used to designate the third person objective because there is no neutral personal pronoun in English. You would say, "One should always eat his green beans." Why this reasonable person had to be a man was a matter of convention, but it's since been changed. If you want to maintain it, have at it, but you'll sound antiquated by some, sexist by others. The words you use are like the clothes you wear. They communicate how you wish to present yourself.
Then you should let these people know that such a manner of usage is expected on their part to not only be employed by them consistently, and not ambiguously, but inquired of others as to whether or not they are also voluntarily willing to participate. Otherwise, it is authoritarianism lite. Keep in mind such a standard is, in fact, a fallacy of ambiguity, so the responsibility for keeping the peace as regards usage is that of the person using language differently than established usage on the part of majority of the population.
I'm not arguing for prescriptive word usage from either side, but I am pointing out that be aware of what you wish to convey when you choose your words. If you are aware that a person wishes to identify as female and you insist upon using a male pronoun to refer to her, you will not simply be communicating your desire to adhere to traditional standards, but you will communicating your lack of respect for the person you're speaking to. You can tell her to take no offense and that you're simply a traditionalist, but I don't see that really working.
Deleted UserFebruary 22, 2022 at 14:02#6578390 likes
Language is not mandated by ontology. Language is determined by use. There is no male "essence" that can be reduced to anything, including chromosomes. If a person walked about and looked in every way like a man, you would call him a man, even should you later learn of some strange chromosomal variation. This is to say that you don't use the word "man" to reference an XY constitution, but you use it to reference a host of factors, many of which are not entirely consistent from case to case. The usage of the word "man" finds itself evolving.
Didn't say it was. I said that langauge becomes an ontological force when living entities actively place expectations of usage upon other extant and conscious beings. That's as ontological as ontological gets. As far as XY, that's half correct. I am referencing XY, but only in relation to consistent, and reliably observed emergence of XY phenotypical characteristics. Thus, to expect me to do something different isn't just absurd, it is outrageous, and it is particular the perception of that expectation that has ignited furor. No kidding. Now, that doesn't meanthat such an expectation is consistently present in fact when being perceived, and one should keeo that in mind at all times.
When I was growing up, we learned the pronoun "he" was to be used to designate the third person objective because there is no neutral personal pronoun in English. You would say, "One should always eat his green beans." Why this reasonable person had to be a man was a matter of convention, but it's since been changed. If you want to maintain it, have at it, but you'll sound antiquated by some, sexist by others. The words you use or like the clothes you wear. They communicate how you wish to present yourself.
I'm not arguing for prescriptive word usage from either side, but I am pointing out that be aware of what you wish to convey when you choose your words. If you are aware that a person wishes to identify as female and you insist upon using a male pronoun to refer to her, you will not simply be communicating your desire to adhere to traditional standards, but you will communicating your lack of respect for the person you're speaking to. You can tell her to take no offense and that you're simply a traditionalist, but I don't see that really working.
And, believe it or not, that is precisely what we on the other side of this debate are hoping that you and your ilk also remain aware of in our direction, by and large. It isn't the usage of these pronouns that has ever been the issue, I swear to you. It has always been about the prospect of you expecting me to abide concepts that violate coherent understandings without my consent, and perhaps even using force to make me comply. This is PRECISELY what ignited the "Jordan Peterson" event. As far as offense goes, it means nothing to me. However, if offense means something to others, then it will be their responsibility to facilitate such offense-free environments through proper communication with other conscious human beings of equal, but separate value who possess different coherent world view, who exist in that environment. My assertion, and belief, is that if this is seen to by the lgbtq community, they will absolutely have no issues, or very minimal, with any human in this country as a general rule. Please relay this info to your lgbtq friends, as I have done myself.
As far as XY, that's half correct. I am referencing XY, but only in relation to consistent, and reliably observed emergence of XY phenotypical characteristics. Thus, to expect me to do something different isn't just absurd, it is outrageous, and it is particular the perception of that expectation that has ignited furor.
Men were called "men" long before we knew anything of chromosomes. My guess is that you wouldn't know a male chromosome if you saw it, and if tomorrow you learned that half the men had XZ chromosomes and not XY ones, you'd consider yourself educated. What this means is that you likely call men "men" because they look like men and act like men. You don't call MtF transexuals "women" because they don't look that way to you. If medical science could do a better job, you might change. That is, if the person had a functioning uterus and all other sexual organs and looked indistinct from any other woman, maybe you wouldn't have any objection.
What ignited furor was the supposed immorality of men acting as women and the societal expectation that it be accepted as normal. The passion did not arise over esoteric word usage and the furor that emerges when one is asked to use a new word. I don't remember such outrage when people were asked to stop calling Pluto a planet.
Deleted UserFebruary 22, 2022 at 14:34#6578470 likes
Men were called "men" long before we knew anything of chromosomes. My guess is that you wouldn't know a male chromosome if you saw it, and if tomorrow you learned that half the men had XZ chromosomes and not XY ones, you'd consider yourself educated. What this means is that you likely call men "men" because they look like men and act like men. You don't call MtF transexuals "women" because they don't look that way to you. If medical science could do a better job, you might change. That is, if the person had a functioning uterus and all other sexual organs and looked indistinct from any other woman, maybe you wouldn't have any objection.
This is specifically because the only thing we had to go off of, again, were consitently observable, emergent characteristics of the male phenotype. All species have this detection ability, and employ them functionally, by and large. And, my wife is a biologist, so let's keep the accusations of ignorance to oneself, moving forward, I won't be polite about it after this. And as far as MtF transexuals, I actually may, depending on what their genetic code revealed to me just in technicality. However, again, an biologically abberant expression of genes does not, and should not constitute a conceptual approach to the whole of the species, especially when the established conceptual approach is, in fact, accurate for 99% or so of the rest of that population. The outliers will have to be appropriately integrated into the conceptual framework, thereby expanding it without dismissing already coherent and correspondent understandings. You see?
What ignited furor was the supposed immorality of men acting as women and the societal expectation that it be accepted as normal.
So, no it isn't. And if you keep accusing people of this kind of ill-will, I'm going to show you what I think of people who would seek to use shame to overpower and dismiss reason and established science. Quit doing this. I have explicated to you the real issue at hand, that is better served by your intelligence in the pursuit of formulating conclusions not derived from social phenomena that is strictly conflict based as a matter of course. Philosophy, humanity's last and only hope now, needs you to assess these kinds of situations with that kind of approach. We need to fix issues, not perpetuate them.
The passion did not arise over esoteric word usage and the furor that emerges when one is asked to use a new word. I don't remember such outrage when people were asked to stop calling Pluto a planet.
That's correct, because word usage isn't the usage. It is the perception of compelled, or willingness to compell such usage. For example, I have never stopped calling Pluto a planet, and guess what, it has since been reinstated in itsplanetary status. So, the people who thought I had aught to change my approach can kiss my ass and join me in the enlightened crew after I get my apology. Now, they can still join even though they haven't given one to me, but I'm always gonna know they owe to me, which will be enough for. And yes, it did ignite furor in the physics community, but the physics community is known for employing reason and adversarial co-operation in the pursuit of truth and homeostasis within paradigms of science. See what I'm saying?
You seem to be saying that ignorance of gender identity theory is part of the problem and Bitter Crank seems to be saying that “delusion” is problematic, or rather that sex/gender cannot be changed. It’s not clear if BC believes sex and gender can be more or less independent of each other.
My understanding was that BC thinks it’s delusional to believe you can change your sex, but he seems to agree with me that psychological gender, as a perceptual-affective style, is independent of biological sex, which is what I interpret him to mean by ‘gaydar’. For myself and my peers, gaydar doesn’t simply refer to the ability to detect if a man is sexually interested in another man, but rather the identification of a constellation of behavioral and appearance cues( dress, pronunciation, interests, posture, demeanor, walk) as pointing to what I have been calling a gay gender-associated perceptual-affective style. It’s interesting how it’s common for members of the gay community to refer to each other as ‘she’ or ‘queen’ or ‘girl’. I don’t think this is just social
conventions that we learn from each other. This use of language comes directly from the way we feel inside, this equal dose( and in those men who are strongly effeminate a much higher dose) of feminine style and masculine style.
interesting and perhaps revealing that your description of gender mentions only who one is sexually attracted to, and nothing about what I would consider to be a more central aspect of gender for many in the gay community, which has to do with a global perceptual-affective style
— Joshs
I will have to plead guilty to your charge.
When it comes to "being gay" which as you say involves a global perceptual-affective style, I find myself with a deficient vocabulary to adequately express what I experience. I meet men in ordinary social settings and we may immediately recognize each other as gay, but I find it difficult to pin down exactly what the signals are. This may be one reason I have always preferred to look for sexual partners in places where "pre-sorting" had taken place--bath houses, gay bars, night-time cruising areas in parks. Some people seem to be able to walk through a figurative Grand Central Station and reliably find prospective partners.
These is something abut deportment, grooming, details of dress, speech patterns, interests, and so forth that together add up to a strong signal. It's like art -- I know it when I see it. Some people are better at this than others, and some people with sharp gaydar are actually pretty straight. An some very gay guys (part of the 2.5%) don't signal their gayness very strongly. And some straight people see gay, but are not. But, gay signals and gaydar work well enough most of the time.
When it comes to "being gay" which as you say involves a global perceptual-affective style, I find myself with a deficient vocabulary to adequately express what I experience. I meet men in ordinary social settings and we may immediately recognize each other as gay, but I find it difficult to pin down exactly what the signals are….
There is something abut deportment, grooming, details of dress, speech patterns, interests, and so forth that together add up to a strong signal. It's like art -- I know it when I see it. Some people are better at this than others, and some people with sharp gaydar are actually pretty straight. An some very gay guys (part of the 2.5%) don't signal their gayness very strongly. And some straight people see gay, but are not. But, gay signals and gaydar work well enough most of the time.
Is sexual attraction more biological sex or more a part of psychological gender? The fact that some transsexuals are not gay seems to indicate that it’s more biological sex, and also that may gay people’s gender matches their biological sex.
I feel strongly that for myself and many other gay men I know, the gender-associated perceptual-affective style is directly responsible for sexual attraction. I believe that , as Freud said, in the most general sense we are all bisexual in that we all have the capability to learn to enjoy sexual relations with both biological males and females. But the strong preference most gay men feel for same sec partners is a result of the way the structure and feel of the male body implies behavioral traits ( strength, aggressiveness, etc) that gay men gravitate to. Think of sexual partnering as like a dance. To grossly over-generalize so you get the point, Heterosexual attraction is a dance of yin and yang: the yielding, more passive , emotive , soft characteristics of femininity ( and the feminine body) complement and complete the emotionally unaware, dominating or commanding aspects of masculine behavior and the masculine body.
They fit like pieces of a puzzle. For many gay men , who have bits of both masculine and feminine gender within themselves, the fit is more of a twinning than a yin and yang. Many gay men are repulsed by the signals they get from straight women who exude feminine passivity and softness while expecting the gay male to exude decisive, strong, commanding masculine traits. The gay man exudes a mixture of both sides and is attracted to that same mixture from their partner.
I dated a woman in college and that was pretty much the dynamic: her expectations of strength and decisiveness from me, for me to ‘take care of her’ even though she was my intellectual equal and headed for her own career.
This is specifically because the only thing we had to go off of, again, were consitently observable, emergent characteristics of the male phenotype. All species have this detection ability, and employ them functionally, by and large.
The reason we call people male or female in the vernacular has nothing to do with their genes. It has to do with how they look and act.
So, no it isn't. And if you keep accusing people of this kind of ill-will, I'm going to show you what I think of people who would seek to use shame to overpower and dismiss reason and established science.
Of course it is. Gender roles have played and continue to play significant roles in our society and a blurring of who is male and who is female has caused the outrage. Maybe your outrage comes from the technical word changes and you'd be just as mad if we started calling bowls "cups," but I think more is at play in this battle over gender identity than just words. Quoting Garrett Travers
And yes, it did ignite furor in the physics community, but the physics community is known for employing reason and adversarial co-operation in the pursuit of truth and homeostasis within paradigms of science. See what I'm saying?
It ignited interest and debate. There is no moral consequence to how planets are named or designated. There is when it comes genders. That's just part of the Western tradition and the norms for our society.
Deleted UserFebruary 22, 2022 at 16:23#6578840 likes
Of course it is. Gender roles have played and continue to play significant roles in our society and a blurring of who is male and who is female has caused the outrage.
The blurring was done by people not adhereing to the genetically established paradigm, not the rest of us. Which, again, is fine if your usage is not presented as a compulsion, the perception of which being what has caused the outrage on the side of traditional paradigm adherents.
Maybe your outrage comes from the technical word changes and you'd be just as mad if we started calling bowls "cups," but I think more is at play in this battle over gender identity than just words.
No, it's a battle between voluntary and involuntary participation in a new linguistic paradigm. Seriously, that's the issue. That of which only requires an unassuage perception of involuntary paradigmatic integration on the part of non-paradigm adherents. I promise you that that is the only place you genuinely need to look. Remember Pluto and how the scientists settled their differences.
It ignited interest and debate. There is no moral consequence to how planets are named or designated.
There would have been had there been any perception that the acceptance of such a proposition, which happened to not be true techinically, were expected to be incorporated into a paradigm via involuntary participation.
Scientists didn't lobby government to write a code in law claiming that Pluto must be accepted as a planetoid, or one would face rammifications administered by a monopoly on force. You know, like how Bill C-16 did? Like how the attempt to instantiate hate-speech laws has engulfed the social-reconstructionsist platform? That's specifically the difference: force.
Scientists didn't lobby government to write a code in law claiming that Pluto must be accepted as a planetoid, or one would face rammifications administered by a monopoly on force. You know, like how Bill C-16 did? Like how the attempt to instantiate hate-speech laws has engulfed the social-reconstructionsist platform? That's specifically the difference: force.
There is no law dictating that you are required to call transsexuals anything. You can be as offensive or inoffensive as you like. The US has no hate speech laws. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/no-theres-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/
If your beef if over a specific Canadian bill, then maybe you have point there. I really don't follow what Canada does or know how over-reaching their free speech limitations are. I'd be opposed to limiting all sorts of bigotry and stupidity because I do think the right to free speech includes that.
I believe that , as Freud said, in the most general sense we are all bisexual in that we all have the capability to learn to enjoy sexual relations with both biological males and females.
Very true, nevertheless heterosexuals who can enjoy sexual relations with both sexes, perhaps even in a ‘twinning dance’, are still sexuality attracted to the opposite sex, at least primarily. I wonder if the same is true for homosexuals.
Deleted UserFebruary 22, 2022 at 17:39#6579080 likes
There is no law dictating that you are required to call transsexuals anything. You can be as offensive or inoffensive as you like. The US has no hate speech laws. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/no-theres-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/
Carefully read what I am saying, I made no such assertion. I brought to your attention that in certain Western nations, there are indeed enforcing such laws, such as Canada. As an aside, other such Western nations are actively debating in the world's finest educational institutions, such as Oxford and Cambridge, to instantiate such compulsions and restrictions on speech with the threat of force. Broadly speaking, the propostion of violence-regulated speech codes are becoming more, and more prevalent in positive consideration. Meaning, the perception of a threat against free expression I accordance with our internal coherence on given topics are, in fact, a genuine perception. Not that the U.S. has instantiated those compulsions or restrictions, America dies on that day.
If your beef if over a specific Canadian bill, then maybe you have point there.
No, not specifically. What C-16 represents to me is a threat of similar compulsions being placed on me by my states, and the popularity of this growing to a point where fiat sentiment overcomes human reason. I have no beef, per se, with C-16, it is the responsibility of Canadians to dispose of their little fascist mommy's boy and be free again. The same will be our responsibility with such tyranny comes to America, which again, is a genuine threat at this point in history, without question.
I'd be opposed to limiting all sorts of bigotry and stupidity because I do think the right to free speech includes that.
The right to free speech includes all human expressions that do not violate the human expressions of others. Any other standard is at best illogical, at worst the pursuit of interpersonal ownership and control of consciousness. And I will debate anybody that thinks they to go with me on that topic, any time, any place, and people, any number of people.
What C-16 represents to me is a threat of similar compulsions being placed on me by my states, and the popularity of this growing to a point where fiat sentiment overcomes human reason. I have no beef, per se, with C-16, it is the responsibility of Canadians to dispose of their little fascist mommy's boy and be free again. The same will be our responsibility with such tyranny comes to America, which again, is a genuine threat at this point in history, without question.
Let's look at this from the 100 mile overhead view so you can maybe understand my questioning these objections.
We have a group of people who generally are ostracized and ridiculed and thought of as sexual deviants. Their behavior is considered sinful and immoral by large segments of the population as it violates specific rules about gender roles and sexuality in our society.
Against that backdrop, objections are raised not as to the immorality of the behavior or as to how it simply violates societal norms, but as to the outrageous burden they place on average folks living day to day. Where we used to have very clear grammar rules, we now have to worry about "him," "her," and "their," when we didn't have to before.
So I drill down on this question about language burdens, and I'm told it's not the specific words that really cause the problem, but it's in the abstract, where I shouldn't have a governmental body telling me what to do as it relates to speech. The transsexual pronoun issue is just one example from that abstract concern.
I then drill down further on that question, and I'm told it's really not an issue in the abstract because it's conceded that your jurisdiction doesn't impose such prohibitions. You then explain the issue is actually in the hypothetical because you fear the cancer of Canada might spread southward and you'll then be burdened by having a government tell you how to speak. That is, today we find ourselves on the precipice, teetering back and forth, and unless we snuff out this pronoun mind control, we might as well hand over our First Amendment free speech rights to the KGB banging at the door.
My response to this is that I agree that free speech rights are worth protecting and I would object to burdens being imposed by the government with respect to it. I am however extremely suspicious when someone claims that it is the transsexual that poses our greatest risks to free speech. It makes me wonder whether this group is being singled out as the greatest threat to our free speech because they actually are, or whether it's all a pretextual effort to further attack this historically attacked group.
I'd be a lot happier with gaydar if it were more reliable. Like radar, it's a great advance over flying around in the dark. One might use 'gaydar' as a very narrow 'sex-finding' skill, but it is based on a 'gestalt' that includes [i]"the identification of a constellation of behavioral and appearance cues (dress, pronunciation, interests, posture, demeanor, walk) as pointing to what I have been calling a gay gender-associated perceptual-affective style."[/I]
It’s interesting how it’s common for members of the gay community to refer to each other as ‘she’ or ‘queen’ or ‘girl’. I don’t think this is just social conventions that we learn from each other. This use of language comes directly from the way we feel inside, this equal dose( and in those men who are strongly effeminate a much higher dose) of feminine style and masculine style.
While I have heard gay men refer to each other as "'she' or 'queen' or 'girl' [add in 'sister'] since I started traveling in gay circles (some 55 years), there have always been some men who did, and some men who didn't. I associate it with 'camp'. Some men 'camp' and some men don't. Some men are campy all the time, which I find kind of tiresome. Without a time machine, the only way we have of determining whether this is historically 'built in' or 'learned' is to look at print sources which are unreliable at capturing occasional instances of campy speech. Does Walt Whitman use feminine pronouns for men? I don't think so, but that's a guess.
"Camp" (high camp, mid camp, low camp"... see Susan Sontag on Camp, 1964).
Why do some men use, or not use campy speech? One guess is that it depends on whether or not they have immersed themselves in campy gay bars from the get go. It takes practice to do well. Men who don't drink and smoke (and go to bars) are less likely to be campy [theoretical postulate... no evidence on hand]. Men from rural hick backwaters [me], however profoundly gay they might be, tend not to be campy. Class has something to do with it. Lower class, more likely; middle class--too insecure; upper class -- more likely to practice high camp. [not fact based; conjecture]. And, as you say, at least some of it seems to stem from the self-protrayed gender role. Some guys are consistently butch/macho/masculine, and some guys are consistently the opposite, and probably always were, one way or another.
Oscar Fingal O'Flahertie Wills Wilde (1854-1900) practiced high camp. He was gay and straight (much more complicated than merely gay, straight, bisexual).
A male is a male forever, as determined by the male's genetic composition.
Do you believe there is such a thing as psychological gender, apart from biological chromosomal sex?
Paychological gender would refer to a brain-wiring that produces what I call a perceptual-affective masculine or feminine style. This difference in behavior is what allows dog experts and breeders to tell male dogs from
female dogs based on their behavior. Do you think the same brain-wiring difference separates human males and females?
Deleted UserFebruary 22, 2022 at 21:11#6579640 likes
We have a group of people who generally are ostracized and ridiculed and thought of as sexual deviants. Their behavior is considered sinful and immoral by large segments of the population as it violates specific rules about gender roles and sexuality in our society.
Against that backdrop, objections are raised not as to the immorality of the behavior or as to how it simply violates societal norms, but as to the outrageous burden they place on average folks living day to day.
That is correct. Or, the perceived burden, which is just as powerful a motivator most of the time.
Where we used to have very clear grammar rules, we now have to worry about "him," "her," and "their," when we didn't have to before.
No, that's not the issue. This issue is what you described above, "outrageous burden." That burden being the expectation, and potentially forced participation of, adopting a linguistic framework that violates my coherent one, instead of pursuing compatibility, which is the easiest to achieve in the world, believe it or not.
So I drill down on this question about language burdens, and I'm told it's not the specific words that really cause the problem, but it's in the abstract, where I shouldn't have a governmental body telling me what to do as it relates to speech. The transsexual pronoun issue is just one example from that abstract concern.
I then drill down further on that question, and I'm told it's really not an issue in the abstract because it's conceded that your jurisdiction doesn't impose such prohibitions.
No, it has and is being proposed as legislation all across the world as we speak.
You then explain the issue is actually in the hypothetical because you fear the cancer of Canada might spread southward and you'll then be burdened by having a government tell you how to speak.
No, I explain that objective instances of it happening, and by proxy the push to make it happen all across the world, is NOT a hypothetical, it is a clear potentiality.
That is, today we find ourselves on the precipice, teetering back and forth, and unless we snuff out this pronoun mind control, we might as well hand over our First Amendment free speech rights to the KGB banging at the door.
No, we found ourselves inching closer, objectively, as has been done in other parts of the world, to something that violates human reason. And, just for clarity's sake, any proposal that includes the compelled expression, or silence of expression the Human Consciousness that isn't itself a violation of the Human Consciousness, is evil and must be battled to the hilt. The historical record is clear as to what states do with that specific intrusion into human life.
My response to this is that I agree that free speech rights are worth protecting and I would object to burdens being imposed by the government with respect to it.
No, they're not worth protecting, they're the sole point of origin of all human activity and no claim to a right to the ownership of that human activity by anyone other than the human in question will ever be anything short of evil that must be eradicated from the face of the earth.
It makes me wonder whether this group is being singled out as the greatest threat to our free speech because they actually are, or whether it's all a pretextual effort to attack this historically attacked group.
No, they are attempting to single themselves out as justifiable arbiters of the monopoly on force to the degree they currently wish to employ it, a monopoly which is itself illegitimate to begin with. There is no group, by the way, of any kind that hasn't been historically mistreated. And none so much as philosophers. Power is indiscriminant. Governments abuse whoever they have to abuse to get what they want.
Why do some men use, or not use campy speech? One guess is that it depends on whether or not they have immersed themselves in campy gay bars from the get go. It takes practice to do well. Men who don't drink and smoke (and go to bars) are less likely to be campy [theoretical postulate... no evidence on hand]. Men from rural hick backwaters [me], however profoundly gay they might be, tend not to be campy
Is this all learned theater? Did you see La Cage aux Folles?
Remember the scene where the champagne was uncorked and everyone did a girlish scream? Do
you think that was pre-mediated theater or a deeply pre_conscious , reflexive perceptual reaction that gets to the heart of what I’m talking about?
Camp isn’t based on thin air, it’s the translation of a perceptual style many gay men are born with into something exaggerated and put on. Gay rural bumpkins may not know anything about camp but I will guarantee you they have those same perceptual tendencies that make many gays unable to hide what they are despite their best efforts.
No, we found ourselves inching closer, objectively, as has been done in other parts of the world, to something that violates human reason. And, just for clarity's sake, any proposal that includes the compelled expression, or silence of expression the Human Consciousness that isn't itself a violation of the Human Consciousness, is evil and must be battled to the hilt. The historical record is clear as to what states do with that specific intrusion into human life.
You need not fight the American Revolution again. Your side won. We wrote a Constitution that has enshrined every principle you speak of into the very fabric of our country, so much so that we intepret our Constitution much like the Bible, it's each inerrant word leading our every move.
I know what horrors lie beyond our border. That's always been something worth fighting to protect ourselves against.
Leave the transsexuals out of this battle for the soul of our country is all I'm saying. They aren't the enemy. They are the scapegoat. It can be hard to decipher one from the other.
Reply to Joshs Indeed. Some of my gay friends at school were 'camp' before they were 10. Pretty sure they had not been into any clubs or bars and certainly they had no models to borrow from.
Reply to JoshsReply to Tom Storm Some very campy gay man (can't remember) said "I never had a closet to hide in" because he was a campy child.
This sort of thing was just outside my cultural and experiential zone. Jerry, Rich, and Vic, three guys I met in my first year at Backwater State College (1964), were, I long since understood, campy and cruisey, but at the time that was something I hadn't previously witnessed. I did not know what to make of it.
So yes, I can acknowledge that these three guys, 2 rural, 1 urban at age 18 in backwater Minnesota were campy. Going back a little further, even I exhibited campy behavior at the age of 12, which wasn't appreciated.
Remember the scene where the champagne was uncorked and everyone did a girlish scream? Do you think that was pre-mediated theater or a deeply pre_conscious , reflexive perceptual reaction that gets to the heart of what I’m talking about?
La Cage, as a film, contained no actual spontaneous behavior of any kind. It employed a fair amount of exaggeration for effect, but sure, the gay characters didn't seem artificial.
Gay men in the Upper Midwest seem to be more tightly wrapped than gay men elsewhere in the country, though there are exceptions. When I moved to Boston from Minnesota in 1968 I found most people in Boston to be more open, spontaneous, and expressive than Midwesterners people. Others have observed the same differences.
I am a good example of a tightly wrapped, tightly screwed together gay man. I always needed a couple of drinks to loosen up enough to engage other men in bars, and I was by no means the only one. Do Midwesterners learn to be tightly wrapped and screwed together, or is it just the way we are? Geographical Determinism? Extreme weather? A disease spread by wood ticks?
Do Midwesterners learn to be tightly wrapped and screwed together, or is it just the way we are? Geographical Determinism? Extreme weather? A disease spread by wood ticks?
If you’re from Minnesota , there may be that Lake Wobegon Lutheran thing going on, “where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average."
Reply to praxis It is a Kinseyism that a lot of people are neither heterosexual or homosexual, they are bi-sexual. They are said to have satisfactory sex with both the same and opposite sex. (I'm taking this on faith, not on personal experience.). You have probably seen Kinsey's and other people's stats on bisexual behavior. A small percentage of men are exclusively homosexual (like...2.5%); a large percentage are exclusively heterosexual. Increasing percentages of men behave bisexually on their way to exclusive heterosexuality.
Is a man who has sex 60% with women and 40% with men homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual? Depends who is applying the definitions, I suppose. Kinsey (1894-1956) conducted his research in the 1940s and 1950s. His Institute at U-Indiana carries on today. How bisexual men found partners in the 1940s isn't clear to me -- I'd have to read a batch of Kinsey material, I suppose. And Kinsey's research was a new field: there was not a lot of nuts-and-bolts research before his.
Homophile advocate organizations (who have a vested interest in larger numbers) tend to claim 10% of the population as homosexual. I think this is wishful thinking. A friend of mine always asked, "If 10% of the population is gay, who is getting my share?"
In 2021, IPSOS, a French market research firm, conducted a large survey in 21 country, all continents. They found:
80% of people worldwide identified as heterosexual, 3% as homosexual, 4% as bisexual, and 1% each as pansexual, asexual, and other. Results indicated that significant differences in sexual identity have emerged between generations across the globe, with the youngest group, or Generation Z, being more likely to identify as bisexual (9%) than Millennials (4%), Generation X (3%) and Boomers (2%). Generation Z and Millennials were also more likely to identify as homosexual, with 4% and 3% doing so respectively, compared to 2% of Generation X and 1% of Boomers. In addition, the survey found that men are more likely than women to identify as homosexual (4% vs. 1%).
There are, of course, obvious problems in pinning down actual sexual behavior. Unless one can use a massive and intrusive 'bird watching' approach, one has to rely on self-report.
Deleted UserFebruary 22, 2022 at 22:27#6579990 likes
You need not fight the American Revolution again. Your side won. We wrote a Constitution that has enshrined every principle you speak of into the very fabric of our country, so much so that we intepret our Constitution much like the Bible, it's each inerrant word leading our every move.
A paper document means nothing to a society that does not value such principles. I don't speak to you from the perspective of any written document, either. The Constitution is an artifact of a philosophical tradition that predates the Enlightenment, and from whence almost every Scientific Revolutionary and Enlightenment principle was plagiarised, precepts that have given rise to the most thriving societies in the history of Human Kind. The Constitution, particularly the first 2 Amendments, are nothing more than the logical conclusions regarding what a government has any justification to do to people, and what it is sworn to protect in accordance with that philosophical tradition. And it is from the perspective of that trdition's continuation that I engage with you. And, so you understand, the provisions of the first 2 Amendments are not meant to lead you, but allow you to your own leading, as long as you don't violate the same intrinsic entitlement of others. We are a failed society to the very degree at which those 2 Amendments are violated, particularly the 1st.
Leave the transsexuals out of this battle for the soul of our country is all I'm saying. They aren't the enemy. They are the scapegoat. It can be hard to decipher one from the other.
That's been precisely my point, friend. The enemy is not the people who differ in opinion, or understandings of concepts, but those willing to use force to make you share, or participate in their behavioral implications. By and large, this is not a phenomenon among the majority of any group of individuals. But, it is specifically those who are perceiving unequal treatment that are preyed upon by the power hungry to induce the aggression required to desire, and achieve such authority in the form of enshrined law. We have been a failed society from the exact moment that Bill of Rights was rattified, and subsequently violated through discriminatory recognition, and the complete violation of it in the form of those who did not make the preferred list of the big club. The state, and all of its permutations are not just your real enemies, but the enemies of Human Kind. Nonetheless, I will always leave them out of the battle for the soul of the Human Race, as long as they do not stand to violate it themselves.
You have probably seen Kinsey's and other people's stats on bisexual behavior.
Just reviewed some of the findings on the site, interesting. Strangely, I noticed that one of the most commonly searched topics on the site is penis size. Not to boast but I'm happy to report that I'm above average. :party:
the most commonly searched topics on the site is penis size.
This is something else that Sigmund Freud got wrong. It isn't women who have penis envy, it is men. We all want to know how well we hang in comparison with other men--desperately hoping and mis-measuring to show that we are at least 1/8th of an inch above average.
It's not the ship, it's the motion of the ocean. (consolation prize)
Deleted UserFebruary 23, 2022 at 00:55#6580740 likes
Do you believe there is such a thing as psychological gender, apart from biological chromosomal sex?
Yes, but not in those kinds of terms. The way it appears to be me, given what is known about cognition, is that personalities are split into types. This as a result of genetic predisposition, epigenetic influences, abuse and trauma, and ostracism or overparenting. Psychological gender is not the right term to be using, and such a concept only applies to a radically small proportion of society. Menaing you don't just get to appropriate terms from 90%+ of the population and apply them to things that do not make coherent sense. Psychological gender, as a personality type, is better understood as something more like identity-ambiguity personality type. Gender is used to describe what is already coherently established and associated with a vast. vast plethora of biological disparaties between men and women, and are not terms to be appropriated by people that cannot even define what they are themselves. You ask these folks what these terms mean, and they say anything but the established paradigm, and offer no alternative explanations. Some simply leave it at, "it cannot be defined by me." In which case I'm left to insist, "then go find a way to do so without using words already in usage to describe something else."
Paychological gender would refer to a brain-wiring that produces what I call a perceptual-affective masculine or feminine style.
And just exactly what is this brain wiring? Any clearly observed instances of it? Any reason why an aberrant brain wiring would imply the use of labels already in use by other people? This is the ambiguity I'm talking about with this stuff. It needs to be clearly defined, so that I can integrate it into my linguistic paradigm in a separate, but equal compartment to men and women, and gender. You understand? That's a big problem here. There's a reason why the logical fallacies are present and identified in logic. The moment one is introduced into an assertion or an argument, it derails the entire logically coherent body of thought that led up to that point, if it isn't highlighted and dismissed. The fallacy of ambiguity, making assertions predicated on not agreed upon langauge, is what that is. It isn't just a desire of mine, it is a requirement to clearly define terms, before any peaceful and productive conversation can be had on the subject. And damn sure before legislation begins to be proposed.
This difference in behavior is what allows dog experts and breeders to tell male dogs from
female dogs based on their behavior. Do you think the same brain-wiring difference separates human males and females?
That's not even a question in neuroscience. Differences in the male and female brains have been an established scientific fact for years now. That being said, you have to understand, the human brain is literally the most advanced, sophisticated, structural and functionally complex, creative, destructive, and productive singular system in the known universe, literally. Meaning, it can't just be a wiring thing that constitutes a conclusion. Personality types arise through complex processes that involve many factors. I do believe identity-ambiguity is a naturally emerging set of personality types within the context of the right influences on brain. But, in short, no, I do not believe anyone is "born this way," beyond what is genetically established. Nobody is born anyway out side of consistently observable biomarkers and genotypical phenomena, except in cases of problems in gestation. I think something far more complex is at work in all things human brain related. But, we don't know enough yet, which just intensifies the ambiguity issue.
Here's a source on differences, plenty where this comes from: https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.html
in short, no, I do not believe anyone is "born this way," beyond what is genetically established. Nobody is born anyway out side of consistently observable biomarkers and genotypical phenomena, except in cases of problems in gestation. I think something far more complex is at work in all things human brain related. But, we don't know enough yet, which just intensifies the ambiguity issue.
The article you linked to mentioned male and female
chromosomal differences as a potential source of the gender-based behavioral differences they discuss. But it has not been proven that genes are the only source of such brain differences. There has been as much attention directed toward the hormonal environment in the womb, and this has been suggested as an explanation of homosexuality. That is, that more feminizing hormones and less testosterone in utero can create a more feminine brain in a male body.
If this is true, then perhaps many transsexuals can be seen as gay men and women who want their bodies to ‘match’ their brain wiring.
Deleted UserFebruary 23, 2022 at 01:24#6580820 likes
The article you linked to mentioned male and female
chromosomal differences as a potential source of the gender-based behavioral differences they discuss. But it has not been proven that genes are the only source of such brain differences.
If this is true, then perhaps many transsexuals can be seen as gay men and women who want their bodies to ‘match’ their brain wiring.
Yes, if that is the most rationally consistent way to go about it. Again, all I care about is that established science isn't being overlooked, and that I am not forced to participate in something that violates my coherent linguistic framework. I need time to assess and integrate information. Which is exactly how they would feel If I brought to their attention something that violated their framework of understanding and expected them to participate. They would literally respond with opposition in almost every case of such a proposition.
If this is true, then perhaps many transsexuals can be seen as gay men and women who want their bodies to ‘match’ their brain wiring.
— Joshs
Yes, if that is the most rationally consistent way to go about it.
How is it rational see a biologically male sex and a psychologically female gender as a woman, or a biologically female sex and a psychologically male gender as a man?
Deleted UserFebruary 23, 2022 at 03:37#6581060 likes
How is it rational see a biologically male sex and a psychologically female gender as a woman, or a biologically female sex and a psychologically male gender as a man?
Notice how I said "IF," that's a conditional It isn't rational within the context of our current linguistic paradigm. And I have actually said here that it is not proper for trans to be appropriating an established linguistic paradigm and expecting us to use it. However, if we can peaceably conclude a rational element to it, then there isn't a problem, we'll just be able to integrate it into our paradigm without negating it.
Reply to Joshs Don't be silly. You're putting forward the same type of model as the traditional ones. So you're, basically, doing the same thing as those you oppose, you just add a couple of more models, nothing more.
The traditional model expects biological males to operate in a particular perceptual-affective style considered "male", and biological females to operate in a particular perceptual-affective style considered "female". You switch this up a bit so that even biological males can be considered to operate in a particular perceptual-affective style considered "female", and biological females to operate in a particular perceptual-affective style considered "male".
But neither the traditional model nor you encourage one to, you know, just talk to the person. Instead, you both encourage people to act within scripted roles, and to interact with eachother in terms of those scripted roles (because this is what "perceptual-affective styles" are, scripted roles).
We are born with many personality traits that are robust and stable. to recognize them in others is to see their style, the art of their being with you. Recognizing the art of their personality style allows you a greater intimacy with them. Gender behavior is an art of being, and not seeing it deprives both you and others of this intimacy of relation.
Do you believe there is such a thing as psychological gender, apart from biological chromosomal sex?
Paychological gender would refer to a brain-wiring that produces what I call a perceptual-affective masculine or feminine style. This difference in behavior is what allows dog experts and breeders to tell male dogs from
female dogs based on their behavior.
No, people who have dogs and several other species of animals often tell them apart by their biological sex by looking under their tail/between their legs. Not by behavior.
Do you think the same brain-wiring difference separates human males and females?
There's a reason why a certain school of psychology was called "rat psychology", with all its pejorative implications.
No. What "ignited furor" was the superficiality level at which the entire discussion should take place, and the bad faith in which it should be conducted.
Just shows you what lengths people will go to to find self-acceptance in a culture where the concept of psychological gender is still uncomprehended. I’m glad you at least comprehend the distinction between biological sex and gender. You will help to one day make such surgeries unnecessary. Because, of course, that’s the only thing that’s really going to stop it.
It’s interesting and perhaps revealing that your description of gender mentions only who one is sexually attracted to, and nothing about what I would consider to be a more central aspect of gender for many in the gay community , which has to do with a global perceptual-affective style, of which sexual attraction is merely one small aspect. For those who dont grasp this , it is incoherent to talk about gayness outside of sexual attraction, and I think that is part of the problem.
Many heterosexual people have the same view of their own gender identity -- that's it isn't merely about whom they are sexually attracted to, but "who they really are, as persons".
Women's magazines, for example, are full of descriptions and prescriptions about what "a woman" is supposed to be like. From what I've seen on websites for "manliness", there is a similar model focus as to "what it means to be a man".
All in all, I see this as an obsession with roles, models, basically, play-acting. As if "who one really is" can and should (!) be defined with a model, and then an actual person is supposed to fit themselves into some model, which functions as a Procrustean bed.
Deleted UserFebruary 26, 2022 at 04:22#6595250 likes
It isn't rational within the context of our current linguistic paradigm.
Linguistic paradigms are ever-changing; they are not determinate objects. Even if they were not constantly evolving, who could be qualified to establish the supposed boundaries of a linguistic paradigm?
Deleted UserFebruary 26, 2022 at 04:58#6595350 likes
Linguistic paradigms are ever-changing; they are not determinate objects. Even if they were not constantly evolving, who could be qualified to establish the supposed boundaries of a linguistic paradigm?
No, you're misunderstanding entirely. You've practically just reiterated my exact point and then criticized a conclusion that I didn't express. Let me clear up my writing: Paradigms that have already been established by the exact ever-changing evolutionary processes you and I both acknowledge, are not subjects that anyone will tolerate threats being used to changed. You, all of you here, need to understand that just such a proposition is not only exactly what has been being posited all over the world - even made law in Canada - but is exactly what this whole debacle has been about for 7 or so years now. Specifically that proposition, nothing else.
To be even clearer:
Changing the paradigm through organic means and peaceful communication is not the problem. The problem is the paradigm being associated with threats of forcing me to participate by law, calling me names for not participating, getting me fired because I don't participate, asserting that science is non-existent, exposing young children who aren't your to this in any more than a descriptive manner, or talking young children into undergoing life-altering modifications of anykind through manipulation. There is not, and has never been, any other issue than that.
Reply to Garrett Travers That may well be true, but doesn't apply to my case, since I wasn't getting heated. I was merely pointing out what I thought was an inconsistency with actuality in what you were saying. I hadn't realized you were talking about others with authority stipulating the boundaries of the current linguistic paradigm (or, more accurately imagining that they are).
Deleted UserFebruary 26, 2022 at 05:19#6595410 likes
That may well be true, but doesn't apply to my case, since I wasn't getting heated. I was merely pointing out what I thought was an inconsistency with actuality in what you were saying. I hadn't realized you were talking about others with authority stipulating the boundaries of the current linguistic paradigm (or, more accurately imagining that they are).
Yes, it doesn't actually require it taking place, humans need only perceive such a threat to respond in defense. That's why when you're dealing among the general populace, it's essential that communication is extended as a voluntary proposition, this is the basis of ethics, as well as business. My consciousness (and everyone else's) has too many self contained neural data sets that constitute paradigms of navigating through the world and maximizing self, and valued other(s) homeostasis. And it belongs to me, not people who want me to adopt their paradigm. Consider such in Mormon terms. What's more reasonable, to approach your door with the presupposition that if you don't want to adopt, or even talk about adopting my Mormon paradigm, then I should peacefully vacate your purview? Or, threaten your job because you won't accept Joseph Smith as prophet? There is nothing different between any paradigm.
Yes, or threaten your job because you do accept Joseph Smith as a prophet, for that matter.
Yes. It's very funny too, because, even those doing the threatening are doing so out of some perceived threat of the exact same kind, just inversed. New, freshly integrated paradigms that are hot off the coals with a bit of coherence and some corespondence think they have the fucking world figured out, and when you say "nah, sounds dumb, leave me alone," bam, inner explosion leading to outward aggression. You've just insulted a new, heavily emotionally valenced coherent network of data that individuals perceive as a part of their identity itself. The key around this, is to know what one's brain is doing. But, people aren't being educated on such things, now are they?
A more apt analogy would be for them to threaten your job for being anti-Mormon, which they probably would.
That's why I led with that. In this analogy, it is the people of one Kuhnesque paradigm of language (traditional male/female biology and norms) being threatened, by and large, to accept a new one (identity ambiguity) that hasn't been established in any Kuhnesque manner, or in any manner they seem to be willing to coherently agree upon. Which is oddly, a sort of break in the Kuhnian paradigm shift model, as paradigms are usually replaced with paradigms of greater coherence and breadth. A paradigm shift predicated on one of ambiguity replacing a coherent one is a recipe for extended paradigmatic friction. It's been 7 years or so now of endless friction. To put this into perspective, the paradigm shift that took place as a result of Hubble's constant being introduced to cosmology took a full ten years, but was in its peaceful transitional phase within 3. Guess we'll see where this goes, eh?
A reference: https://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/Kuhn.html
The key around this, is to know what one's brain is doing. But, people aren't being educated on such things, now are they?
Is it necessary to know what the brain is doing, neurally speaking, in order to know what we think and to assess whether or not it is rational? No amount of examination of neural processes, even if you could reliably equate them with specific trains of thought, would enable you to distinguish between an irrational and a rationally valid train of thought I would hazard to assert. Well, at least it doesn't seem possible to imagine any way that could be done, in any case. One might argue that we don't know what the future of neuroscience might bring to the table, but I think it is precisely for that reason that we should stick to what it is capable of right now. Promissory notes as premises do not good arguments make.
A more apt analogy would be for them to threaten your job for being anti-Mormon, which they probably would.
Well, the difference there is that one is a matter of personal faith and the other is an example of bigotry. For a Mormon to threaten your job because you don't accept Joseph Smith as a prophet might be seen by a Mormon as being justified because that position is anti Mormon, but that conclusion would be unjustified unless you showed some signs of actually being against Mormonism, in which case you would be fired for bigotry, which I think would be justified, especially if the job in question were an administrative position in the Mormon church.
Deleted UserFebruary 26, 2022 at 23:34#6598160 likes
would enable you to distinguish between an irrational and a rationally valid train of thought I would hazard to assert.
Yes, in the sense of some sort of observation. I can distinguish between my own rational thoughts that I employ to inform action, as opposed to emotion. But, each person's rational capacities are so different that we would all mistake eachother's rationality for irrationality. You see this just in people's arguments.
One might argue that we don't know what the future of neuroscience might bring to the table, but I think it is precisely for that reason that we should stick to what it is capable of right now.
Yes, because the current paradigm of understanding is pretty consistent and supported. There's no real reason to challenge. It isn't as if new research is being conducted that challenges the paradigm. There may be ambiguous stuff that arises that can easily be placed within the scope of the paradigm, but no anomolies that need to be totally addressed independently.
Promissory notes as premises do not good arguments make.
Exactly. The idea is simple, if one is going to take the path of the philosopher, and therefore most rational: provide evidence of something that challenges current established science, or yield. When evidence is presented, it becomes our duty to investigate things. But, people do not need to confuse ambiguous evidence, with anomolous evidence. Ambiguous evidence is simply evidence that seems incompatible with the current framework, but is actually compatibe. Like quantum mechanics and relativity.
Comments (560)
Do something different, like what's with hurricanes? They're deadly and no one does anything about it.
Nobody cares that most of the earth's biomass is ants. Why is this accepted? Whyyyyyyyyy?
It's not actually ants, tho.
Can a male be turned into a female? How?
Can a male have a period and give birth?
Has reality changed since I was born?
Chromosomal sex is not the entirety of sex. There’s also hormonal sex and anatomical sex. If anything, anatomical sex is the original referent of the word, from before we knew anything about hormones or chromosomes. And there are some people naturally born with a chromosomal sex that differs from their hormonal or anatomical sex (women AFAB but with XY chromosomes), and everyone has always referred to them by their anatomical sex (as we usually don’t know anything but anatomical sex about anyone).
Hormonal and genital sex can be changed already, and it’s only a matter of time before chromosomal sex can be changed too (hello CRISPR).
Let's walk through this. Presumably, sex is a matter of chromosomes (it's not exactly; but that's close enough for government work). So let's call a person who is XY male-sexed, and a person who is XX female-sexed.
Now let's define a sex change in these terms. A sex change would be a change in the chromosomes from XY to XX, or XX to XY. This is what you're claiming is not possible. I'll presume by possible you're referring to something like technological feasibility.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
...and here we fail. It doesn't appear that it is technologically feasible to change a person from male-sexed to female-sexed.
So, maybe you're going to have to explain this to me. What impossible thing are you referring to that is accepted as a concept?
No. I have never needed to know about someone's chromosomes to know whether they are male or female.
There are huge number of things that define someone as a woman. Wearing make up and dresses is not one of them.
Okay, so how do you tell?
Scientifically, there is a difference between a male who has had surgery to appear female and who is taking female hormones versus one who has not.
Why would you only recognize distinctions that occur only at birth and not those through human effort.
Seems arbitrary.
Who claimed that it was?
Having surgery to mutilate your genitalia and spending a life time on wrong sex hormones and other body damaging chemicals is not changing sex it is forcing your body to be something it doesn't want to be and once hormones stop it will revert back to it's natural self.
These surgeries (in my opinion) are Frankenstein surgeries and abusive. people who have had their breasts or penis removed and then detransition cannot replace them. The rate of detransition has risen with the rate of trans acceptance.
But where is the philosophy in this? Who has defended this sex change magic?
How can it be ethical to chop off healthy breasts and penises?
If your body "wants" high levels of blood sugar, should you modify it with insulin injections only to watch it revert to its natural diabetic state as God, blessed be He, intended it once you cleanse it of the unnatural synthetic insulin?
This conversation will come down to what you think is a healthy state, with the final question being who gets to decide how they wish to live their lives, you or the affected person.
Having such surgeries is scientifically possible; but since when is bodies wanting to be things scientific?
Quoting Andrew4Handel
Not always.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
That sounds anecdotal, not scientific. Silly me, but by your OP I thought you were complaining about the acceptance of something that was scientifically impossible.
Breast reduction and enhancement surgeries occur in contexts other than in transsexual situations. Do you object to those?
Quoting Andrew4Handel
Trans people aren't necessarily gay.
It is not a distinction it is a case of natural and artificial. I think pretending to be the opposite sex is a lie. Prove me otherwise That is the human effort. It is like camouflage. A woman is not something superficial but a biological reality and the reason we are all here because only women can gestate, and give birth
Some trans people have claimed they wish they could have abortions, they enjoy being catcalled because it validates their woman hood they have stated an array of sexist ideas about women hood that I can freely quote. It is clearly a fantasy that can never be achieved but based on misogyny but also women who want to be men are often trying to escape misogyny and the abuse they faced as women
Most of the Iranian transsexuals are and most detransitioned women are lesbians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_rights_in_Iran#Forced_surgery_for_homosexual_people
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wg51RnpGn9k
"Woman" and "female" are words and can be redefined any time standard usage changes. If enough people accept people born as biological males who identify themselves as females as women, then they will be. That battle is being fought vigorously on the political, legal, and social front right now.
There is a recognized psychological diagnosis - gender dysphoria - in which a person born with one biological sex feels as though they are the other. It's certainly debatable, but recognizing them as such is not necessarily unreasonable.
It certainly hasn't gone that far yet, but the legal and social differences between women and men have become less prominent, less important during my lifetime. On the other hand, there are still times when the distinction is very important, e.g. women and men often have to be treated differently medically. Even so, It's not as big a deal what people call themselves as it once was. Some people, maybe even I, might say "Who cares." Others, maybe even you, might say "I care a lot."
Quoting Andrew4Handel
I suspect it was exactly the kind of response you were hoping for.
A double mastectomy is not a a breast reduction. It is breast annihilation and when performed on young women can lead to chronic pain in later life. Hysterectomies increase the risk of Alzheimer's, heart attacks and osteoporosis.
Plastic surgery has often been abused (Michael Jackson/Joycelyn Wildenstein) not all surgery is therapeutic or life saving.
The only reason trans surgeries are seen as life saving is because they are seen to prevent suicides but little to none of the literature supports that.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4771004/
It is reality denying. It is unscientific. It prioritises peoples mental states over reality. We don't apply this "logic" in many areas of life.
Haven't you seen sissies in male bodies and a butch in female bodies? Even in this forum, don't you see
examples of people who would normally be considered as grown men (age factor), acting like sissies with their hissy fits, when they go around trolling others? These are not very 'manlike' qualities now are they?
When you take into account factors like the above, and other markers like psychological dispositions, conduct etc., you might want to re-consider how you define and separate the sex.I sure am having a hard time deciding on some of the posters/trolls here.
In what sense is it anecdotal? I have survived 45 years using my ears and eyes to tell me how reality works. I am not going to distrust my senses based on someone else's self i.d. in their mind.
I thought gender dysphoria was a mental illness now we are told it's not these people are really trapped in the wrong body and being liberated by surgeons and big pharma.
Stopping a child achieving puberty and making them infertile is now liberation theology.
It seems to me that we can distinguish four broad views about sex (scope for lots of disagreement within these):
A) Physicalism about sex
One's sex is constitutively determined by sets of physical features.
B) Subjectivism about sex
One's sex is constitutively determined by subjective features (one's attitudes etc).
C) Pluralism about sex
One's sex is constitutively determined by bundles of features that include - or can include - both subjective and physical properties.
D) Historicism about sex
One's sex is constitutively determined at a particular time and is fixed thereafter. So, on this view, there is a 'baptismal' point at which, due to satisfying the conditions of one of either A, B or C, you are sex X, Y, or neither. And that's what you are thereafter.
To clarify: take a genuine Leonardo da Vinci. What makes it a Leonardo da Vinci? Well, it possesses a historical property: Leonardo da Vinci painted it. And that's why an exact replica won't qualify, no matter that it possesses all the same current-time-slice properties.
If either of A or B or C is true, then one's sex can be changed. Exactly what it would take to change it would, of course, be determined by the substance of A, B or C.
But if D is true, then changing one's sex would require undoing the past. And that seems like something only God could do.
So, does sex have a historical component? I have to say, my own intuitions say that it doesn't. "I used to be a woman, but now I am a man" does not sound confused (whereas "this used to be a Leonardo da Vinci, but now it is a Rubens" does).
This is a result of sexism
Men are considered effeminate for not acting macho, women are considered butch for not acting girly.
Women are not camp men and men are not butch lesbians. Gender non conformity should not lead to genital mutilation and a life time on chemicals.
I am concerned about the erosion of women's rights, gay erasure, suppression of gender non conformity, life altering surgeries leading to a life time of health care etc not what is in someone's pants. Most trans people do not pass ( I have known four) I don't need to look in peoples underwear. The one's that pass are a luck minority. Elliot page looks unhappy and awful yet is being affirmed by people for what has happened to they.
There are two kinds of sex - mental and physical. That mental sex is real is evidenced by transgenders (mismatch between mental and physical sex). Sex change is limited to the physical and, interestingly, a transgender will request that faer body be modified to match faer mental sex. I've never heard of any transgender requesting the opposite - reprogramming faer mind to match faer body. In other words, mental sex trumps physical sex i.e. a person's true sex is faer mental sex. I can pick up the telltale signs of a paradox - that transgenders exist implies that sex is mental but that they want a sex change implies that their main concern is physical sex! Go figure!
The point was, one has to reconsider their definitions on how you separate or define the sex's. Taking into account the associated psychological and conduct requirements. Case in point, some of the forum members.
I completely disagree. Who has discovered this "mental sex". By mental do you mean immaterial?
Before the discovery of hormones and extensive advances in plastic surgery there was no way to live other than in the body you were born in. There is no evidence of mass trans suicides before they could get surgery and hormones.
This mental sex appears to consists of an array of stereotypes about the opposite sex. Men and women's dress and roles has varied throughout time and culture.
Sexual dimorphism is the reason that there are billions of humans created by reproduction not because someone assigned our sex at birth.
Do not pass what? Wind?
I've worked with trans children and seen the difference that recognition makes to them. I don't pretend to understand transsexuality, but that does not lead me to damn it, as you do.
That is sex stereotypes which is the foundation of transgenderism. It is about conforming to stereotypes to feel comfortable. Many women now wear trousers but if you go on reddit trans sub reddit's most of the men identifying as women wear skirts and say how great it feels.
They don't say anything that reminds me of my three sisters and their experiences as being women. It just comes of as a fetish.
But which of A, B, C or D is true is a philosophical matter. It is just that position B - subjectivism about sex - is a position that is going to be especially appealing to a certain sort of sexist (not all -there's more than one way to be a sexist!). That doesn't mean B is false, of course. It just explains why many support it - there are a lot of sexists out there. Though one could endorse B and not be a sexist, of course.
In the definitive sense:
Quoting Andrew4Handel
That doesn't sound very scientific to me. Using your eyes and ears to tell you how reality works is what nearly everyone does. Also, scientists don't tend to go around declaring whose eyes and ears they are going to trust and whose eyes and ears they are going to distrust.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
Given you have opened this thread talking about science, what does the science say?
What are trans children?
Most children with gender dysphoria are gay and without intervention resolve their identity issues. Affirmation and puberty blockers etc prolong gender dysphoria.
I am lucky I am a gay man who only wanted to hang around with girls as a young child. I liked hanging around with girls without feeling there was anything wrong with this. I enjoyed being around the opposite sex with no shame and no need to not identify as male. I was diagnosed as autistic in my 40's which explains my non conformity but also 2 trans identified people I know I met through autism services and the other 2 trans people I know exhibited autistic traits.
Folk are complicated. Let 'em work it out for themselves. They don't need middle aged men telling them what to do.
Or if you prefer, suck it up and mind your own business.
Science has to assume that some human faculties are accurate., Are you seriously claiming you cannot identify who is male and female. The start of categorisation of entities is based on the reliability of the human senses.
Science shows and every day experience that only a man and woman can produce a children.
They have yet to create the insane dystopia of trying to give a woman a penis implant and implant a womb in a man. But by Jebus they are trying hard.
Undermining women's rights, women's sports, gay erasure and genital mutilation, medication of children is everyone's business I am not selfish enough to think otherwise.
This comment is incoherent. You claim there is no distinction, but then you distinguish one as being natural and the other artificial, while my position has been that you've established a distinction that makes no difference and that you only object to when it offends your views on sexual morality. Not sure this can be unmuddled.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
Sure, and breast enhancements and face lifts and all sorts of elective procedures have risks. Why do you get to weigh in on other's piercings, tattoos, breast enlargements, or whatever? What moral principle is violated by allowing these decisions to be made by adults without your two cents Quoting Andrew4Handel
So as long as the decision isn't made on the basis of suicide prevention you're OK with it, or does that article mean more than that?Quoting Andrew4Handel
That was a really (as in award winning) ridiculous post. Iran forces gay people into sex change operations because I guess they figure that will eliminate homosexuality. So, of fucking course most trans people in Iran are gay. Their fucked up beyond repair government forces them on a gurney and performs involuntary surgery on them. You then use as evidence that most trans are gay the results of Iran's fucked up practice.
I gave it my best shot.
I think that cosmetic surgery which is self harm in many cases is a concern because it is self harm. I am not pro suicide or pro self harm.
This young man now has to live the rest of his life without a penis because some generous surgeon cut it off.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWv7RNlVjaU&t=312s
A moral principle based on self indulgence (that is how it is nowadays) is narcissism and solipsism writ large and does not promote anyone's welfare other than ones own self ID. It is not a foundation for community/society.
I think I am sympathetic to what you're saying. For like I say, I do think that at present this debate offers a way for a certain kind of sexist to express their sexist attitudes. And this particular kind of sexist is going to endorse position B as a way of doing this. That doesn't mean position B is sexist or that anyone who endorses it is a sexist. But many sexists are going to endorse position B, and be doing so for sexist reasons (rather than apparent epistemic ones).
1. If you're a sexist (of a certain sort), then you'll find position B plausible (if P, then Q)
2. I find position B plausible (Q)
3. Therefore I am a sexist (therefore P)
That's clearly fallacious. So one could defend B and not be a sexist, but many sexists will defend B.
There are different ways to be a sexist, and in saying that position B will appeal to a sexist of a certain sort, I am not suggesting that those who endorse A or C or D are not capable of being sexists too (many will be).
It seems to me, though, that you're endorsing a stronger position: you seem to be saying that position B is essentially sexist. Would that be correct?
I don't personally think subjectivism about sex is the correct view. I think A is correct. My sex is a feature of my body, not of me (for I am not my body). But as such I think sex can be changed. I think only D would result in a 'sex can't be changed' conclusion. (And I think D isn't all that plausible).
Most trans men are gay and most trans women are autogynephilic The problem is the rejection of ones sex due to internalised homophobia..
Can you give me one HEALTHY reason for rejecting ones biological sex?
And not clever enoughto phrase the problem in a considered, respectful way.
Yes.
The idea that you can become the opposite sex ignores biological reality and embodiment. Women are the main losers because men who have dominated women for millennia can now claim to be women by wearing a dress and lipstick and undermine them and win at their sports and get women of the year awards and invade spaces designed for the protection of women against male violence.
Being a woman is then reduced to the superficial not biological reality.
Science does not rely on anecdotes.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
Yes, I'm seriously claiming I cannot always tell.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
Okay, but that does not entail that science has to rely on anecdotes, nor does it suffice to show that anecdotal evidence is scientific. Neither of those things are true.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
I crossed out the superfluous part. To the best of my knowledge, there's no ethical current technology to produce a human offspring without involving a male and a female, though there are potential unethical technologies. But this is simply factual; there's nothing normative here.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
"insane dystopia" is a political term. As for the science, there's no scientific theory I'm aware of that states that it is impossible to give a woman such a penis. The absolute best you can say is that there's no extant technology to pull this off.
I engaged you over the scientific claims. You keep replying to me, but nowhere are you backing up that there's anything scientific here... you're just trying to pass off your politics as scientific. Here, I don't much care about anything else; there are plenty of folk here who will be happy to politicize with you.
I don't respect misogyny, child abuse and gay erasure. I am not going to pretend people can change sex to spare someone's feelings just Like I am not going top pretend the moon is made of cheese. I am not going to endorse penis and vagina mutilation. You can do it and be on the wrong side of history whatever...
If a trans person is happy with the results, it isn't harm.Quoting Andrew4Handel
Again, you've not shown why sexual issues should be treated differently than other forms of self-indulgence, like buying a sports car, getting a face lift, buying designer clothes.
Why do trans people so offend you and epitomize for you self indulgence when their brand of self expression is so relatively rare but others so common?Quoting Andrew4Handel
Since it's in all caps, I suppose it's your critical term. What does it mean and is adherence to it universally decreed or just when it involves sexual issues?
Being able to identify a male form a female is not an anecdote and if you claim so you are just outright lying about reality. It is insulting to men and women to deny the reality of sexual dimorphism to humour people with dysphoria or gender saboteurs. There is a huge literature on male and female bodies. reproduction, vaginas penises, sperm etc this is not like someone mistaking a bush for a cow in the middle of the night.
Either way if woman becomes a man they are still a woman who has become a man. Actions cannot erase the history/experience.
@TheMadFool I’m not inclined to agree that there are different ‘kinds of sex’ as you said above. Neither am I inclined to use other derivatives of terms that are generally created to by someone to make a name for themselves in a certain field of interest. They should either create a completely new term or think carefully about how using the same term in a different manner could muddy the waters and accomplish little more than academic confusion and/or create misunderstanding in the public sphere at large.
That said, there are grey areas and that’s fine. As mentioned above it is more than possible in the not too distant future that people will be able to fully change from one sex to another, and I’m sure some will abscond and turn to surgery instead for various personal reasons.
Defining oneself by any one particular aspect of out being seems a little obsessive to me. Sadly society forces some to have to react against the ‘norm’.
It is by definition an anecdote. I gave you the definition. What part of that definition does not apply?
But there is little evidence that reassignment surgery causes happiness. It does not end dysphoria. But happiness is not evidence of goodness. There were happy Nazi's. This is emotional blackmail writ large where someone has something happen due to threats of self harm,.
If this is the case, it will come out eventually. In the meantime there are people who feel great relief from putting down their burden. Leave them be.
Well you have just found a problem with the notion of science. In what sense is any observation not a personal account?
An anecdote is usually when some uses one experience to generalise. I am not using ONE experience I am using a lifetime of being around men an women.
But there is science as well. For example men are taller on average than woman. Lauren Laverne identifies as female and is much taller than Chase Strangio who identifies as male. The failure to "pass" is due to people innate ability to recognise sex differences.
Leave the wealthy surgeons to chop of healthy breasts and penises to fund their children's college education? This is a societal issue
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZ_FRsKAJqk
35 thousand women trying to raise funds for mastectomies on "Just giving" and "Go fund me"
You can't stop them.
Be that as it may, that's the way things are. Bitch and moan. Gnash your teeth. Repeat after me "Hell in a hand basket," "Why, when I was a boy..." My prediction - this will all die down fairly quickly. It will not longer be fashionable to be transgender. Those who are left will be those with true gender dysphoria. Keep in mind that I'm almost always wrong when I make this kind of prediction.
I'll be satisfied as long as children are protected from making decisions that have serious consequences and are hard to reverse.
The equivalent is everyone having to believe I am a genius because I claim I am one. I find this psychologically damaging. Some trans people (maybe most?) will acknowledge they have not changed sex but are living as the sex they feel comfortable with. They will accept claims such as "Trans women are men"
For myself as a gay male I do not need societies affirmation or approval to know what I am. I grew up with religious homophobia and that is probably the main reason I left Christianity. But now society has to change to pander to everyone's self identity and assimilate everyone else's personal beliefs..
I don't think subjectivism about sex is very plausible. But I don't see why it would be 'essentially' sexist to endorse the view (stupid, perhaps, but not necessarily sexist).
I take it that one way to be a sexist is to think that women 'ought' to behave in certain ways, have certain attitudes and so on (and likewise for men). So, it is not a view about what makes someone a man or a women, but about what you 'ought' to do and feel etc, if you are one or the other. So it is that normative element that makes it sexist.
But to think that you are a man or a women depending on whether you hold those attitudes, behave in those ways etc, though quite silly as a philosphical position, is not itself sexist, as it is not a normative view. It is descriptive, not normative.
It's just that many who hold the normative view are led by it to endorse the descriptive view. They reason, presumably, something like this: this is how women ought to behave.....I am behaving in that way......therefore I am a woman. It's fallacious reasoning and has a sexist premise. To make the conclusion follow one would need to put in a premise expressing the truth of B. And thus the slightly more reflective sexist will be driven to endorse B. But that doesn't make B sexist, for the sexism was expressed in the premise that said "this is how women ought to behave; or ought to think; etc".
So I think B may be quite a silly view, but I don't see that it is essentially sexist, even though many sexists (of a certain sort) may end up endorsing it.
To intentionally use the pun, science has made controlling for all sorts of errors in personal accounts a science. Scientific observations would employ said controls. Your personal observations are most certainly not controlled.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
Sure; humans are sexually dimorphic. But note that you're immediately jumping to averages, because the dimorphism in heights isn't all that extreme. There are plenty of short males and tall females. This is child's play compared to the sexual size dimorphism found in spiders.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
This is also anecdotal. Incidentally, are you sure you really mean Lauren Laverne?
Do you really think a biologically born female and a trans female lack recognition of their historical and current differences and that hey live in a delusional state, or do you think maybe they see as clearly as you do, but it's really a civil rights issue and a desire not to be treated like a freak?
If you think you're enlightening anyone with your clarity, you're not. You're just demanding a rigid classification system that will do nothing more than further ostracize, attack, and bully an already oppressed and vilified super minority. You bring no light to this issue in any sense.
Since I assume you don't live with the delusion that you will effectively scold the ttans community into submission to your will, can you at least acknowledge their existence is not being made more HEALTHY by your and your ilk's berating?
I meant Laverne Cox. Yikes.
Quoting InPitzotl
How did humans create 7 billion of themselves? It is not an average it is a huge majority of humans displaying sexual dimorphism. Puberty blockers , hormones and genitals surgeries lead to the evolutionary dead end of infertility.
Unlike some species humans cannot spontaneously change sex and remain fertile.
I do not think trans people exist. No one can change sex. I have posted a video of a young man on here who had his penis destroyed to due to gender ideology. I have never met him or had any influence on him.
The number of detransitioners is far greater than trans activist propaganda will have you believe. Encouraging children to deny their biological sex is gross child abuse and gender "reassignment surgeries are mutilation. There is nothing healthy, progressive or truthful about this movement.
It has relied on huge amount of deception, lies censorship, cancel culture, suppressing research etc.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/sep/25/bath-spa-university-transgender-gender-reassignment-reversal-research
That would have been who I guessed you meant.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
Not sure why you're asking me this question.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
What is the antecedent to "it" there? We were just talking about sexual size dimorphism. I specifically cited sexual size dimorphism in spiders to contrast. Now suddenly you're talking about all sexual dimorphism.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
There's nothing normative about evolution. There is no "scientific mandate" to reproduce.
IMHO, a male cannot be turned into a female (likewise, a female cannot be changed into a male). What can be done is a change of clothing, hair style, makeup, gait, and so on. Prescribed hormones can do what hormone disorders can do -- give men breasts and women mustaches. A surgeon can slice away unwanted giblets or can fashion wanted ones.
The upshot? The man is still a man. The woman is still a woman. Can they pass? They can, if they are good at it, Going back centuries, some men have passed as women and some women have passed as men. Were the fakes to be examined with a little care, their real sex would be discovered.
So ignoring entirely who does and doesn't endorse it, is subjectivism about sex at all plausible? I think the answer to that is a pretty clear 'no'.
There are a variety of subjectivist positions available, all quite implausible.
For example, the view that you are sex X if you think you are sex X is incoherent. For thoughts have content, and so the thought that you are sex X needs to have some content - that is, the thinker needs to be thinking something. What are they thinking when they think they are sex X? Well, whatever they are thinking - whatever content their thought has - will express a view about what they think being that sex involves. And thus it will involve more than just 'thinking' you are that sex.
So that view - you are sex X if you think you are sex X - makes no sense and can be dismissed as incoherent.
Then there's what we might call the 'performative' view. A performative is where you make something the case by doing or saying it. So, "meeting adjourned" is a performative. For saying it will - if you are the chair - adjourn the meeting. Likewise "I promise to pay you $5" makes it the case that you have promised to pay $5. Sometimes, then, saying something makes it so.
Some subjectivists about sex take this idea and apply it to sex, arguing that sex is a performative (or that 'one' way in which you can qualify as a given sex is by performing a performative). Saying you are sex X is a performative (it is argued) and so just as saying "meeting adjourned" adjourns the meeting, so too saying "I am sex X" makes you that sex.
This view is not incoherent, but it doesn't seem to have anything to be said for it. Why on earth think sex is a performative? The brute possibility that it could be? That's not a good reason in any other context (the brute possibility you are a murderer is not good reason to think you are one). And in other cases of performatives - promises, marriages, meeting adjournments, pardons and so on - it is intuitively clear to virtually everyone that the saying of the thing makes it so. If being sex X is something that can be achieved via performative then we would expect it to be obvious to most reflective people that it is - that is, that saying "I am sex X" is away of becoming sex X. Yet it is far from obvious as the existence of heated debate over this matter testifies. And thus there just seems nothing to be said for this view. It has no evidence in its support.
Another version of subjectivism about sex would say that to be sex X involves having certain attitudes and dispositions. But it is quite easy to show this kind of view to be false: one simply imagines if there is something incoherent in the idea of a person of sex Y having those attitudes and dispositions. And if there is nothing incoherent about it, then the view has been falsified.
This kind of subjectivist might appeal to bundles of such attitudes and dispositions, but the same applies and plus such moves are always apt to look ad hoc.
So one doesn't need to appeal to any of the sexist motivations that lead some to endorse subjectivism about sex (and doing so is ad hominem anyway). We can just soberly assess it in the cold hard light of rational day and see that it turns out to have nothing to be said for it. (Which is, presumably, why it is the preserve mainly of the stupid and the sexist).
But still, the whole 'changing sex' issue is a red herring. FOr like I say, sex is only unchangeable if sex has an essential historical element - but it doesn't seem to. Different issues are being conflated here, then. Can one change one's sex? Well, yes. That seems metaphysically possible (and may well be practically possible too). But is sex subjective? Well, it doesn't seem to be. And thus changing one's sex requires something more than simply changing one's attitudes or thinking one has changed one's sex or some such.
Subjectivism is fundamental to trans ideology. It is about feelings over biology. These feelings are deeply imbedded with sex stereotypes.
I find it hard to believe that 99.9% of people are unable to differentiate between a male and female. That by identifying a female I am being subjective, biased and undergoing a hallucinations. Denying the ability to differentiate between men and women is surely and illness is surely disorder like prosopagnosia?
The inability to remember peoples faces is prosopagnosia. But the inability to classify someone's (mental) gender is transphobia.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
I smell shifting the goalpost here. I also smell black and white fallacy here.
You're quite a dramatic little fellow aren't you. Observing one person who has transitioned who passes is all it takes to make the leap from always being able to tell to not always being able to tell. But apparently that's enough for you to invent disorders to explain the outliers.
Methinks you need a sense of proportion.
I was recently playing around with a face manipulating app that gives you different options depending on whether (it thinks) you’re male or female. Depending on the picture it would identify me as male or female, and not because of clothes or hair, because my hair is the same in all of them, in some of the ones where I’m dressed en femme it thinks I’m male, and in others where I’m wearing an ordinary men’s t-shirt or no shirt at all at thinks I’m female.
Software trained on a bunch of male and female faces has some kind of disorder too?
I don't think that's true even though I do think that sexism and sex stereotypes and homophobia is implicated in a lot of this.
Subjectivism about sex seems false. Once we just focus on it as a philosophical position and ignore all the noises-off, it seems to have next to nothing to be said for it. We can show this without mentioning sexism. Sexism is, I am sure, the reason why many endorse subjectivist positions about sex (not the only reason - lack of reflection and tribalism too, no doubt). But subjectivism about sex - though often motivated by sexist commitments - can be assessed on its own merits. And when assessed in that manner it just seems false.
That also means that view C - the pluralist view - goes down too. Leaving A - physicalism - and D - historicism.
I think A is true, both because I think D is prima facie implausible (and A is the only other option, once B - and by extension, C - are knocked out), and that A is independently plausible, given that there seems nothing incoherent in me discovering that I am a woman, despite my belief that I am a man.
But A is entirely compatible with changing one's sex. If A is true, then sex is a feature of my physical body. Well, I am not my body. And so my body can be changed - it can be changed from male to female, or male to neither male or female - and it will still be my body afterwards, it is just that now I will be a female rather than a male.
So that's why I don't see subjectivism as essential to trans ideology. For one could be trans but agree that transitioning from one sex to another requires that one's physical body undergoes certain changes. And one could be trans and not be motivated by any sexist attitudes. So I think we need to be careful not to tar everyone with the same brush.
This is brainwashing.
Men cannot give birth or have periods or have vagina or menopause. Lying is not philosophy.
Philosophy is not PC or Woke.
You'd benefit from reading the UN primer on sex/gender and transgenderism. The concepts are a bit nuanced, but since you're a philosopher you're up to the task of understanding them.
I've never met a Hungarian. I guess there aren't any Hungarians.
I think that the link you provide is extremely useful, because it gives clear information. I believe if people wish to understand the topic it is worth looking at this link for clarity.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
If you accept that some trans people "pass" (which I assume you mean that their appearance does not indicate that they have had gender reassignment) then you can't always tell when someone has had gender reassignment. And you've already said that you don't care about chromosomes. So how do you determine the difference between a cisgender person and a "passing" transgender person?
Quoting Andrew4Handel
Not all women can gestate or give birth, so being able to gestate or give birth is not what it means to be a woman. Could you clarify what you believe to be the necessary and sufficient conditions to be a woman?
Quoting Andrew4Handel
If you want to talk philosophy then a) essentialism is bullshit and b) meaning is use. Neither biology nor the definitions of words is black and white.
Aside from that, what does philosophy have to do with being transgender and having sex reassignment surgery?
And what, exactly, are you arguing? That transgender people ought be mistreated? That transgender people ought not be protected from discrimination for being transgender? That transgender people ought not be respected in their wish to be called a particular name or talked about using particular pronouns? That sex reassignment surgery ought not be allowed?
Have a look at what humans commonly do.
1. Club foot. A natural condition that without surgery and corrective plasters etc would leave the patient crippled for life. Few would argue against 'corrective' surgery in infancy when it is easiest and most effective.
2. Cleft palate. A natural condition that has some long term health implications, but huge social implications. Surgery is again much easier in infancy but is more 'cosmetic'. Likewise, the amputation of extra fingers or toes, or webbed digits.
3. Unusually heavy breasts A natural condition the appears at puberty and has some health implications but 'corrective' surgery is mainly carried out for cosmetic reasons.
4. Circumcision. A cosmetic mutilating amputation carried out for social and religious reasons.
5.FGM. A cosmetic mutilating amputation carried out for social and religious reasons.
6. Castration. No longer much practiced.
7. Dentisty. Universally practiced in the West for health and cosmetic purposes.
8. Skin-lightening. a non surgical intervention carried out for cosmetic social reasons.
It is surely clear that the distinction between health benefits and purely cosmetic reasons is blurred. It is surely clear that it is normal practice to make some surgical interventions in infancy for reasons of social conformity.
It is clear that humans spend a great deal of time, money and effort in the manipulation of their own and each other's bodies, mainly for reasons of tribal conformity and tradition, and (not separate) sexual identification and attractiveness.
There is a strong demand - social pressure - for gender conformity. This leads to the deliberate exaggeration of sexual tendencies, to the extent that, for example, a bearded lady is regarded as a freak and women go to great lengths to remove any trace of hair from face and elsewhere. And so on and on.
Folks here talk as though they are not immersed in this global cosmetic culture; as though there is no need to conform; as though it is not mandatory from childhood to hide one's genitalia and yet display by coded signals one's gender at all times. As though not being clearly identified as to sex were not seriously deviant behaviour.
Questions arise.
What are the limits of surgical and related interventions in infancy?
At what age does body autonomy prevail?
Are there any limits to individual's freedom to modify their own body?
And so on. The interrelation of personal identity and autonomy with social identity is fraught
Quoting Michael
My first wife killed herself because she was unable to give birth and felt that she was a failure and "not a real woman". Gender and sexuality are not just a matter of physics or of definition, but of identity. "What it means to be a woman" is always contested. It changes. But @Andrew4Hande articulates a feeling that women (and many men, vicariously,) often have, largely socially and historically formed, that means that they define femaleness primarily as childbearing.
I recently heard on NPR that all clown fish are born male. At some point the biggest male in a group turns in to a female, because the biggest female can hold the most eggs.
Given that most of us here are clowns, I think we have a good chance of making this work. I wanna be Jennifer Anniston, would that be OK?
I find this sort of wishful thinking very hurtful for the person who is in the middle of it and lives - for real - as if the protagonist of the emperor's New Clothes.
The cruelty of society, the mockery and the jokes and these poor creatures who want something that physically - at the core of what we are and can be - is deeply hurtful.
I suffer this charade and this insanity. Because I do think that humans believe in this and this is real for them.
The heartlessness is astounding when we do not say: you are who you were born to be according to your DNA and the chromosomes that are in every cell of your body regardless of your wish and the apparent appearance of something else - and you will know, and that knowledge, of your own core being in spite of the exterior, will make you miserable.
Not even I can stomach doing it.
But I hope that those within this bubble will find their way out and understand that biology is not as we sometimes wish for.
I think that your point about your wife killing herself because she felt unable to be a 'woman' because she felt unable to give birth to children is important. We live in a society in which ideals about the body are ranked as important. I think that on this site, the focus is often upon transgender people, and overlooks how many other people feel uncomfortable with aspects of their bodies, and how they measure up to ideals and about masculinity and femininity, as well as other ideals. Gender dysphoria is only one aspect of misery over bodily appearance and sex changes are only one form, among many other aspects, of bodily modification.
I believe that is a rather shallow understanding of cosmetic surgery. My own experience of knowing people who have had many forms of cosmetic surgery, including gender reassignment, is that it can enable them to feel more at ease with themselves. Of course, some forms of treatment are more successful than others, and some may be less satisfied with the results, but why criticise people who choose to have interventions to help them to feel happier? Surely, they should be encouraged not criticised.
This is what I perceive of the world and it has become insane.
I don't think that teaching people to be happy works, even with the help of psychotherapy interventions. If you go down that line of thinking, you might as well argue that people should only be taught how to be happy rather than being offered antidepressant medications. I believe that people may benefit from cosmetic interventions but may need psychotherapeutic interventions as well. It does not have to be one or the other, and individuals probably need guidance and support in looking at all available options.
funny is it not?
strange... that there are people out there unaffected of the endless exterior "perfection" looking like porn stars mostly...
:rofl:
I know - I am cruel as is reality...
Biological sex is based on a combination of traits:
- chromosomes (in humans, XY is male, XX female)
- genitals (penis vs. vagina)
- gonads (testes vs. ovaries)
- hormones (males have higher relative levels of testosterone than women, while women have higher levels of estrogen)
- secondary sex characteristics that aren’t connected with the reproductive system but distinguish the sexes, and usually appear at puberty (breasts, facial hair, size of larynx, subcutaneous fat, etc.)
Using genitals and gonads alone, more than 99.9% of people fall into two non-overlapping classes—male and female—and the other traits almost always occur with these. If you did a principal components analysis using the combination of all five traits, you’d find two widely separated clusters with very few people in between. Those clusters are biological realities, just as horses and donkeys are biological realities, even though they can produce hybrids (sterile mules) that fall morphologically in between.
If sex were purely a social construct, sexual selection wouldn’t work: males would look identical to females. That difference itself suggests that there’s a biological reality to sex, and that this biological reality—the correlation of chromosomal constitution with reproductive traits and with secondary sexual traits—is what has caused both behavioral and morphological differences between the sexes. If sex were purely a social construct, then male deer wouldn’t have antlers, male peacocks wouldn’t have long tails, human females wouldn’t have breasts, etc.
Quoting T Clark
When enough people defined the Earth as flat, did that make the Earth flat? When enough people use the word, "god", does that make god exist? The words you decide to use does not make it so. It just makes it the words you use. If not, then there would never be such things as lies and mass delusions.
Not sure if you think I was saying that, but I wasn’t.
I was saying, like you did even more thoroughly, that there are a bunch of different components to sex — and that some of those CAN be changed already, and for others the technology to do so is already under development.
Perhaps something like the integration you speak of would be a better and more humane goal than disfiguring the body. Therapists should move to disfigure the shadow rather than the self.
I try.
Words mean what people say they mean, what they act as if they mean. Calling the Earth flat doesn't change the meanings of the words "Earth" and "flat." A biological man who defines herself as a woman doesn't automatically lose her penis and testicles, but that probably isn't what she wants. She probably wants to be seen socially as a woman. Whether that's a good thing for society to allow that is open to debate, but it is something that can be accomplished by changing the dictionary.
Perhaps, but given our current knowledge it's considered the most effective treatment for gender dysphoria.
Gender Dysphoria in Adults: An Overview and Primer for Psychiatrists
You've claimed before to be something of a right libertarian or anarcho-capitalist, and so presumably believe in the individual's right to bodily integrity? Are you also in favour of evidence-based treatment? If so, then given the above, how can sex reassignment surgery be considered barbaric and unethical?
And is your objection to sex reassignment surgery an objection on principle, or do you just believe that our currently technology isn't up to the task? If something like sex-reassignment via gene editing were possible in adult humans (similar to what has already been done in mice), would you be more accepting of it?
People didn't define the Earth as flat. The definitions of "Earth" and "flat" were what they are now; they just incorrectly predicated flatness of Earth. But there's a disagreement over the definition of "woman"; for some it refers to a human with XX chromosomes and born with a womb, a vagina, ovaries, etc., and for others it means something slightly different.
And talking about one or the other being the "correct" definition would somewhat misleading. It's more accurate to talk about what you mean when you use the word, or what I mean when I use the word, or what most English-speaking people mean when they use the word, etc. And as T Clark says, how we use words (and so their definition) changes over time, e.g. with "man" which was once a gender neutral term meaning “someone, one, human”, hence the word "mankind". Just as the meaning of "man" has changed, so too has the meaning of "woman".
You're welcome to live in the past if you want, but it seems strange to fight against the evolution of language. Why are you so opposed to us using the term "woman" to refer to people other than those with XX chromosomes and born with a womb, a vagina, ovaries, etc.?
Good, well thought-out post.
Because I being one know they are males
And by "males" you mean...?
Which means what? What does it mean to be a man and what does it mean to be a woman, and in what way are they "opposites"?
The opposition is because it normalizes what he believes to be deviant behavior. Women are naturally occurring, whereas trans people are modified freakaoids according to that view.
Your desire to change the usage of the word is due to your desire to eliminate prejudices. There is an obvious difference between a biological female and a transsexual, but you wish to call them both women because those differences are irrelevant to you day to day (but not if you were a gynecologist or surfing a dating app for example).
Language does evolve, but different populations use words differently, and opposing groups don't have the right to prescribe word usage to the other. If I live among those who think transsexuals are deviants, I suppose correct word usage in my group would not allow them to be called women (because women are natural and normal).
None of this suggests calling trans people freaks is moral or to be encouraged, just as it would be similarly offensive to use racial slurs within a group so as to clarify your belief in their inferiority, but that sub-group would be linguistically correct in their word usage.
Of course how you speak and what you highlight with your word usage shows the sort of culture you have and what values you hold. So to those who insist a fully trans woman be called "he," I think it says only something of the speaker, but not of the woman he mocks, but I don't think the speaker has violated a language rule. He's just a dick.
I agree with most of what you've written, but I can understand the resistance to redefining the word "woman." I think many people, including many women, feel that changing the definition of "woman" is disrespectful and risky. It's taken decades, centuries to start changing the political and social status of women. Then this comes along and muddies the waters. An extreme example is the controversy about transgender women competing in women's athletics.
I especially worry that making sex redefinition too easy will hurt vulnerable people, e.g. children and the mentally ill. Medical intervention can have, will probably have, serious and irreversible effects. Adolescents and some adults are not mature and knowledgeable enough to make those kinds of decisions.
Not every cisgender woman ovulates and can bare children. Some transgender women have breasts and a vagina. Some transgender men have a penis and testicles.
you feel? Ask me what I feel when someone who is no woman is trying to annihilate me and who I am and tell me that I do not exist the way I have always seen myself and men - and I like men, because they have what I do lack and that is the entire ball game.
I do not only feel deeply offended by I do not understand what is there in this sort of --- strange discussions
Maybe this is the heart of the matter - are the differences between a biological female and a transsexual irrelevant. As you point out, there are certainly situations where they are not. Are we ready to say that, except in a limited area related to biological function and medical practice, men and women should be treated exactly the same? I'm not sure how I'd answer that.
A copy of an Omega is still not an Omega and that is only a watch not my body - you talk about my most intimate parts like they are nothing... but they are! They are part of who I am and was born to be.
I can sort of understand that objection, but I don't think that that's Harry's objection. His objection seems to be that his definition of "woman" is the correct one, and so people who use the word differently are incorrect and even delusional (almost as if he thinks that transgender men think themselves cisgender men, and see a penis where there is none).
Quoting T Clark
From the article I cited above:
no - they are at the very depth of who we are it is more than just an identity it is the entire being we are
Of course, this came along a while ago , with works like Butler’s Gender Trouble more than 30 years ago.
Seems like you are saying what I said, just more forcefully. As I said, I can understand your point. I think it's a good argument. I think I would be angry too.
Quoting Iris0
I agree, but I'm 69 years old. I don't know what comes next and my opinion will matter less and less the older I get. I won't be the one who has to deal with whatever changes are to come.
Then you're talking past the transgender person. When a transgender man claims to be a man he is not claiming to have been born with a natural penis. When a transgender woman claims to be a woman she is not claiming to have been both with a natural vagina. What they mean by "man" and "woman" isn't what you mean by "man" and "woman". So you haven't actually answered the question you responded to. Why are you opposed to transgender people using the words "man" and "woman" in a different way to you?
Women got the right to vote in the US 101 years ago. And that was not the beginning.
Do you believe that your vagina makes you attracted to men rather than women , and makes you feel and act feminine? Or do you think this happens in the brain? I. other words, do you accept the concept of psychological gender , apart from physical gender?
That’s right. So what’s all this fuss about homosexuals demanding equal rights? People just aren’t ready for it. Oh, wait…
To add to this; if you (a cisgender woman) had your brain transplanted into a man's body, would you identify as a man or a woman?
If someone would steal my identity and pose as if they were me I would drag them to court --- that is identity theft no less no more.
And you see they are not males even when they resemble such a bit, as you see the males who resemble women. I have seen cases that almost looked like a woman- but there is something that is in every cell of our body - so you see it anyway... even when they had hormones when young.
I find that offensive that they want to dictate to me who I am and what I am - that is really really offensive.
I think you and I agree at least on what the issues are and what the right questions are. Part of the reason these discussions rarely go anywhere is that people are arguing completely different issues, as you note.
If I were certain that all these criteria were being applied effectively in the great majority of cases, a lot of my concerns would be addressed.
How does this apply to what I wrote?
They're not dictating to you who or what you are, but you are dictating to transgender people who and what they are.
I was born like that and still am and will not change because there is no attraction in a female body for me. At all.
That is what identity is; the entire being as identified by the being. I wonder, if you can share a little, what it is about a transsexual that is a threat to your own identity? I'm thinking I suppose that if I have achieved something - some social recognition, a PhD or whatever, and someone else gets the same accolade for nothing, it devalues my identity. Is it something like that?
It feels like when someone behind your back imitates you for the fun of others who laughs at you. This is what I feel.
Really??? So my nature and the fact that I am who I am dictates what really to someone who is a wannabe?
Yes but why are you attracted to men but some
women are attracted to other women? Can the brain be ‘wired’ to produce same-sex attraction? Can the brain be wired to produce masculine or feminine behavior. Have you ever met a man who’s behavior , gestures, walk or way of talking sounded extremely feminine to you? Do you think this was a deliberate act , or is it possible that they were born this way and cannot help their behavior?
You calling them a "wannabe" is you dictating to them their gender.
Strangely, or perhaps obviously, the same did not apply to women and lesbians. Because to a sexist society, what women wanted was of no importance. Even to themselves.
I’ve only ever claimed I’m a liberal.
It’s not unlike Body Integrity Identity Disorder, where people have urges to amputate healthy limbs or sever their own spinal cord. The crux of the question for me is whether one should go so far as to disfigure his body in such a way so as to satiate a mental urge. Maybe the urge is the problem and not the body.
But yes I think mutilation is barbaric and goes against the hypocritical oath.
But being a woman is not an issue of the brain - it is the ENTIRE BEING my complete and total body and all I am and feel --- that is me. Who I am as a complete...
That is in my chromosomes in every part of my being, in all I am.
Do you mean lesbians do not normally act that way?
Why do some gays act that way?You never answered my question.
DUE TO THIS
our brains evolved into different sexes - his male with less connection between the two parts and mine into feminine - with more connections between the two parts.
And thus - due to the evolvement of the cells who made us male and female and thus also the difference in brains and hormon systems - we are male and female - and if his brains were to be in my head it would NEVER EVER make my body male.
Ever...
Not in the wildest dreams - because nature is not according to magic - but according to the processes that makes us who we are. We are thus - entirely - all included - formed into being a male OR a female - and if it were not the case - then there would be no idea - CHANGING the sex.
Now would there?
I do not know... it looks exaggerated and utterly silly to me. And our behavior is something we can control - so if they are not out of control they must act it and play it.
We currently don't have the technology, but it's conceivable that it's possible. So would you identify as a man or a woman if your brain was transplanted into a man's body?
So are you saying that you have a female brain, and that if your brain was transplanted into a man's body then you would still identify as a woman?
Well then I am confused. How can that be troubled by another? If your identity is secured at the cellular level, then it is secure and untroubled by another's odd behaviour, surely?
Shirley, philosophers should be dismantling cultural myths, not mantling them, or encouraging psychiatrists to mantle them.
Your question is quite silly actually... and if you believe that me being who I am is in my brain - think again... my entire body is a proof of it and my entire hormon system too
I don't know what you mean by you having an alien brain. I'm saying that your brain is transplanted into a man's body. So, if anything, you have an alien body. Or do you have some different view of consciousness where consciousness isn't "carried" by the brain? Something like a "soul" that inhabits the body and the brain is incidental?
That is ridicules and very highly offensive to me.
So now I have - as you show no respect towards me being the women I am - reached the point when I have had enough of this sort of offense.
Try saying that to my gay friends - ah but you know you could just as well change your brains and then you would want to have sex with women.
... never heard anything so offensive.
You'd have a similar right to take the same offense if a woman told you she knows how you feel just because she too is a woman.
That you limit your offense to only when transsexuals say it is your right as well.
None of this is terribly rational or significant to this discussion, but I suppose you have the right to be you.
I suggest you tell these homosexual men you know who act effeminately that they look exaggerated and silly, and that you think they are deliberately acting this way. This is what I think they will tell you: They remember acting this way since early childhood, they believe they were born this way and have no control over these behaviors , and they are insulted and hurt that you think this is just a performance. This is what I think you don’t understand: masculinity, femininity and sexual attraction are strongly influenced by brain organization. You think you are attracted to men because you have a vagina, but your physical sexual parts have nothing to do with it. You are attracted to men in large part because of brain factors that you cannot control and were present from the moment you were born. These gender-related brain factors invoke much more than just who you are sexually attracted to , they shape the way you perceive your world , the way you walk and talk , you affective style.
If one were to alter this brain structuring in you while you slept, you would wake up astonished at how many of the things about you you thought you had complete control over were actually inborn.
But our species shares a gene pool.
Shirley, philosophers should be dismantling cultural myths, not mantling them, or encouraging psychiatrists to mantle them.
There are nothing but myths. To dismantle one is to erect another. Sometimes , for the purposes of certain discussions, it can be useful to offer an alternative myth to a particularly play-out one, even if the alternative being offered is not one’s own preferred myth. Translation: in engaging with someone who has no concept of psychological gender and its infinite possible varieties, it may be more productive to offer as alternative the concept of brain wired gender. Why? Because this particular myth presents the idea, absolutely foreign to the traditionalist about gender , that gender is a rich web of perceptual , cognitive and affective style of interaction and behavior rather than physical body parts.
Putting it in the form of ‘brain wiring’ is more likely to connect with traditionalistic ideas of gender as physical parts than leaping ahead to the more challenging postmodern myth.
What surprises me about TEFs and transphobes generally is that we seemed to be over both. The notion that a dominant group of people can prescribe how a minority can live their own lives seems old fashioned and wrong. A homophobe might not consider a gay man to be his idea of a man, but he is obliged to accept the latter's rights. Likewise a TEF might not accept that a trans woman is her idea of a woman, but so what? What happened to live and let live?
TEFs particularly surprise me because they are very aware of the battle for their own autonomy. No feminist would agree to have womanhood dictated to them by men, no black feminist would agree to having womanhood dictated to them by a white woman, no gay feminist would agree to having womanhood dictated to them by a straight feminist and no working class feminist would agree to having womanhood dictated to them by a middle class feminist.
Feminists appear to understand context and the primacy of their own rights to self-definition, and yet TEFs are united by the theory that they do have a right to dictate a notion of womanhood to trans women, based on a clearly debunked (by them) idea of uniformity of women's experiences.
I've heard some pretty far-out arguments... Trans people want to make children trans (okay, criminalise THAT), trans women want to rape cis women in ladies toilets (already as illegal as a cis man raping a cis woman in ladies toilets) and, of course, that how someone lives their life undermine's one's own sense of self, debunked not least by feminists as per the above, but also with regards to atheism or minority religious groups and homosexuals.
What's interesting is that it's almost always trans women who are the targets. There seems to be much less of a problem with trans men (much like gay men had a much harder time of it than gay women). I suspect the answer is that trans women are a perfect storm: they inspire the hatred of radical (now mainstream) feminists for being male, the hatred of misogynists for being female, and the hatred of homophobes for being, in some sense, queer.
Transphobic comments don't seem qualitatively better than misogynistic or homophobic ones, but they appear to inherit respectability from the misandry of untouchable feminists. Claiming that trans women will rape cis women sounds a lot like people who historically claimed that emancipated black men would rape white girls, or that gay men would always be trying to bum us in the showers, i.e. stupid. And certainly not tantamount to an argument against tolerating trans people generally. Again, it seems shockingly backward. Is it? Or is there a legitimate argument that has to be considered by a modern person?
Excellent question!
Not just in the past. I recently came across this:
What are you classifying as transphobic comments?
If you look at this website of crimes committed by trans identified people in the UK it is all men.
https://transcrimeuk.com/
The rate of female sex criminals has risen sharply and this is because sex offenders who are male identify as women and the courts legally have to refer to them as such. Put in terms of criminality trans women have the same pattern of criminality and behavioural problems as biological males.
This is why women are concerned about their safety. A male athlete who changes gender will have the advantage of being stronger and faster than a female and now in some cases are thrashing them in sporting events. Fallion Fox born male broke the skull of two female competitors and only lost one fight. So can you clarify what the transphobia is in these concerns?
May be you think that it is transphobic to simply have a private belief that sex is immutable and binary?
Which means what, exactly? When you say that sex is immutable and binary, are you saying that sex chromosomes are immutable and binary? Because that's false. There are varieties beyond the typical XX and XY. Are you saying that human reproductive organs are immutable and binary? Because that's false. There are varieties beyond the typical testes and penis or ovaries and vagina. Are you saying that some other biological make-up is immutable and binary? You'll first need to clarify what exactly it is, but I'd wager that you'd be false on that account too. Biology isn't black and white. Multi-cellular species are complicated.
But then, of course, if you're referring to biology when you say that sex is immutable and binary then you're talking past transgender people, as they're not claiming that their biology is mutable and non-binary (beyond the obvious fact that hormone treatments and surgery have real effects on their bodies). When a transgender man says "I am a man" he isn't saying "I have XY chromsomes" or "I have a naturally developed penis and testes."
Deleted
Quoting Andrew4Handel
Holy fuck, I totally misread this. What kind of psycho starts a website listing crimes by a particular demographic?
Is this really true? I mean, I can believe that some chancers have tried it, but nothing that would account for a sharp rise in nominal female criminals. What's your source for this.
Either way, that's not something you can lay on a trans woman.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/jun/21/olympics-tokyo-laurel-hubbard-trans-weightlifter-new-zealand
Personally I don't think any of this is fair to the women participants, because unlike the trans athlete the women did not develop as males in their formative years, but I'm interested to see how it plays out. I predict that some countries might come to abuse this loophole like East Germany did with its state doping programs.
I'd agree with you. How does this warrant intolerance to the vast majority of trans women who aren't advantaged in this way, or those that are who wouldn't do it?
There's something self-similar in transphobic arguments: in lieu of an argument against people living their lives in a way that makes sense to them, it's always: "Well this person committed a crime while trans," and "That person got an unfair advantage while trans." So what? What does that have to do with whether the majority of trans people should be allowed to live their lives?
People concerned about women's rights and their safety in prison.
What is being highlighted is dangerous predatory offenders allowed to identify as female based on word of mouth.
"The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) provides the best measure of victimisation and estimated that for the year ending March 2020 there were 773,000 adults aged 16 to 74 years who were victims of sexual assault (including attempts) in the last year, with almost four times as many female victims (618,000) as male victims (155,000)."
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/sexualoffencesinenglandandwalesoverview/march2020
The unlikelihood of a man being sexual assaulted by a trans man is the reason why people are mainly concerned about trans women in the case of self ID.
You were speculating about why a lot of concerns focus around trans women and I have given reasons. The only way I have heard of men a being affected by trans men is when they want a gay relationship with them. As a gay person I don't want to have sex with a man with a vagina or prosthetic penis,
It doesn't warrant intolerance. I don't see how it could. But certainly some people will see it that way.
These are birth defects though. Being born with an extra finger doesn't make you a new breed of human or being born without a womb this is not viable sexual variation that aids reproductive success.
Quoting Michael
It is not clear what they are saying because the ideology or identity isn't coherent. One I person I spoke said sex or gender is a social construct so I said if sex roles'd people referring to themselves as real women and even some say biological women.
Well if you go on trans subreddits you can see that a lot of them talk about enjoying how they look in a dress and make up. A lot of people post photos for affirmation to see whether they pass (these are heavily moderated affirmation only spaces.) How much of being a woman is based on how you look? That is reinforcing the prejudice against gender non conformity.
No one is making this argument.
The concern with trans women committing crime at the same rates as biological men is a concern for the safety of vulnerable women and children. There are lots of other arguments being made against trans ideology such as opposition to telling gay children they are trans and grooming vulnerable children and putting people on dangerous chemicals and giving people surgery that can cause horrible side effects including gangrene, heart attacks and osteoporosis.
"NHS gender clinic ‘running conversion therapy for gay children’"
https://metro.co.uk/2021/06/21/tavistock-centre-nhs-gender-clinic-running-conversion-therapy-for-gay-children-14804260/
:up:
If you take the square root of women with dongs, subtract What Happens In Thailand Stays In Thailand, divide by wanking to t-thots on Pornhub, you get an old fashioned poofter, which if you multiply with a bloke you get poofter again.
Simple as.
This has been done, for the following reasons.
The website, far from the credible source Andrew seems to think it is, is the product of some pretty fucked-up people scouring the media (tabloid press, social media) for claims of trans women (very loosely defined) committing crimes. The website shows the full name (including dead name if applicable) and photographs (as male and female where available), along with tags the website authors believe we should label these people with.
The website authors claim it exists to protect cis women from trans women, however most of the crimes appear to be unrelated to crimes against women and girls, ranging from driving offenses and minor drug offenses to violent offenses against men, making their inclusion irrelevant.
Many of the supposed trans offenders who were imprisoned transitioned in prison, after they committed their crimes as cis men, making their inclusion irrelevant.
The website includes persons never charged, and persons charged and acquitted; in fact, these significantly outnumber the meagre number of individuals they confirmed as charged (although they don't seem very completist about this), making their inclusion irrelevant.
The website claims to be targeting trans women, but casts the net very wide in terms of what it may call trans, including transvestites and other cross-dressers, their inclusion irrelevant.
Sources the website use include rabid paedo-hunter--type Facebook groups and the worst and most hyperbolic of the UK tabloid gutter press. The MO of the site is very simple: to by any means maximise the number of crimes, whether they be true, false, alleged, or acquitted, it can try to lay at feet of a small minority group of people.
This is a clear case of publishing open hostility toward the transgender community, which is a hate crime in UK law.
As for you @Andrew4Handel, I'd say more reputable citations in future would be good, but it's not like it was tricky to gauge. I assume you knew what you were doing -- it generally seems to be the case that prejudiced, phobic people don't really care what people think of their evidence, and you'll likely be smirking yourself to sleep tonight. I haven't engaged with your responses since because on the basis of that I sense you're an irrational, hateful individual. And, to be honest, I'm still reeling from that website. God knows where else you go when you're working yourself up into a frenzy, but I'd rather not go there.
I wanted insight and I guess I got it, but there's no answer to my question to be had from you. I suppose it's an argument of sorts, but it's an argument driven by barefaced bullshit and hate, not quite what I was after. All I've really learned is how mentally disturbed transphobes can be.
but what if sexuality was a different thing than having a dong or not
https://fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-male-criminality-sex-offences/
"These MOJ statistics show that transgender women exhibit a male-type pattern of criminality. We conclude that transwomen in prison exhibit a propensity to sexual crime that matches their birth sex and not their gender identity. This is relevant and necessary information when making legislation and policies designed to keep women safe."
https://fairplayforwomen.com/campaigns/prisons/
"(...)So in 2017 we published our own new research showing that half of all known transgender prisoners require max security or specialist sex offender prisons. Despite numerous attempts by others to discredit our work the MOJ has now confirmed the accuracy of our findings. Official figures released by the MOJ in 2018 show that half of all known transgender prisoners counted in April 2017 had at least one previous conviction for sex offences."
"The public has been shocked to learn that since 2016 male prisoners in the UK have been allowed to ask to be transferred to a women’s prison. All they need to do is self-identify as a woman. Legal or medical transition is not required for permission to transfer meaning that legally-male prisoners complete with a penis are currently living alongside women in prison."
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/
Male prisoners who were transferred to women’s jails during gender reassignment and women inmates who are transitioning committed seven of the 124 sex attacks recorded between 2010 and 2018. They occurred at HMP Low Newton in Co Durham, Foston Hall in Derbyshire, Peterborough, Bronzefield in Middlesex and New Hall, West Yorkshire."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/seven-sex-attacks-in-womens-jails-by-transgender-convicts-cx9m8zqpg
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-dangerous-denial-of-sex-11581638089
“Getting fucked makes you female because fucked is what a female is.” Andrea Long Chu
"The asshole [is] a universal vagina through which femaleness can always be accessed" Andrea Long Chu
"While I never really believed the cliché about women being good for only one thing, that sentiment kept creeping into my fantasies.
"It’s called forced feminization... transforming the loss of male privilege into the best f*ck ever." Julia Serano
"I think there are a lot of gay men out there who are gay men as a consolation prize because they couldn’t be women. That was certainly true of me." Juno Dawson (Formerly James Dawson)
Isn't that what you actually believe though? That secretly wanting to be fucked in the ass is a way of wanting to be a woman?
(1) Trans women are women. (Assumption for reductio)
(2) All women have vaginas. (Premise)
(3) Trans women's bums are vaginas OR trans women do not have vaginas (Premise)
(4) Trans women's bums are vaginas (3, disjunctive syllogism, from 2 on pain of contradiction)
(5) Bums are not vaginas (Premise)
(6) Not (Trans women's bums are vaginas) (from 4,5 and Modus Tollens)
(7) Trans women don't have vaginas. (discharging the disjunction in 3)
(8) Trans women aren't women. (2, 7, allegedly modus tollens)
Fallacy though, all you can conclude is the negation of the conjunction of the other premises.
Either that (trans women are women) is false, that (all women have vaginas) is false or that Bums really are vaginas.
Personally, I side with bums really being vaginas because diversity is important to me.
It is a spectrum of behaviour not a spectrum of gender. You don't change sex or gender by just being a man who is not violent
You can change the gender -related behavior of animals with hormone replacement. This is an effect on the brain, not the sex parts or genes. Male mammals and birds behave differently than females. Have you ever owned a car or dog? Why’s isn’t this behavior a spectrum of gender?What is it that is at the very core of what we mean by gender, vaginas and penises or behaviors such as sexual attraction, masculinity and femininity? If I put you in a time machine and took you back to the womb , and then altered the hormonal environment to change your psychological gender , it wouldn’t change your biological
gender but every aspect of you style of interacting with your world would change in a gender -related way.
Women lose their virginity when they have sex.
Whenever women lose their virginity, their hymen breaks.
Anal sex makes women lose their virginity.
Only vaginas have hymens.
Therefore bums are vaginas.
I think it's related to the degree of suffering that is caused by the mismatch and the seriousness in regards to what people will do to over come it; relative to the almost non-existent burden it places on society. Not accepting it means my comfort level with your internal state is more important than the suffering caused by it. Which is selfish to the point of evil.
Cis people generally don't care too much and don't want to rock the boat. Ultimately, we're social beings who are just looking to get along and be accepted and when a cis person out of the blue starts going after trans folks it never looks good.
I understand things might be getting pushed a bit far sometimes, and I understand that people have legitimate doubts about one's ability to "really" change one's gender, but voicing those concerns in public is just kind of a peculiar conversation to have and I don't know why it would be brought up. I don't see what I gain as a cis person by spreading the message that trans folk are "really" their original gender beside ostracizing them.
I have raised a range concerns about gender ideology. Mutilating peoples bodies, undermining peoples health with wrong sex hormones, undermining women's rights and safety, converting gay and gender nonconforming children to trans.
There is no such thing as a cis person.
Not telling the truth about peoples innate biological sex is an unnecessary lie and creates a pervasive delusion. Facts should not be suppressed to spare peoples feelings.
Gender critical conversation like mine is a minority conversation, gender ideology and trans ideology is pushed at us left right and centre and is well funded infiltrating public schools, big business, twitter, reddit and so on. The world revolves around it now, making people declare their pronouns and respect hundreds of fantasy gender identities, censoring people, calling the police and firing people from jobs.
I don't know what planet some of you people have been on recently.
This is why I started the thread asking is this forum Woke and Politically correct.
How do you explain the lack of a threat it poses to other people? No one is trying to change your gender against your will I hope.
" relative to the almost non-existent burden it places on society"
I just started this whole thread raising a wide range of concerns that I have just restated in my latest post concerning the reasons it does affect society. I assume you didn't read any of the thread.
There is the harmful treatments that are classed as trans health care which have many deleterious effects on health such as wrong sex hormones leading to conditions like osteoporosis, arthritis, and increased risk of heart attack etc.
Mastectomies (now called top surgery) being irreversible and carrying the risk of future chronic pain.
Gender non conforming and gay children being groomed to believe they are trans. Women being sexually assaulted by female identifying males in spaces supposed to be for women alony for their safety.
Quoting Cheshire
I don't know what you mean. Someone believing they are born in the wrong body is having their suffering caused by a delusion and it is possible to make someone think they were born in the wrong body by lying and endorsing this ideology rather than telling them no it is not possible.
If someone is suffering mentally I would advocate therapy and psychiatric medication not body mutilation. I have posted evidence here that these treatments afore mentioned don't decrease gender dysphoria suicidality etc. But pretending to be the opposite sex is at others peoples expense people get engaged in a societal lie that they don't know what the original sex of a person was but are changing their language and society to pander.
I have just responded to your previous post.
It does post a threat to other people and vulnerable people. How many harms do you want me to list?
Reddit detrans now has 20,000 + members https://www.reddit.com/r/detrans/
Here people talk about regretting transitioning, being encouraged or groomed to transition. Trying to return their normal voice and appearance.
It is not them and us anyone can fall victim to trans ideology and detransitioners are those kind of people.
You don't really know what that suffering is like, but it seems to be a serious matter so why not show some humanity and let them do what they need to do. I don't have any interest in your evidence.
Lots of people suffer including myself that does not justify claiming you are the opposite sex or having multiple invasive surgeries and a life time on hormones and other meds.
Why is the only route to eliminating suffering, body modification and making people pretend you are the opposite sex, allowing men to compete against women in sports when they have obvious biological advances. Why the need to groom other people and society because of ones own gender crisis? It is all unreasonable solutions.
Here's some research you should read,
https://pure.knaw.nl/ws/files/2203335/Burke2016JPsychiatNeurosci.pdf
Let me know when you've figured out how these physical changes come about as a result of an underlying delusion.
I also note that the Swedish study you referenced showed female likelihood of sexual violence if proper psychological care was provided to trans women. So the converse argument is possible too, that given the fact certain groups of trans women have female levels of violence those are really women then. Or maybe it's just not a very good indicator.
This is clarifying too.
So, lies to children? Or, pinned up only in the comparative religion class, along with pictures of spirits and souls and angel/devil psychology?
Quoting TheMadFool
Yes, it's true, your mind is essentially male or female, or somewhere in between.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5944396/
---
Quoting Andrew4Handel
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/media-s-detransition-narrative-fueling-misconceptions-trans-advocates-say-n1102686
---
Quoting Andrew4Handel
https://ps.psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.1176/appi.ps.201800232
"Individuals who would likely be considered transgender today are evident throughout the historical record.1 "
In the past you couldn't be transgender in the modern sense because you could not have your breasts removed or penis inverted or go on hormones, all you could do is cross dress and perform roles attributed to the opposite sex.
This is conflating gender non conformity with transsexuality. A woman is not someone who wears dresses or works as a nurse, she has ovaries, a womb, periods, menopause etc none of these things are available to the opposite sex.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043071/
Detransition:
"Direct, formal research of detransition is lacking. Professional interest in the phenomenon has been met with contention."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detransition
You're confusing transgender with transsexuality. They are not the same thing. You can be transgender without changes in sex.
The modern sense of being transgender doesn't depend on being able to "have your breasts removed or penis inverted or go on hormones".
Gender dysphoria is "the condition of feeling one's emotional and psychological identity to be at variance with one's birth sex."
Gender non-conformism may include gender dysphoria but also includes those whose emotional and psychological identity is not at variance with their birth sex but who nonetheless present in a manner that differs from that expected from someone of their gender identity. For example I'm a man and I wear eyeliner, which isn't typical of men in my culture and so is to some degree gender non-conforming.
I know you said you're gay, have you ever had gender dysphoria?
Those with gender dysphoria are more likely to have comorbid disorders than the general population, and it is perhaps these comorbid disorders -- along with the fact that transgender people are often mistreated, discriminated against, and told by others that they are delusional and mutilating their bodies -- that is responsible for the higher suicide rate.
No
"The specific causes of gender dysphoria remain unknown, and treatments targeting the etiology or pathogenesis of gender dysphoria do not exist"
This means the causes could be societal, familial and mental illness and not brain differences or being trapped in the wrong body.
They say prevention is better than cure.
As someone with long term mental health problems I have always believed my problems have been caused by family and society, religion etc. But I have been on medication for ages but this benefits the big pharmaceuticals and it and a lot of therapies blame the individual or his or her brain and not society and family.
So what is being medicalised is dysfunction and the dysfunction is not going away but being multiplied. But the "cures" are highly profitable and do not require anyone else or society to change.
Are you saying that if someone performs like the average male on a mental rotation task that means they are male or have become male after testosterone injections?
"Sex Differences in Mental Rotation Ability Are a Consequence of Procedure and Artificiality of Stimuli"
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40806-017-0120-x
For every study you can find a counter study.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. From the article you linked to, it's also the case that "female-to-males had higher crime rates than female controls (aHR 4.1; 95% CI 2.5–6.9) but did not differ from male controls. This indicates a shift to a male pattern regarding criminality and that sex reassignment is coupled to increased crime rate in female-to-males. The same was true regarding violent crime."
So what about female-to-male transgender people? Should we say that "sex is immutable and binary" and so female-to-male transgender people are women and belong in women's prisons, despite their male pattern regarding violent crime? In which case having a male pattern regarding violent crime isn't a reason to preclude male-to-female transgender people from women's prisons. Or should we say that female-to-male transgender people belong in men's prisons because they have a male pattern regarding violent crime? In which case birth sex isn't a reason to preclude male-to-female transgender people from women's prisons.
Based on a study that has not being replicated involving 21 gender dysphoric girls.
There are over 33,000 people on GoFundMe raising funds for top surgery. https://uk.gofundme.com/f/gendercare-fees
How many have these people have participated in this kind of test to assess whether they have "masculine" brain activation.
Psychology and neuroscience has had a replicability crisis where a large percentage of studies were unable to be replicated so it is by no means authoritative. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
I have a degree in psychology and you learn that you have to test every study for confounding factors and also sample size is important the smaller the sample size the weaker the findings. On the other hand a qualitative not quantitative study of one person can be valid because of it's depths.
One thing I would have done on a study like you cited is look for differences between non trans identifying gender non conforming women, lesbians and gender dysphoric females. Differences in sexuality may also correlate to brain differences.
It's the same reason you ask some one their name; instead of give them one. You aren't really in a position to say what is justified to alleviate other people's suffering. You treat people like the gender they appear to be all day long. It takes zero effort on your part to allow some else to live their life the way they choose. Have you ever spoken with or known anyone that's transgender? If your only knowledge is the adverse reaction to their personal medical needs, then your over looking quite a bit.
What if I don't approve of your lifestyle? What right do I have to judge it?
Not that it's the "correct" one, but the consistent, non-sexist one.
Imagine that we are surrounded by dogs and cats. Imagine that I point to a cat and say, "cat". I point to a dog and say "dog". Then I point to another cat and say, "dog" and at another dog and say, "cat". Now, imagine your confusion as you attempt to understand the similarities and differences I am trying to draw your attention to.
My definition of "man" and "woman" is so narrow that it excludes many behaviors that most people associate with men and women, like wearing dresses, make-up and long hair as opposed to wearing pants and not wearing make-up and having short hair. These are not behaviors that are dependent upon one's sex and would therefore be sexist to expect one sex or the other to adhere to those expectations.
Systemic sexism exists as those behavioral expectations that cultures have of each of the sexes. Those expectations are not what makes one a man or a woman. Biology determines what makes one a man or a woman. So when a trans-person declares that they are a man or a woman because they engage in those behaviors that their culture expects of men or women, they are reinforcing the systemic sexism that exists. You can still wear pants and be a woman and wear a dress and be a man.
People are given their name when they are born, and if you want to change it you have to get it approved by a court.
Why does sex/gender get special treatment when it comes to being able to control other's speech? I don't identify as a racist or an idiot, but I am called these names on this forum. Why are we not raising hell to stop everyone from calling people names for which they do not identify with and are offensive? What makes sex/gender so special?
What if I identify as a Dark Lord of the Sith and expect you to address me as "My Master" and get my feelings hurt if you don't comply? Again, what makes sex/gender so special in this regard?
The other side could use the same argument and ask why you are judging them for exercising their right to speak freely.
https://www.womenshealthmag.com/health/a30631270/jazz-jennings-surgery-complications/
"Doctors had to use a new technique because she started using hormones at such a young age. Since she hadn’t developed enough tissue to construct a vagina, Jazz's doctors used tissue from her stomach lining."
A part from that she has exhibited mental health problems despite affirmation from an early and under a hypnotherapy expressed a concern that her family would have rejected her if she had been gay.
You need a court to change your name on legal documents, but you’re free to change your name in everyday life just by telling people that that’s your name. Pretty sure that’s the same with gender.
What they're saying is gender dysphoria (a mental state) is either genetic or environmental or a combination of both. That is, they don't anything about its rooot cause. It also says they can't target the cause because they don't know it, which means there's no specific medical treatment or societal change to administer to resolve that mental state. Those who have it must therefore live with it without any expectation it will subside due to a particularized response.
Based upon that, surgical modification seems reasonable. If we can't fix the underlying mental state, we can alter the body. We do, after all, know what causes a man to look like a man and we can change that. Wiki tells us the mental state is beyond our treatment. Quoting Andrew4Handel
Yeah, but who cares what you think? You've already demanded that this discussion be scientific. You've got your anecdotes and I've got mine, but that's not science. It's just blather. Quoting Andrew4Handel
Stay on point and stop telling me about your bumpy life.
We just established from the first quote of yours above that we don't know the etiology of gender dysphoria. Why are you suggesting we require anyone else or society to change to remedy it? Your proposed solutions indicate that you have established gender dysphoria is caused by either (1) choice or (2) environment. Why? It could be genetic but you've arbitrarily dispensed with it and offered up two new therapies ignoring that it could be genetic. Your two propsex solutions are: (1) change your mind therapy or (2) change society therapy.
Assuming these new therapies are in order here (which we've extrapolated as necessary based upon the Wiki article that gender dysphoria is of unknown etiology), how do I go about changing a transsexual's mind or how do I dismantle societal influences?
I was going to use this response elsewhere. However: Transgenderism is self diagnosis and the solutions involve self diagnosis.
I am speculating about the causes of my mental health problems. When causes are unknown you can look to plausible causes found in peoples lives and environments and there are plenty of those.
The reassignment interventions for trans identified people are amongst the most invasive and irreversible with many complications. That is an extreme response to a condition which is self diagnosed and has no known causes.
Sounds like this started off as a counter-point, and a lightbulb came on. Either way, it's honest commentary. Quoting Harry Hindu
To me this sounds like false victimization. I don't want to accuse you of that, so if you can explain why it isn't; maybe I'll understand where you are coming from. We both know you have never been controlled in this sense. Quoting Harry Hindu
Probably, because people interpret the lack of empathy for transgender folk as a willingness to hurt others for some type of self-gratification. Which is morally wrong. To answer your question directly; it's invalid argument because it equates some ones identity as being as significant as an internet insult. Which it isn't. Quoting Harry Hindu Your repeating a false equiveillance, but using an extreme example. It is a dishonest argument and you know it, because it's ridiculous.
Quoting Harry Hindu
And back to you are the victim here. All I hear is I'm threatened by these people and I want them to suffer so I feel better about myself. I've never felt threaten or burdened by transgender people so I don't understand why you do. To me they seem like an easy target and you have got something driving you to take shots at them. Am I missing something here?
Proper nouns and common nouns are apples and oranges when it comes the ease of changing the nouns that are used to point to things. Common nouns are what we are talking about in this thread and this is addressed in my prior post that was a reply to you, but instead of addressing that, you'd rather grab at the low hanging fruit of another's post? :sad:
Quoting Cheshire
Casting insults at anyone is exercising a lack of empathy. Your distinction between calling people names for which they aren't doesn't make any sense. Again, your making sex/gender out to be some special case that should be protected against mis-identification. Why?
Quoting Cheshire
It was once considered ridiculous to claim the be a woman when you were born a man. That's the point you don't seem to get. What makes identifiying as a Dark Lord of the Sith less plausible than identifying as a woman when you aren't?
Quoting Cheshire
I'm not wanting anyone to suffer. Talk about mis-judging people... Look in the mirror.
I'm asking questions that no one is willing to ask. Questioning people's deep-seated assumptions about themselves and the world can often make them feel offended, but their feelings and emotional attachments to their assumptions shouldn't prevent people from asking honest questions.
Ok, we can agree on that much that wanting others to suffer is morally wrong.
Do you acknowledge that transgender folk alleviate their own suffering by their actions?
There is no evidence that gender reassignment improves mental health. One study claimed that in 2020 but they have to recant their findings due to statistical errors.
I can cite several recent cases of post op trans people committing suicide.
The surgery and hormones cause suffering and shorten life spans.
If you read the thread you would know the answer to that. I have known four trans people they all had mental health problems.
Two of them are autistic like myself and the other two presented as autistic.
None of them passed as the opposite sex. I mentioned a conversation I had with one of them which was incoherent saying gender was a social construct but trying to transition into something they described as invented.
That is conflating delusion and psychosis. There are many deluded people without psychosis.
Do anorexics suffer from psychosis? Should we affirm Anorexics in their belief that they are fat?
If I thought this was a fact it would probably have an effect on my conclusions. Do you mean to say there is no evidence that you personally acknowledge, because there are transgender people who subjectively experience some relief.
"Pimozide is used in its oral preparation in schizophrenia and chronic psychosis (on-label indications in Europe only), Tourette syndrome,[1] and resistant tics (Europe, United States and Canada).
It was also shown to alleviate gender dysphoria.[7]"
Yes but we don't know how effective this treatment would be in general because it is not being tried.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20209883/
"From time to time in scientific literature there are descriptions of a diagnosis of psychotic disorders in persons previously diagnosed and treated as transsexuals, in whom the transsexual thinking disappears after using antipsychotic agents. Coexistence of transsexualism and schizophrenia causes a lot of doubt--it is observed in scientists opinions but also in the diagnostic criteria of DSM-IV and ICD-10. Moreover, delusions of sex change are probably more frequent than it is thought. It causes, that in some cases the differential diagnosis of psychosis and gender identity disorders may be very difficult. Transsexuals treatment is on one hand connected with expected effects but on the other hand with many serious, often irreversible health consequences (e.g. cardiovascular disease, risk of neoplasma development, infertility, consequences of surgical sex reassignment). That is why the differential diagnosis of transsexualism and schizophrenia should be made carefully and thoughtfully."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20209883/
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/schizort/2014/463757/
Your reference is a subset of people presenting with schizophrenia. Is this confirmation bias or something else?
https://antiplondon.tumblr.com/post/643086189186908160/we-need-balance-when-it-comes-to-gender-dysphoric
"I am a 48-year-old transgender man. I was thrilled when the medical community told me six years ago that I could change from a woman to a man. I was informed about all the wonderful things that would happen due to medical transition, but all the negatives were glossed over. Since then, I have suffered tremendously, including seven surgeries, a pulmonary embolism, an induced stress heart attack, sepsis, a 17-month recurring infection, 16 rounds of antibiotics, three weeks of daily IV antibiotics, arm reconstructive surgery,lung, heart and bladder damage, insomnia, hallucinations, PTSD, $1 million in medical expenses, and loss of home, car, career and marriage. All this, and yet I cannot sue the surgeon responsible—in part because there is no structured, tested or widely accepted baseline for transgender health care."
"During my post-operation 17 months of sheer survival, I discovered that transgender health care is experimental and that large swaths of the medical industry encourage minors to transition due, at least in part, to fat profit margins."
"The truth was that I didn’t fit in as a dominant, aggressive, assertive lesbian. "
https://antiplondon.tumblr.com/post/643086189186908160/we-need-balance-when-it-comes-to-gender-dysphoric
Yeah, the American medical system, of fucked.
I mean, when I read it, it just reads like propaganda to me. This part especially:
Um, what? Isn't that an oddly specific thing to promise God in the throws of suicidal ideation?
Up to that point I felt sorry for the person, but then it switched gear and just began to read like a pamphlet, making me doubt the veracity of the story since it was the most basic manipulation: sympathetic story as bait, talking points as the hook.
The person has a YouTube channel, and twitter account.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQQWyq7PjhQ&t=30s
https://twitter.com/ScottNewgent
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/jess-bradley/trans-women_b_15486434.html
Biology would beg to differ and real women would.
"UK — Manchester, England. In July 2018, Jess (né Josh) Bradley, the first person to be elected Britain’s ‘transgender students’ officer’ by the National Union of Students (NUS), was suspended for allegedly posting explicit photographs on an online blog. Images on the website include an individual flashing while sitting in a train carriage, in a public park and at a bus stop. Additionally, a photograph shows male genitals being exposed in an office close to a curved wooden desk that appears identical to a picture of a work desk posted on Bradley’s Facebook page. The blog was exposed by the Twitter account @xNoMoreSilencex, which tweeted numerous examples of alarming posts attributed to Bradley.
https://www.womenarehuman.com/transgender-students-officer-suspended-for-allegedly-publishing-pictures-of-male-genitalia-faces-no-additional-sanctions-jess-bradley/
Are those services which have been well known to stop the distribution of propaganda?
Maybe the story is true. Propaganda requires truth to work, after all. I have sympathy for the pain if it's true, but find it hard to feel that sympathy when it's turned into a propaganda model -- it's more of a duty than a feeling.
No, they shouldn't have underwent such horrific events, and yes, it'd be better if trans healthcare was better -- up to and including positive and negative side effects of surgeries. These are reasons to improve healthcare, not wake up to God's calling of warning children and spinning out propaganda for newsweek.
You haven't justified the claim it is propaganda. There are lots of trans people reporting how reassignment surgery damaged their health. I mentioned the case of Jazz Jennings earlier.
She was put on puberty blockers that meant her penis was not big enough to turn into a neo/pseudo vagina. Puberty blockers make gender reassignment surgery even more harmful.
I can cite numerous cases of botched surgery and detransition but people will still claim "It's only a tiny minority"
In comparison affirming someone as gay requires no surgery, no lifelong medication, no stunted puberty, no infringement on women's rights, no possibility of turning someone else gay.
Interestingly Scott Newgent is still living as a man. That may be because a lot of reassignment procedures are irreversible and reconstruction surgeries would cost another pile of cash.
R/Trans has 181k members
R/Transporn has 284k members. It consists of images of Trans women who like the majority still have their penis intact.
R/TransGone Wild is similar with 78k members
Likewise R/Traps which has 553k members.
Why has Gender dysphoria not led to penis removal/inversion & castration ?
I have a degree in psychology and philosophy.
How did that happen?
I'm not surprised.
However is this the best you can do to resort ad hominem after the tonnes of evidence I have provided on this thread?
You also don't know what an ad hom is. Read the ad hominem, schlominem thread. Zero points.
I am not a psychologist and I didn't diagnose anyone as delusional. Anyhow anyone who thinks a man can become a woman and vice versa is delusional from a non psychiatric perspective but from a perspective of understanding the restraints of reality.
I said that I know 4 trans people and someone who refused to read most of my posts asked me if I knew any trans people.
Just get an eye test and read and respond to my actual posts or continue to be a burden on humanity.
So when people are diagnosed with gender dysphoria you nevertheless maintain both the psychologist and the patient have a false belief based on what? False information? No proof offered so far. The status of research at this point is the best information we have to go on. Dogma? No proof of that either and the fact it exists across time and across cultures definitely suggests otherwise. Illusion? About what exactly?
Quoting Andrew4Handel
I don't give a shit about anecdotal evidence. I've had several trans colleagues over the years. They're perfectly happy with their choices. Maybe the fact you're surrounded by people with issues have to do with a) your personal interests or b) the type of person you are yourself and the people you therefore attract or c) a combination of both. Not interesting that you know them and not interesting why either.
I never claimed it was an academic term.
It is a fact that men cannot become women and vice versa. Why do you believe otherwise?
How does surgery and hormones turn a man into a woman. Can that woman have periods, give birth, have uterus, menopause etc.
That is what I mean by delusional.
Most of my evidence has not been anecdotal. Trans "women" exhibit male patterned criminal behaviour. Trans "Men" are not assaulting people and winning athletic trophies from men and trying to enter male prisons and sexually assaulting men.
I pointed out that studies (very few) claiming reassignment surgery produces benefits have mainly been retracted. That is not anecdotal that is a fact I provided evidence for.
Gender dysphoria does not mean that you were born in the wrong body. Just like a diagnosis of anorexia does not mean you are fat.
Try impregnating a trans woman and see how far that gets.
I am not questioning the existence of people dissatisfied with their sex. I am dissatisfied with humanity as everyone should be but that does not entail spending thousands of pounds/dollars/euros on bogus reassignment surgeries that shorten your life span.
This again. As I already pointed out:
It is ridiculous that people think that you can be a man trapped in a woman's body and vice versa with no coherent explanation (unless you think 21 dysphoric women and brain imaging in mental rotation test decides gender over having a womb or penis)
Apparently chopping your penis and testicles or breasts off triumphs over sexual dimorphism.
The only science involved in this is the science of plastic surgery. Not the science of biology, reproduction or psychology. It is not psychologist creating pseudo vaginas.
If you gave every man oestrogen I am sure it would reduce crime rates.
Chop a mans arms off it will reduce crime rates.
Most trans criminals identify as such after the crime which is rather late.
"Beate Schmidt (born Wolfgang Schmidt October 5, 1966) is a German serial killer. From October 1989 to April 1991, Schmidt murdered five women and an infant. Schmidt is a trans woman."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beate_Schmidt
So the reason Beate killed six people is because she wasn't offered puberty blockers and gender reassignment.
"In 2010, Schmidt was investigated for raping and causing another transgender inmate to attempt suicide"
This again comes down to you not understanding the difference between sex and gender. There's examples abound in nature of animals mimicking other animals. Ducks acting like cats, wanting to be treated like cats. Cats barking like dogs. etc. It's not about physical appearance.
Gender dysphoria is not about people thinking they are women or men while having the opposed sex; it's about identifying with the opposite gender than their sex. And this can cause all sorts of mental problems. It would indeed be delusional to think your sex is male when in fact you have a vagina and breasts but that's not what's going on here.
I too have known a few transsexuals, going back to the 1970s--maybe... a dozen altogether. They were extremely varied, ranging from a secular Jewish woman who wanted to be an orthodox man to an alcoholic vet who decided in middle age to become a woman. They were all rational people, no more deluded in their thinking than the average successful citizens--meaning, there was room for at least substantial delusion.
Note to @Benkei regarding "delusion": The majority of American workers believe that with hard work and a bright idea they will become rich. They are deluded in this belief. Donald Trump, and 40,000,000 American conservatives think that the 2020 election was "stolen". This is a delusion.
Americans believe--and say quite often to children--that "you can be anything you want to be. You could be president of the United States." The odds are absurdly small of any child becoming president; the odds are against people trying to be whatever they want to be--ESPECIALLY if they are starting out with no money, a mediocre education, no models, no connections, no nothing. They are deluded.
So it is that parents bring forward 3 and 4 year olds who have decided they want to be girls instating of the boys they are, or visa versa, and demanding treatment. Delusion.
There is room in mass society for people to dress, act, work, and live as if they were the opposite of their biological sex. It seems to make this very small minority of people happier once they figure out how to pull off this act (it doesn't come naturally -- one has to learn it). I do not object to these people finding happiness by changing their costumes.
What I do object to is argument that persons can change their sex. They cannot. No matter how any hormones and surgical procedures are employed, one remains XX or XY -- like it or not.
I'm homosexual. I knew I was different, that I found boys much more interesting than girls from an early age on, though I did not have the vocabulary to say so. Of course, I had no idea in the late 1940s or early 1950s what was involved in having a homosexual life style, or that other people like myself even existed. I would guess that many transsexuals experience something similar at an early age.
Had my parents identified me as homosexual and then facilitated my development as a homosexual from kindergarten onwards, I think I'd have thought myself pretty poorly raised. As poorly raised if they had dragged me to a child psychiatrist to cure me of homosexuality before first grade. Young children have too much plasticity for parents to become too involved in their sexual identity, A mother encouraging her very young son in wearing girls clothes to school is behaving in ways that borders on indecency. Young children need to work through these issues over time, slowly, on their own.
Age 11 "I'm trans"
Age 13 Puberty Blockers
Age 14 Testosterone
Age 15 Double Mastectomy
Age16 Crowd funding for breast reconstruction.
just another anecdote...
The delusion is in trying to establish that at that age. It's too early to tell, doesn't mean the parents are wrong in recognising what their children want to be. My son is 3 and he's very boyish in a lot of respects but sometimes he makes me wonder when he gets angry when we applaud him with "well done, big boy!" and he yells "NO, BIG GIRL!". He probably just wants to be like his big sister for now. But I don't "identify" my kids, that's not my role. I do need to create a safe space where they can freely identify as they wish when they are ready. I don't care whether that's transgender, straight or gay/lesbian. So I purposefully don't (and won't) argue his insistence of being a girl because of it.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I agree. Nevertheless, gender affirming plastic surgery, which colloquially is know as a "sex change operation", is an option for people to further fulfil and support their transition to another gender. As I've stated before, transsexuality is not a requirement for transgenderism, it's optional.
In fact, I just remembered (it was over 20 years ago) I had a roommate for half a year that was an exchange student who was transgender. He was sexually a woman and had no inclination to change his sex and I think I'd describe his gender expression as unisex (what you see on the outside). He had a boyfriend. A lot of people make a big deal out of it and people who are transgender have a hard time admitting to their feelings and ideas as a result. I've always been "meh". I really dont care. You want me to call you a "she"? Fine. Or "xe"? No problem. It's a small effort to make someone comfortable and that holds true irrespective of the etyology of gender dysphoria.
What people do to their bodies when they grow up? None of my business and that's irrespective of the etyology of gender dysphoria. Or we need to start rethinking women's right to breast reductions and enlargements, or people's rights to liposuction, lengthening operations for hypochondriaplasia or anochondroplasia etc.
Gender is a grammatical term. English does not apply gender this way. Sex is a biological reality.
Calling a ship "she" is not a biological claim.
Throughout my entire childhood no one mentioned the term gender apart from possibly when I studied German and French at school.
Now the Gender fairy is everywhere blessing us with new identities. Just make one up and accuse someone of a hate crime for not affirming you.
This happens all the time. Take the word "relativity" which has taken on quite a different meaning since Einstein and it took almost 50 years before it became a word laymen would use.
Your personal anecdote that you've been living under a rock and wasn't aware of this meaning until apparently very recently (and apparently didn't pay attention during psychology classes when this definitely came up) is not proof of what gender means.
Transgenderism has historically existed before modern times as well. Just because we didn't have a term before it at that time, doesn't mean it didn't exist. If you studied French, you know what it means when something can be defined a certain way avant la lettre. Which is how I can accurately state my great-grandmother was a feminist.
Trans men exhibit male patterned criminal behaviour. But what's your point?
e.g. in Native American culture.
Or other cultures with a third gender
If the argument remains in the abstract, as just a debate over word usage, then it seems an unimportant diversion. We can all agree that there is a difference between XX and XY and then we can disagree and debate whether sometimes XX can be called "man' and whether XY be called "woman." The answer to that debate comes down to word usage and social constructs, that I'm sure might make an important difference to someone in a gender studies class or maybe in a philosophy forum, but probably in few other places. I really doubt that most trans people are heavily invested in the outcome of that tangential debate. From what I read, you'd think the battleground is over pronoun use, but I just can't see that's really where the trans person faces their daily struggle.
The question it seems to me is whether transgenderism is real, meaning are there actually people who identify more as their opposite sex, and, if so, what we ought do about it. If surgeries and clothing are cathartic, curative, or even mildly therapeutic, they should be available to those who choose them, with very limited input from me. Or, more simply, if a man wants to live as a woman, and that makes him happy, why the hell am I going to weigh in?
I think you can take one of three approaches here: (1) pragmatic, (2) metaphysical, or (3) ethical. Mine above is the pragmatic response, and I think that's how most medical decisions are made, where there is informed consent and a final decision made by the patient. I don't see why transition surgery should be different.
Your argument smacks of metaphysics, suggesting that it's folly to call a transitioned man a woman because he still is in essence a man because his DNA hasn't been altered. Those who bristle at such claims point out that meaning is use and considerations of essence usually break down as unsustainable. All of this is to say, unless I'm focused on the metaphysics of this, I don't care what the DNA shows.
And then finally there is the ethical, and both sides of the spectrum are guilty of this, where the left claims civil rights violations for standing in the way of trans rights and the right claims the whole thing is an unholy enterprise. And what makes the ethical folks the most difficult is their often failure to admit their approach is ethically motivated. The left insists they are basing their claims on science, yet those claims as to what science says are often inflated. The right also claims their claims are based upon science, yet with a little prodding, there is often more than a hint of confirmation bias, searching for those studies that offer support for the status quo because the time honored tradition just must be right, it just must be.
... And decency. And history. Historically we have rejected men dictating womanhood to women, white women dictating womanhood to non-white women, middle class women dictating womanhood to working class women... It's not rocket science to need a better reason to dictate womanhood to trans women than the above had to assert their definitions.
This is certainly the moralistic approach, which can blind someone from appreciating critical distinctions between past struggles, and it can cause someone to overlook the limitations available through medical science. That is, I think any fair minded person would agree with you that ostracism, bullying, and moralizing against transsexuals is an evil to be avoided, but it does not follow that the medical response helps reduce the suffering of those who are suffering. You can be pro-transsexual in every way possible and still be against transition surgeries.
Meta-analysis suggests general hesitation about gender-reassignment is misinformed - there's evidence it's on average effective for those who elect to take it.
There's also comprehensive screening for reassignment/gender affirmative surgery - it includes mental health screening. It aims to assess if the person would benefit from the surgery and could cope with it! It's very hard to get the surgery without having sufficient evidence that it's worth the risk. Similarly for hormone therapy.
The risk assessment and screening for these is comparatively higher than the reversible and non-intrusive puberty blockers which can be given to consenting transgender or gender non-conforming youths without many expected side effects AFAIK.
To be sure, someone can be blanket against gender reassignment surgery and pro-trains rights, but I believe only if they don't know how comprehensive the screening is for receiving gender reassignment or puberty blocking treatment. People act like the T Stasi (T-minators?) are going around cutting off children's dicks and sticking them on other children, it's absolutely nothing like that.
Strictly speaking within the current professional vocabulary (as part of psychology and in the Netherlands at least) you can be pro-transgender and against transitioning. Pro-transsexuality is specifically about changing sex.
I think a "not" is missing in this post, right?
At any rate, that's a confusing stance because there are many transsexuals who choose not to have surgery to their sexual organs but in all other regards live as the opposite sex. It also overly emphasizes the significance of the sexual organ as identifying the gender.
Transsexualism isn't really used anymore, because the feeling of gender dysphoria has little to do with (biological) sex according to her. Even though transsexualism was the term we were using 20 years ago.
In what way isn't it possible? Are you defining physical gender based on whether or not they have a dick or vagina? Or are you talking about chromosomes? With the latter, which is more accurate for physical gender, it's not as clear-cut as perceived physical attributes of genders. There are genetic events during development that could alter the physical gender so much that it's not really clear which gender a person really has.
But we also have, as MadFool points out, the mental perception of gender. I presume you are a man? How do you know this? Is it just because of the physical properties of your body? In CIS people, we have the perception of our own gender in line with the physical properties of out body. In order to understand transgender people, you have to imagine that your perception of your own gender, beyond the physical properties of your body, is out of sync with each other. It's a combination of perception of your own behavior, social interactions, cultural identity and sense of physical body. If all of these leans towards a gender that isn't in line with your physical body, then transitioning the physical body will give you harmony in the same way as a CIS person feels in harmony between the mental perception of gender and the physical body.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
There's no evidence that it didn't happen either. There's also very little evidence of them since the little that is known about transgender people before modern times showed that they were most often killed and forced to comply with society. Just like women needed to comply with society, not vote, force themselves to keep within living standards and physical norms that the times demanded. Did that mean there were no women who fought against such standards? What do you think happened to women who stood up against the social norms of the time silencing their voices?
It sounds more like you know little about the history of both women and trans people throughout history.
Someone to recommend whenever there's talk about transgender culture, sex changes and related topics is Contrapoints. She's, compared to many in here, an academic philosopher who's been aiming towards explaining many of these things with a scope of philosophy. We also have Philosophy Tube with Olly who just transitioned to Abigail, although she's not really focused on gender-related topics and more focused on pure and time-relevant philosophy.
https://www.youtube.com/c/ContraPoints/videos
That's a confusing statement. Gender dysphoria means that your internal gender identification is opposite from your physical gender. You're saying that has little to do with biological sex, but I can't see how we can subtract out the biological sex element from the gender dysphoria equation, considering having a mental state inconsistent with biological sex defines dysphoria.
What you say makes sense, I'm just repeating what she said. One way that could work is if gender identity is independent from biological sex. If that's how it works then it's only after that identity is established/expressed that dysphoria may arise but not necessarily.
I think we can recognise that if there's gender identity on the one hand and biological sex on the other then transsexualism relates to changing biological sex and transgenderism is about changing gender identity of which changing biological sex can be a part but not necessarily so.
I think the difference is that "transsexual" mostly refers to those who medically transition, whereas "transgender" includes those who don't.
While the distinctions might be important, the word play diverts the conversation from how we ought to treat people as opposed to what we ought to call people. My concern over insulting a transsexual person (if that's even the proper term nowadays) isn't because I have any concern I'll do anything malicious, but it arises over whether I might call them the right thing, and honestly, I don't even have reason to believe transsexuals are a hyper-sensitive bunch and would terribly care much. My suspicion is that much of this technical political jargon debate arose in academia and not among the most affected, but I could be wrong.
The point I made is you could not be trans in to days sense of having cross sex hormones and plastic surgery etc because it wasn't technically possible not because of prejudice. There could only be gender non conforming people.
Nevertheless you can't just claim there was a wave of trans suicides and murders in history without
citations or evidence.
Quoting Christoffer
I have watched both their videos. Is there something they have said you would like to share. They are both cases of adult men who didn't commit suicide due to dysphoria and "transitioned later in life"
Contra actually outed herself as an Autogynephilic which is an unpopular but most supported theory of male to female transsexuality. Contra also debated with Blaire White before Contra transitioned where Blaire described a neo vagina as a wound that you need to dilate regularly to stop it healing and said that gender dysphoria was a mental health problem not something to be celebrated.
In the same way that a person with anorexia alleviates their suffering. They may alleviate some mental suffering at the expense of their body suffering. Having a hole created between your legs to imitate a vagina and having to keep a stent inside to prevent the wound from closing isn't my idea of alleviating one's suffering. The body knows better than the mind what it is as it attempts to heal the damage done to the body by the mind.
ok
^A real life situation where a black woman along with other women encounter a transwoman with a penis in a spa changing room and start complaining to management.
I feel really bad for that receptionist because you know it's not her who makes the rules here. In any case, the moment you pull the "we're protecting little girls" line it's no longer an argument, it's an order. Can anyone honestly watch that video and tell me that they'd do any better than the white man who tries to confront the anti-trans black woman? The message is clear: Some portion of women want trans women out of their intimate spaces, and we need to balance acceptance for trans folk against concerns like the one made in the video.
I can't help but think that as a man I'm entitled to less of an opinion on this issue than a woman.
Can anyone tell me the correct philosophical response to: "You're traumatizing my little girls."
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
I'm not sure this is an issue. If the spa had been clear (or maybe even was clear?) on how it deals with transgenders then it's just whatever the house rules are.
And if little girls and boys can get traumatised from just seeing genitalia maybe people need to reconsider what they are teaching kids about sex in the first place. Especially in a spa, which tend to be mixed in the Netherlands anyways, nakedness isn't sexual. I suppose if you're an upstuck Jesus freak this sort of thing will scar you for life but we can squarely blame the parents for that.
Why? The issue effects you as well. If transwomen (whether with or without a penis) are not allowed in women's changing rooms then they'll be in men's changing rooms. And transmen (whether with or without a vagina) want to use men's changing rooms.
Then maybe a third changing room might be plausible? I can 100% understand why transwomen wouldn't want to be in men's locker rooms.
Transmen in men's changing rooms are not the same as transwomen in women's changing rooms for reasons beyond my control. Somehow you never really hear of transmen traumatizing men with their vaginas in changing rooms.
Quoting Benkei
Then the problem is Judeo-Christian morality, but good luck convincing America of that. What is the replacement value system here, by the way? Do we know of an alternative framework we should be shifting to here?
Use a cubicle? Have that talk? If the sight of difference traumatises the little girl, I'm not sure that's anyone's fault but the parents'. Otherwise you can use this excuse to excuse many an act of hate.
I know plenty of Christians that go to mixed spa's. So it's not just religion. But in any case, I think expectation management goes a long way and think it's perfectly fine to decide one way or another. I think it's both reasonable to say that you should change in the locker room coinciding with your primary genitalia (penises or vaginas), so sex based, or based on gender identity. I think it shouldn't be an issue either way as long as the rules are clear. Or have cubicles, or have everything mixed from the get go etc. There's plenty of pragmatic solutions possible.
Mixed spas are a European thing. We're much more uptight over here. It's a thing.
Ask your mother.
Thank you for your contribution.
Human sex is distinguished by observation. Women and girls have uteruses and vaginas. Men don't. It is not a creation or construct it is an observation of biological reality.
This video covers the topic pretty well. But to your point it usually is pretty easy to tell if someone is a transgender person either before or after hormones or surgery.
Biological sex is based on a combination of traits:
- chromosomes (in humans, XY is male, XX female)
- genitals (penis vs. vagina)
- gonads (testes vs. ovaries)
- hormones (males have higher relative levels of testosterone than women, while women have higher levels of estrogen)
- secondary sex characteristics that aren’t connected with the reproductive system but distinguish the sexes, and usually appear at puberty (breasts, facial hair, size of larynx, subcutaneous fat, etc.)
Using genitals and gonads alone, more than 99.9% of people fall into two non-overlapping classes—male and female—and the other traits almost always occur with these. If you did a principal components analysis using the combination of all five traits, you’d find two widely separated clusters with very few people in between. Those clusters are biological realities, just as horses and donkeys are biological realities, even though they can produce hybrids (sterile mules) that fall morphologically in between.
Two widely separated clusters is not the same as a spectrum.
I think this picture of changing sex is insidious. A woman who has her breasts removed because of cancer is not becoming more male. A man with long hair is not becoming more female. There are two distinct sex categories male and female which are need for reproduction one produces sperm, the other eggs and the capacity to grow a baby inside themselves. (We all once lived inside our mothers) This is the sex binary and how we identify males and females. It is not capable being a spectrum.
An inverted penis is not analogous to a vagina or a functional part of a reproductive system. A phalloplasty or metoidioplasty are useless for reproduction and not anything like a functioning penis.
It is a bizarre maybe utopian fantasy that you can gradually change someone into the opposite sex. It seems the ultimate goal is to have some kind of machine where someone can enter and change sex instantaneously if they have the desire to live as the opposite sex and change back if they get tired of doing so.
But pandering to the different stages of this ideal, compromises peoples bodies and women's rights among other things. Sex stereotypes are attached to biological sex. It seems strange to be aspire to be treated like a biological woman whilst never having the biological reality that lead to said stereotypes.
On top of this there is not a unified trans ideology and a complete lack of coherent definition of gender and distinction between it and sex so that some people take on the moniker of woman with no intention of trying to biologically transition but seeing sex/gender id as apparently purely mental.
Odd.
It is odd. I'm not sure that is where the sexual identity for me lays. I do believe it is more in the mind than the contents of folk's underwear. But that is just my perspective.
For me sexuality and its identity is on a continuum and throughout our lives we move from our starting point. Sometimes life and circumstances move us a little more in one direction from where we started, and life happens again, and we might move the other way.
When I was exploring the idea of being with a woman, it was called just that, exploration.
I didn't consider myself a homosexual, or a heterosexual with homosexual tendencies.
For the duration of that time in my life I never wondered if I was a lesbian, I toyed with the label of being bi-sexual and landed on bi-curious. I only defined it as such, so when I was talking with people, they could kind of grasp what emotions I was encountering and where I felt most comfortable.
I am sure there is another term for it now, but I am not familiar with it yet. Maybe someone who is more knowledgeable about the current definition can tell me.
My thoughts were that I didn't like the timing, as it seemed to be for political reasons, but I was also a bit confused by the monogamy issues that were challenged by the announcement before the wife and the children being a part of dad declaring how he enjoys sex.
I also don't think of bisexuality as an identity issue, but more just something you prefer, although maybe I'm wrong to view it this way. I compare it to a woman proclaiming how much more she enjoys the touch of a vibrator over a man, which likely does describe some women, but it's not really something I need to know and not really something I think affects someone's identity.
A part of it to me is that I don't think how you perform sex acts or who you perform them with is so integral to the person that it ought be who we think that person is. Unless I'm going to be having sex that person, it seems pretty irrelevant whether the person is gay, straight, or anywhere else on the spectrum.
This is deliberate nonsense. Thousands of young women have had there breasts chopped off a male swimmer has beaten women's records and there are male rapists in female prisons.
Why do they call this a philosophy forum?
There is lots of evidence trans ideology is harmful to peoples minds and bodies. I have posted links on here including a video by a young man who has penis removed because he thought he could be a woman who now regrets it. So Please stop lying by your glib dismissals.
Female genital mutilation is considered a a horror when it happens in Africa but in the west it is now seen as gender reaffirming surgery and the version in the west causes a woman to be come infertile, have an increased of dementia and heartache, lead to complications such as fistulas, adhesions, arterial bleeds. I think people like you in history will be see on the wrong side and accomplices to grievous harm for reasons only you can fathom.
You might have entered into a discussion of the place of gender in competition, or of medical ethics. And to be sure there are issues to be addressed here.
But instead you demand of other folk that they must conform to your inadequate notions of sex, sexuality and gender.
To which the only reasonable replies are to laugh at you or to ask you to go fuck yourself.
Mm'no...... I think he's talking about all of the differences that we've known about for years and are, similarly, present in all animals. You know, stuff like what is captured here in these kinds of academic sources:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3030621/
https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.html
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2019.00185/full
https://elifesciences.org/articles/63425
https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/advan.00118.2006
You know, what we all know to be true, but for some reason are unwilling to admit. There really should be no issue with admitting that the biological differences between men and women are EXTENSIVELY documented in published research, while also making room for the emergent personality type that is now being colloquially referred to as : Trans. The inclination people have to dismiss scientific understandings that are apparent from the phenotypical level, let alone the genotypical level, is an exercise in political possession, not philosophy.
Nota bene: there are plenty more pieces of research to go around on this subject.
Pft. Not very imaginative.
You can also laugh AND tell them to go fuck themselves. Live a little Banno.
The question is one of consent, with children being unable to consent to having their genitals removed and adults being able to consent. The distinction between consent and no consent is not subtle, but it is what distinguishes rape from a loving interaction as one example.
Another critical part of consent in the medical context is the information you have available to you, which is why it is often referred to as informed consent. As long as the person understands the various risks you've presented, the decision is then up to him or her to decide how to act. It does seem ethically improper to have you at their decision making table.
More complicated questions arise in the female genital mutilation among adult women to the extent that occurs at a later age. The question that needs to be addressed in those cases is whether the decision is truly with consent or whether it is being forced upon them. It is also important that the woman accurately be informed of the consequences and that she be provided accurate information regarding whether the surgery truly makes one more pure, or whatever its goal is.
To the extent you are arguing that no rational person could ever choose sexual reassignment surgery and that it is per se evidence of mental illness and lack of capacity, I think you have an uphill battle. You'll need to show something more than that you personally find it nuts.
Trans rhetoric makes disputable claims which are open for public scrutiny. I can't control what people think but I can assess the truth value of what they say.
Nevertheless what has happened is to try and redefine sex and identity and the truth of biology and psychology for everyone, so you damn well better think I am going to be concerned.
Affirming gender nonsense is harmful it is not just about the content of one persons mind but how society must be structured so as not to upset this person. You can convince a vulnerable person that they have a gender identity they don't such as claiming there is such things as a hundred genders and they might have been born in the worn body.
More debate and scrutiny is desperately needed so people undergoing gender affirmation are truly well informed on what is entailed.
We are being told mixed messages. First that trans identities are not a mental health issue but then that surgeries and hormones are urgently needed or said person will kill themselves.
This seems to be one of almost the only instances I can think of where someone's belief has to be affirmed by others. It is the equivalent of religious compulsion. You have to act as if you truly think a biological male is a female and if you read posts on this you know that even trans people can sense when you are just pretending to believe they are the opposite sex.
Female genital mutilation is called mutilation so that is not a question about consent. This issue is not consent because children don't consent to numerous things. The issue is the surgeries are harmful and stop proper function of a body part and can cause chronic pain. Early transition leads to infertility and patients are even told that.
I mentioned Jazz Jennings earlier whose penis was shrunk by puberty blockers and they needed to do several surgeries with lots of complications to try and turn it into a pseudo vagina because they usually do the surgery on fully developed males.
A woman in her early 30's said she was allowed to consent to gender affirming treatments that could cause infertility but when she desisted and wanted her tubes tied she was told to wait because she might regret it and want children.
This can be impossible for various reasons. 1. The person can easily be said to be mentally disordered often suffering gender dysphoria and other mental health conditions including severe depression and even schizophrenia and psychosis
2. The surgeries are highly experimental.
3. Some of the risks are so severe or have a high probability of happening so that you would have to be mad to consent to them.
One of the functions of gender/sexual identity is that categorizing people based on it should provide a modicum of safety in certain settings where people are highly vulnerable, such as schools, hospitals, prisons.
For you as a man it probably matters little whether you share a hospital room with a man or a woman. Or whether the person in the dressing booth next to yours is a man or a woman.
Perhaps you also wouldn't mind peeing while standing next to a woman, the way you don't mind peeing while standing next to a man?
Clearly categorizable gender/sexual identity (ie. a person is either male or female) provides a modicum of shared privacy in public spaces occupied by more people. Arguably, this shared privacy is important to many people for a general sense of safety.
But there are gay people who I am sure would love to jump on top of me and have their way with me while I'm standing at the urinal, but I have no way of distinguishing the gay from the straight, so I stand there vulnerable, hoping to have uneventful toilet experience.
Whatever will they do for me?
The general trend has been to create bathrooms only with stalls or to provide a separate bathroom that can be accessed only one person at a time. That seems a reasonable accommodation. It's pretty rare in any event for rapes and sexual assaults to take place between transsexuals and CIS males in public restrooms. Maybe it's a thing where you live I don't know.
My point here is that all the concerns for safety and whatever other issues you wish to throw out seem pretextual, meaning I really don't think you have these concerns as much as you have a desire not to accommodate people who you believe are irrational and cuckoo.
So, all things considered, you wouldn't have done as Jazz did because she's had complications from her surgery that you consider worse than the advantages she gained from the surgery. Why is your assessment of any value to Jazz? If she believes all the surgeries she's been through are worth it and she's happier as the result, why should your concerns be her concerns?
Your bad faith is duly noted, as usual.
Jazz was operated on and puberty blocked as a child. Jazz started suffering depression after he went on puberty blockers. This was ascertained in a discussion on the reality show.
By the way it is a lie to call a biological male a woman. Pronouns are intended to reflect some semblance of reality.
Jazz wanted to go to Harvard but the process was delayed due to mental health problems.
He said himself he was fine before he went on puberty blockers. Jazz has also said he thinks he'll never have an orgasm and he knows the surgeries have prevented him from creating children.
This is the highest level of self harm we allow other than assisted suicides.
You'd have to ask the makers of that poster.
Psychological gender is a cluster of traits, but which traits in particular those are for which gender varies from culture to culture, from setting to setting. The same trait can sometimes be considered male, other times, female, or childish.
Gay men have been known to congregate in toilets for sexual intimacy. I suppose I feel sorry for the straight men who may have walked in on this.
This kind of sexual practise doesn't happen among lesbians in women's toilets it is the differing sexual persuasions of men and women why we need separate spaces. I admit I went "cottaging" as a young gay man but not in the women's toilets.
I believe men are well of other men's sexual attitudes and behaviours so when they are confronted with the reality of what alterations in the law means for their daughters, partners, and females in general I think they will join the backlash against undermining protections for biological women and sex differences.
[i]There is no society. There are only individuals.
There are no social norms.[/i]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lili_Elbe
"In 1931, she had her fourth surgery, to transplant a uterus and construct a vaginal canal.[6][7][31][5] This made her one of the earliest transgender women to undergo a vaginoplasty surgery, a few weeks after Erwin Gohrbandt performed the experimental procedure on Dora Richter.[25]
Elbe's immune system rejected the transplanted uterus, and the operation and a subsequent surgical revision caused infection, which led to her death from cardiac arrest on 13 September 1931, three months after the surgery"
Magnus Hirschfeld of the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft oversaw her surgeries.
This was some of the institutes prior experiments:
"Working off of the research of Eugen Steinach, who had recently succeeded in reversing the sexual behavior of animal test subjects, the institute began testing whether or not transplanting the testicles from a heterosexual man to a homosexual man would cure homosexuality. This method of "curing" homosexuality more often than not grew necrotized and resulted in the testicles having to be castrated and was abandoned by 1924"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institut_f%C3%BCr_Sexualwissenschaft
Let’s take as an example traits within modern Western societies, such as a boy growing up with a constellation of behaviors he has no control over and which causes other boys to label him a sissy. Let’s say he would list these behaviors as including speaking with a lisp, walking and throwing a ball like a girl, playing with dolls instead of toy soldiers and guns. Let’s say he also is attracted exclusively to other males and connects this attraction. with the other behaviors which he regards as feminine. Let’s say further that he does a bit of neurophysiological research and suspects that the constellation of ‘feminine’ behaviors that he was apparently born with are not random or independent of each other but instead are all the result of a kind of brain ‘wiring’ that determines psychological gender (masculine vs feminine behavior and sexual attraction).
This shouldn’t be too controversial since we commonly accept that male and female dogs and cats show recognizable gender-connected behavioral differences.
He could then hypothesize that such biological determinants can interact with culture to produce changing definitions of the masculine and the feminine.
So where does trans fit in here? I think the idea that one must change one’s body to fit one’s psychological gender is only necessary in a culture which
believes that behavior should match genitalia according to rigid norms. In a society which has no such belief , one is free to recognize that body sex and psychological gender are inextricably intertwined such that it becomes incoherent to claim that one was born in the wrong body.
Does she say she's fine now and that she wishes she would have never gone down the road she chose? That seems to be the real question, not whether you regret her decisions for her.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
The proper referent to a pronoun is however people use it. That's how language works. I use "her" to denote people who wish to be recognized as female. You use "him" as a bludgeon to remind men who wish to present as women that they're full of shit. Different strokes for different folks I guess. I like my way, but you be you.
Girls throw like girls because no one ever taught them to step with the opposite leg as the throwing arm. It's a simple correction they teach all little boys in little league. I would doubt it's a mistake any girl who played softball would ever make. The whole stepping and twisting motion that goes into a throw is something that is taught, but not something in the gene pool.
It's also something I notice in many Europeans how poorly many of them throw, constantly trying to use their feet to knock down balls as if playing soccer.
I’m a gay male. Plenty of men tried to teach me to throw like a guy. I spent hours trying to teach myself. I was desperate to get rid of such ‘feminine’ traits but it worked out about as well as that John Wayne scene from La Cage Aux Folles.
Please refer to me as King Andrew now or just your majesty because that is how I prefer to be referred to. I also am a real monarch because that is what my brain is telling me. I can't be wrong about my own intuitions.
Then the fault is with the trans people.
Many people are simply spoiled and want to be speshal, want to be adored. Just before, I saw a feature about a Spanish (?) singer, currently still a biological male who dresses as a woman and who will have his Adam's apple removed next month. Why? He says it's to have a more feminine voice, and then with the hormone therapy, to have long hair, etc.
This is simply vanity and having too much money.
That's why Hitler can come into rule.
This is an equivocation fallacy.
The reason I won't call you "king" is that you don't think yourself a king. Transsexuals are not confused as to what their biology is or in what distinguishes them from other people. There is no delusionary thinking and there is no confusion. They are simply using a word to designate themselves with a full understanding of who they actually are.
So, when a biologically born male who is now presenting as a female uses the pronoun "she," she is not then saying she was born a female. She is using the term for one thing and you for another and then you attempt to use your term on her, thus the equivocation fallacy I've pointed out. Her pronoun use doesn't have ontological impact.
That is, if you called yourself "king" because you used that term to describe being the first born in your family, I could not declare you a liar because you aren't a monarch. You never intended the term to be used that way and didn't try to trick anyone into thinking you were actually a king.
Logic schmlogic though. You have a bone to pick with the transsexuals, so go forth and ridicule them and tell them you must be a sheepdog because you feel it in your heart and soul and so you demand to be called Fido.
I don't see that as "feminine", but as physically clumsy, perhaps even a neurological problem or otherwise poor eye-body coordination. A problem that is not limited to either sex.
Also, in my native language, an idiomatic phrase like "you throw like a girl" doesn't exist.
You’re making a fool of yourself, and you should be ashamed. This argument has been used a million times and it remains incredibly ignorant. Seriously, I suggest you go educate yourself or at least stop whining.
Is yours an argument to refuse to acknowledge the existence of trans people, or for improvements in the prison system?
Quoting baker
The "fault" is with folk such as you who are overly concerned with the contents of other people's underpants. You are the reason nearly half of transexual children have attempted suicide. Your attitude is the reason for the abominable statistics on the treatment of trans folk.
I'm not going to insist you have some hidden throwing talent, and I'll accept you are a particularly terrible athlete, but I did have the task of coaching little league, and we used the (1) Point, (2) Step, (3) Throw method to some success. I also watched the girls play softball, and they definitely could throw.
At any rate, let give this one more go.
So stand up and let's do this. Assuming you're right handed, put a crumpled up piece of paper in your right hand. Square your shoulders with your feet squared underneath with your arms hanging by your side. Now, extend your left arm as if pointing forward directly at the wall with your left index finger pointed forward at the wall. Now step very far forward with your left foot forward, stepping so far that your left knee bends and your right leg is dragged forward and your right shoulder is angled back.
You're now going to spring forward and unravel that tightly spun up manly body of yours and use that pent up energy to propel the ball crushing through the wall.
Now take your right hand and bring it in a circular motion back and then make it pass just above your ear. This part is important! Move it above your ear. If you come in low, you're going to flip your elbow and look, well, like a girl.
Release the paper when the right arm is almost fully extended. Release too early and the paper is going to arc up toward the ceiling, and you'll look like, well, a girl. Release too late and it'll go straight to the ground, and you'll look, well, like a girl.
And this part is important, when you release the paper, growl like an angry tiger, look at the damage you did to the room, and then do a victory pirouette.
One against political correctness.
So for you, society and social norms exist and must be obeyed when it pleases you, and should be regarded as non-existent and discarded when it doesn't please you, eh?
No, yours is, your bad faith, and your ascribing to people stances they don't hold. Fuck you for this.
Balls. I'm talking about children killing themselves. Get that through your thick head.
Is baseball a popular sport in your country?
Quoting baker
Not a neurological problem, and not clumsiness. Rather, a perceptual-affective style that differs along a masculine-feminine spectrum. That is, the issue isn’t with the arm, the stance, the coordination. It is with a primordial level of perceptual processing. That is why such a wide range of behaviors ( speech pronunciation, posture, walk, throwing, general bodily comportment, response to stimuli) all are involved and tied together as gender-associated via primordial perceptual-affective style which one is born with.
To understand this is to understand why we recognize a different behavioral style in male vs female dogs and cats.
Otherwise I can't take thee seriously.
I wonder how many people you drove into misery with your bad faith.
You’re missing the point. Im not denying that with enough training I could learn to ‘throw like a boy’. The point is that my natural tendency to throw the ball like a girl is related to my natural
tendency to walk in a feminine way, to speak in a way that has feminine characteristics, to have a bodily posture and comportment that tends in the same direction. I could add hundreds of particular behavioral
tendencies to this. What they all have in common is that they are all generated by a primary perceptual-affective neural style that manifests along a masculine-feminine spectrum. A gender-related style of perceptual processing is a fundamental component of , but not the entire basis of, the execution of such things as throwing a ball.
This is why female dogs have recognizably different behavioral styles than male dogs.
Quoting baker
Rhetorical claims of bad faith will not cut it. The attitude towards trans people you have shown here is unethical, callous and shallow.
The shear hypocrisy of this is astonishing. You would refuse to allow trans folk to express their identity. You are imposing your preconceptions of sexuality and gender on others, creating "society and social norms [that] must be obeyed when it pleases you". So are you a hypocrite or just incapable of clear thinking?
No. Soccer is, but we have no "you kick like a girl".
I don't buy this.
I've had cats for almost forty years, males and females, intact and sterilized, but I wouldn't ascribe the differences in behavior to their biological sex. Sure, I'm talking about a sample of altogether about twenty cats, which isn't much, but still. I would ascribe the differences primarily due to size, physical fitness, position in the hierarchy, past experiences of the animal with humans and other animals, character of their owners and upbringing style.
(I know a family that has had German shepherds for years, males and females. All their dogs were the same, regardless of age, size, and sex. All the same aggressiveness and superiority, just like their owners.)
I know people say this, but it's not clear it is possible to actually empirically prove it. One thing I find most striking about many women nowadays, esp. the younger ones, is that they are so much like what would normally be regarded as male. Rough, stiff, voice in a lower registry, no waist, aggressive, unkind.
Many people nowadays have poor posture and poor gait. This is due to a lot of factors, notably, little exercise (so weak, short muscles and tendons, thus poorer coordination and suboptimal movement), cheap shoes (that force the person to pronate), and tight clothes. I see this in men and in women.
Quoting Joshs
Or, alternatively, you just feel ashamed, self-conscious. Over a long period of time, this can result in a kind of rigidity of bodily movements, with a lesser range of movement, less physical exertion, which then indeed "looks feminine".
Indeed, women are often taught to feel ashamed of themselves and to be self-conscious, but that doesn't make those traits and their physiological expression "feminine".
Yours has been, toward me, from the beginning.
You deserve a hundred more Scotties.
Quoting Banno
You just want things to be politically correct and shallow. That pays your salary or something?
"Their identity". We're at a philosophy forum. Identity is a construct.
Also, since we're at a philosophy forum, there's that about getting to know the other person's position first before criticizing it, rather than jumping the gun.
Quoting baker
Quoting baker
Maybe you’re not very observant.
“From the data included in this review, it appears that males tend to be more aggressive and bolder than females, whereas a lower level of intraspecific sociability in males was reported. Females seem more inclined to interspecific social interactions with humans in tasks that require cooperative skills, whereas males appear more likely to interspecific social play. Studies of spatial skills underlined a higher flexibility in resorting to a particular navigation strategy in males in an outdoor environment; however, females appear to be better at spatial learning tasks in restricted areas. Lateralization studies seem to support the view that males are preferentially left-pawed and females are preferentially right-pawed; however, some studies have failed to replicate these results. Reports on visual focusing rank females as superior in focus on specific social and physical stimuli. In olfactory monitoring activity, only male dogs are able to discriminate kin.”
https://www.pedigree.com/getting-a-new-dog/getting-an-adult-dog/male-female-dogs-personality-differences#
https://www.thewildest.com/dog-behavior/what-are-differences-between-male-and-female-dogs
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6162565/
And you would refuse to allow trans people to construct their identity, insisting that you do it for them.
Quoting baker
No; I want children not to feel so disenfranchised that they try to kill themselves. I want the same for trans adults.
If you would to be understood, be understanding. You may deal with the contents of your underwear as you please. Extend that privilege to others.
Appear, seem.
I find that so much depends on the relationship one has with the animal, however short the interaction. The same animal will act very differently, depending on what human is around and how the human behaves.
For example, one of our male cats gets relatively little cuddling from us, because the rest of the family somehow believe that it is unbecoming to cuddle with a male cat, but much more appropriate to cuddle with a female cat. I surmise that it is because of this that the male is more socially withdrawn than the females, and not because of something inherently male.
I've witnessed female cats fight ferociously over territory.
Nonsense. More of your bad faith.
Identity is a construct, it's a means to an end. And we live in a world where resources are limited. This is why it is only prudent to construct one's identity in line with that.
Ordinary people don't simply get that kind of enfranchizement, they have to earn it, by submitting to social norms.
Why should one category of people be granted that enfranchizement for free?
You've always had the American strategy: The best defense is a good offense. You do that. You start with that. You throw the first stone. Then you cry foul.
Yours is a simple demand, that folk conform to you expectations.
In the end, the only genuine response to your posts is pathos. It is tragic that you have had to adopt the attitude you have, that you cannot accept the divergence of others.
The question isn’t whether there are individual
differences in personality. It is whether, a robust gender-correlated difference can be extracted , above and beyond these individual differences that you cite. Study after study shows such robust gender-related differences in many different mammals. We already know of the link between testosterone and aggression.
What an astonishing comment. Detransitioners have said that they were deluded about their identity.
However. Delusionary thinking can be identified by the content of speech.
If a statement is untrue or concerns an impossibility, speculating about what is in the speakers mind is irrelevant.
The idea that a man can become in any way near to being a biological female or that enacting female stereotypes earns someone the right to be called she is either delusion or pure misogyny. Real women experience what thousands of years of biological females have faced which is often second class status to men (or worse). No man should be entitled to claim that identity. That is why white people claiming to be black are scorned for trying to claim an identity of great historical importance due to persecution.
Nevertheless you apparently have limited access to claims made by trans identified people where several, in the case of men , are adamant that they are biological women and experience period cramps and the menopause. Apparently a man in France has one the right to the legal fallacy of being identified as the child's mother so the child now has no legal biological father. A completely narcissistic, self absorbed request and verdict celebrated by many in the trans community.
Schizophrenics have real delusions so are you going to affirm a paranoid schizophrenics delusion that they are being hunted by the mafia because it is a firmly held belief?
You don't know what exactly the content of another persons mind is when they make statement.
I just refuse to make/utter untrue statements unless they are a little white lie to spare someone's feelings or a fiction for entertainment purpose.
If a trans identified individual said they would commit suicide if not called the correct pronoun that would suggest they were very mentally ill. Most biological males and females don't care about misgendering because they don't have a problem with recognising the immutability of their sex or need their identity propped up by others.
What is classed as misgendering is usually correctly recognising someone's sex and what is considered preferred pronouns is being forced to indulge in someone else's fantasies. I will always side with reality and the truth, telling people they can change sex/gender will just increase the number of people fostering and trying to enact this belief.
Since I have never been deluded into thinking that MtF transsexuals believe they were born with vaginas and that they are actually biological females, helplessly wondering why others don't share their delusion, I can't respond to any of your nonsense.
They view gender as a mental designation. That you use the term differently is obvious, but your attempt to impose your usage on them and then to suggest they must mean what you mean when you use the term is an absurd equivocation fallacy.
If I call dogs "cats," that doesn't mean I think dogs meow. The question becomes what the user of the word wishes to convey with its usage.
If a transsexual male claims they have the necessary attributes of a female, then he cannot transition to a female, and the word is essentially redundant.
It only works if matters of fact are mental-dependent. If no females existed as matters of a fact, it would be impossible for a male to 'claim to be one'.
Addressing this incoherence, the word was morphed to 'trans-gender' which includes a series of over 100 different arbitrary identities in order for trans ideology to make sense. Now, anything under this umbrella can make pragmatic 'social sense' because they view man and women are purely arbitrary abstract mental-dependent constructs in spite of clear logical incoherence and incorrectness.
I do think there are legitimate transsexuals, but I do not think transgenderism exists outside of socially normative abstractions. The majority of trans, especially the bored edgy kids today are not trans, and the actual legitimate transsexuals who are much less in number, have been silenced because they reaffirm sex essentialism that makes posers uncomfortable. The silenced minority of legitimate transsexuals have admitted they are incorrect in their thinking with integrity, but not 'wrong' in who they are.
One possible reason why a woman/girl thinks she/he is a man/boy (transsexual) is that she/he is attracted to other women/girls, but then lesbians (homosexual) don't go through a gender crisis even though they too like women/girls.
The same goes for men/boys who think they're women/girls.
The long and short of it:
Transsexual men have something against lesbians. They don't want to be lesbians.
Transsexual women are anti-gay (secretly, unknowingly, homophobic). They're unhappy being gay.
I'm probably going to get banned for stating this fact.
It is our business when asking someone out on a date. Straights, lesbians and gays each deserve the right to know what sex they're bringing home with them. If we didn't live in a society where it was law to wear clothes, it wouldn't be an issue.
:lol:
So... ask.
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/gender-identity/sex-gender-identity/whats-intersex
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/232363#gender
The issue at hand might well be the inability of some folk to deal with the complexities of the real world.
The BBC World Service has a story about a woman who was taking testosterone and had had her breasts removed who decided (as a "man") that "he" had always wanted to have children. She still had ovaries, a uterus, and the other parts. So "he" stopped taking testosterone and eventually resumed menses. "He" was artificially inseminated and bore a child. The BBC host for this story was very excited that "a man could bear a child."
Extreme bullshit, of course. The "man" in this case was a woman pretending to be a man, and taking male hormones to get a beard and slightly different musculature. What she was doing was elaborate transvestitism.
Men take estrogen, develop breasts, lose their male sex drive, and so on, and dress like women. Parts can be chopped off. In the case of women wanting to look like men, parts can be chopped off, hormones taken, and sausages sewed on. They remain the men or women that they were born as, just more chopped up.
Transsexualism and transvestitism is an elaborate sexual masquerade--and certainly not the only sexual and non-sexual masquerade which humans perform. But let's stay honest: A man wearing a dress (even if an artificial vagina has been created) is still a masquerading man. A woman wearing a beard and a suit (even if an artificial penis has been created) is still a masquerading woman.
I don't have any objection to people masquerading, as long as they--and society--are clear and honest about what they are doing.
:100: agree. Demanding that the rest of society play along with the charade is the problem. Better refer to random fragile being as xer person who menstruates on Tuesdays and chestfeeds on Fridays, otherwise they will cry and shit their pants. Madness. Surgeons are mutilating bodies for coins. Doesn't that go against the hyppocratic oath? Wth is going on?
What determines someone to be a man or a woman? Genotype? Phenotype? Psychology? Social role? Naming?
What are these "necessary" attributes?
Quoting Banno
Exactly. So it is our business in certain contexts and it's not really that it isnt our business in other contexts. It's just that we don't care in other contexts because it's irrelevant.
Another situation it is relevant, besides mating, is in sports.
Quoting Michael
Quoting Harry Hindu
When pronouns, "he" and " her" are a reference to one's sex, not gender - whatever that is if it's not the same as sex.
The rules we abide by for having the sexes behave a certain way is so that we can identify the sexes in a society where it is a rule that you wear clothes in public.
Would you refer to someone with XX male syndrome using "he" or "she" (or both or neither)?
Quoting Harry Hindu
According to who or what?
How we actually use language determines what words mean and pronoun-usage in the modern age is more complex than it may have been historically.
You say "pretending" and "masquerading" I think that's your take on what's happening.
Everybody else says "trans", to indicate how they self identify and how they want to be addressed.
In America anyway, this is pretty mainstream, if still a little awkward sometimes.
The question is whether they behave a certain way because they are female or male, or whether there are alternative explanations.
You demand that people conform to your expectations.
Even at a philosophy forum, for you, some things are simply off limits, as if this would be a watercooler conversation.
Quoting Banno
You're not understanding. Why should others be understanding?
Of course it's not possible, it's about "accepting" it
This isn't "being honest" so much as its being willfully ignorant. The mapping of gender roles onto the biological sexes (which is itself nowhere near so black and white as folks like you like to imagine) is itself an arbitrary social convention, its already a "masquerade" in the first place. Transsexualism (which is not the same as transvestitism) is no different in this regard, and pretending otherwise is just a post-hoc rationalization for personal prejudice. But points, I guess, for being open and honest about your own irrational prejudices; better an open bigot than a secret one, right?
Well, yes, not surprisingly. My "take" is that the overwhelming majority of H. sapiens are born as male or female. True, a small percentage are born with sexual anomalies. True, many are born with personality or mental traits that are conventionally associated with the opposite sex. True, some are born with or develop sexual object arousal that are unusual (fetishists). Most people are born and identify as straight, some are born and identify as gay.
In fact, moray eels can change sex, people cannot. People can masquerade and pass as members of the opposite sex, as long as they are in costume. Moray eels cannot.
Quoting frank
Fine, trans can call it whatever they want.
Self-advocacy groups sometimes over-reach. In my opinion, the gay rights movement over-reached on marriage and family. "Marriage" with the prospect of children is essentially a heterosexual expectation. That doesn't mean that gay people should thus lead marginalized, lonely existences. Two men, two women can have meaningful and fulfilling relationships (or not--break-ups occur either way).
Yes, I understand that two men, two women, or singles can raise a child. The question for 'gay liberation' is more a matter of what gay people have given up to gain acceptance and the 'normality' of heterosexual-type family life.
In my opinion, trans people (that better?) have over-reached as well.
How did the baby navigate the penile canal?
The notion that someone was born in the wrong body is fairly common. One has the "wrong" hair color, the "wrong" height, the "wrong" eye color, the "wrong" mass and distribution of fat or muscle, and so on. The idea that one is "a male born in a female body" or a "female born in a male body" is on this spectrum of rejecting one's current body and wanting another body.
It's simply indicative of our society's obsession with appearance, with the superficial. Giving in to this obsession is not virtuous.
Quoting Joshs
I wouldn't say any of that.
Children accusing another child of being a sissy is not limited to boys. Girls, too, will call another girl a sissy, if they deem her weak or incompetent.
Effective parents and teachers assume that a child should have control over his or her behaviors, that's the whole point of raising a child.
It's convenient to conceive of a person's identity as somehow a given, a neurological, physiological given. Because this way, we feel justified to like or dislike the person; we feel that our persistent liking or disliking of someone is justified.
Conceiving of a person's identity as somehow a given feeds our general craving for externalization and our reticence to take responsibility for our thoughts, feelings, desires. By taking such responsibility I mean seeing our thoughts, feelings, desires as constructed, conditioned, as subject to arising and cessation, and subject to our volition, not as givens.
We actually learn to take such responsibility early on (a child needs to do so in order to do his homework, for example), but people vary in how consistently they do this.
Transsexuals only want _some_ of the physical traits of the sex they are transitioning into.
A man chemically and surgically "transitioning" "into" a woman wants only some female traits, but not all. He doesn't want to have a body that will eventually go through menopause, lose hair and get brittle bones. He also doesn't want to have a body that has the ability to become pregnant even when the owner of said body doesn't want it to. Hell, he surely doesn't want to have a body that readily accumulates fat and leaks blood every few weeks. No, he just wants some of the socially and economically accentuated perks of "femininity", but not others.
Hence transsexualism is suspicious.
Most people have some difficulty to face in life. A makeover of one's appearance (whether it's in the form of hiring a stylist to choose one a new wardrobe, having a facelift, or a sex change operation) doesn't solve anything in the long run.
The problems that can be solved by changing one's external appearance (whether it's dying one's hair or changing external sexual characteristics) are not problems worth solving.
By exploding the penis to smithereens. Don't worry though, it wasn't a real penis and they sewed another one back on afterwards.
To me this indicates how little you have understood of the plight of transexuals. Suggesting that all they need is a new haircut is extraordinarily numb.
Every little thing comes down to money. Companies scramble to present a PC image so as to avoid losing their share of the market. That's why I, a healthcare worker, have been trained to be sensitive to trans issues.
Sniff all you want. There's nothing you can do about it.
Sure. But why should this political correctness extend to discussions at philosophy forums?
Choice.
Perhaps the reason you are so upset is because you realise the inconsistency of your view.
I think your failure to understand psychological gender in terms of a perceptual-affective style that we are born with comes from a larger inability to understand cognition in embodied terms , as attuned by an affective , valuative background , a pre-given global possibility space which contributes the particular relevance that experience has for us. You seem to think of behavior in atomistic, reductionist behavioral terms. This reminds me of Skinner’s attempts to explain language learning via stimulus response theory. What you’re missing is a ‘transformational grammar’ of personality. Your way of understanding behavior reduces it to disconnected conditionings and prevents you from achieving a truly intimate empathy with others. People arent stimulus response machines or Cartesian rationalizers. They are embodied sense forming pattern seekers, and gender is one factor in how we stylistically organize those patterns.
*sigh*
The only thing I "fail" to internalize is a particular popular notion of gender/sex. I don't give it the kind of prominence and importance as many people do.
Please indulge me and tell me what you know of embodied, enactive approaches within cognitive psychology and how they differ from earlier models.
As I said , I don’t think this is simply about there are gender-connected constellations of behavior. The larger issue concerns what it is we are born with when our parents fist. price how our personalities differ from each other, how one has a temper and the other is shy. If you were to simply deny gender-related claims but support the idea that personality traits give us global styles of perception that are robust, then I would say your thinking and mine weren’t far apart.But my guess is you want to deny any connection between personality and cognitive style, because when it comes down to it, gender is a personality style.
Basically, I think people should focus on work. Not on "developing identity" and pursuing luxuries.
"Work sets you free".
And she says I'm right wing.
One of the oldest philosophical maxims is the "Know thyself." "Who are we?" and "What are we?" are of the highest level of philosophical inquiry. To those who believe they have solved these inquiries to the extent of adding or removing body parts, the philosophical audacity is beyond me.
I have formed a reasonable belief of my reproductive abilities and societal role. My belief is not only based on a subject feeling that I have, but upon an objective analysis of my observations garnered from my senses. If a person "feels" like one gender, but their organs look and feel like that of another gender, they can't be certain of their identity. Changing organs surgically and dressing like a particular gender will not clarify the issue. If a person has a sex change operation and dresses like a particular gender, it is primarily to make society believe that they were born with the reproductive organs of the gender they are emulating. This isn't fair to society at large which has vested interest in quickly identifying as many characteristics of its members as possible.
Cheap shot, but that made me laugh. A lot.
Over my life I have known many transgender people - young and old. Some very brave folk who were out there thirty years ago and really took risks to become the person they are now. No one I have met is transgender for laughs or as a stunt. People's biology doesn't need to limit their gender expression and changing sex may be an efficacious pathway to good mental health and full participation in community life. I can't pretend to understand this phenomenon experientially but I can support people and wish them the best. There are few things less noble than resenting or undermining people for who they are.
Yes!
You support thousands of young women including teenage girls having healthy breasts removed, the indoctrination of children, undermining women's rights, the existence of 100 genders and so on.
So there is nothing noble about your position. Maybe you didn't read any of the thread?
"Lia Thomas, 22, smashed two U.S. swimming records at an Akron, Ohio contest
Thomas won the 1,650 freestyle in a record time of 15:59.71 beating her closest rival Anna Sofia Kalandaze by 38 seconds
She left rivals floundering in a 500 freestyle beating them by 14 seconds "
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10282301/Transgender-UPenn-swimmer-Lia-Thomas-smashes-records-weekend-meets-14-SECONDS-ahead-rival.html
Kia, 26, from Wales, says she was forced to seek private treatment after the NHS procedures left her in near-constant pain and with her urethra permanently exposed, which she says means she is unable to have sex or urinate properly.
She says doctors also failed to inform her she had effectively been 'castrated' by the operations - as the procedures have left her with limited sensation.
The 26-year-old, who is suffering from anxiety, says she is still a virgin, has never had a boyfriend, and is desperate to lead a 'normal life'."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5191129/Transgender-woman-castrated-botched-surgery-NHS.html
"What eventuated was a botched job, mutilating her genitals to the point where she can't perform the simplest physical tasks and leaving her stranded on an invalids benefit."
https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/90412433/botched-overseas-sex-change-leaves-auckland-woman-mutilated-and-facing-lifetime-of-chronic-pain
All gender affirmations surgeries are botched because by nature the are mutilating healthy body parts. But I can link you to endless stories of the side effects of these surgeries which are being promoted as health care. Hippocrates would be rolling in his mausoleum.
https://thefederalist.com/2018/12/06/9-transgender-patients-complain-mutilation-botched-sex-change-surgeries-oregon/
This person is intersex, as it says on the wiki. People with abnormal or mixed-sex characteristics/traits have always been "intersex". Intersex is uncommon and a fact. Just like male and female. There are males, females and then intersex. This is the only time the 'they/them' pronoun makes any form of sense outside of arbitrary made-up identities. I respect the intersex and they must be protected. The other arbitrary trivial identities are just that.
It is very simple. The necessary attributes in order to constitute X, all said 'parts'. What are the 'necessary' attributes of Sodium? Sodium is not 'radium' because it lacks the necessary attributes to be so. There are factual distinctions that make a difference between males and females, which is why we make the scientifically interesting distinction between the two. This is untrue for 'gender', which is a completely arbitrary concept that anyone can insert anything into, which is why you are confused. I do not care about gender at all, or 'man and woman' because it is a made up concept. A male in a dress is not a female, so who gives a flying fk if he wears a dress to go against something abstract concept of 'man'. This is a trivial offensive way to view a female, and mockery of genuine transsexual individuals because the reality is, a 'male or female' without dysphoria can wear anything and still not feel a need to augment themselves.
Gender is a concept held dearly by those suffering from body-idealistic narcissistic solipsism, yes, including the trad-conservative cornballs and the trangenders, and other gender and race fetishtists.
The rich are making money off the people who genuinely think a woman in a suit that grunts is less of a woman in the factual, which is absolutely insane. These people are no different from the traditionalist disgusting conservatives reaffirming gender roles while dishonestly claiming to abolish them by being the male that wears a dress, who reaffirms the traditionalist conservative magical-thinking nutjobs that also think he is less of a man as a matter of necessary factual maleness because he put on a dress.
I am sex essentialist, and funnily enough, so are silenced transsexuals, which is why although impossible, I sympathize with their condition more than the transgenders that are completely made up unicorns, like 'man and woman', the concepts that are just magical-thinking trad-con fetishes the transgenders continue to reaffirm instead of progressively moving on from 'gender-thinking'.
In order to be considered 'trans', you must have the necessary traits and attributes to be so, if the medical professional is doing their job correctly, this is why a random cannot claim to be trans and receive hormones without meeting the necessary criteria. A trans that lacks X, Y, Z necessary traits is not 'trans'.
Females with strong male-like characteristics are known to have hormonal abnormalities, she is still female, but this is recognize medically as an abnormal deviation. This is not a 'transgender' or 'trans' person, this is a female with a beard, because she lacks the necessary attributes to be 'trans' (dysphoria), etc..
This question itself is a strong refute transsexualism as is, because if there are no necessary attributes that make X and Y, there are no necessary attributes to 'transition' to - or to lack/claim to have, which appeals to some form of agender society, which does not work, in so far as female and males (and this intuitive) distinction exists as a matter of fact in a non-arbitrary non-abstract world.
Transsexualism makes a direct claim, or implies to a series of series necessary attributes that exist in the opposite sex to either "be" or "not be," such as observed differences in trans brains that correspond with the 'sex' they claim to be (although not in fact), which justifies their transition or need to.
It appeals to a binary system, which is why the term was changed to be arbitrary and include 'gender' which does not exist in any real form.
There is nothing real about gender. There are no 'biological genders' like there are no 'biological races', it is a made up cash-grab like masculinity and femininity, yet nutjobs still think Transgenderism exists in any real fashion.
While it is impossible to transition from one sex to another, it is entirely reasonable to grasp the concept of transsexualism in so far male and female exists as a matter of fact, while transgenderism does not exist in no interesting way that is not solely mental dependent (or indistinguishable from mental disorder). Transsexualism falls a part where the trans individual starts making claims that a transition (of X to Y) has occurred.
The trans person has augmented themselves, not 'transitioned' because they lack the necessary attributes of the opposite sex to become one, hence, why they augment themselves.
Before retirement from social work, I occasionally provided services to trans persons. I treated them with respect and sensitivity, as expected, as trained. I've known a number of transsexual persons since... about 1974. I accepted them as part of the gay community (which early on was the only community they could belong to) just as I did fems, butches, fats, thins, drug users, hairy, hairless, straights, bisexuals, and so on. I've listened to trans people describe their situation, how it manifested itself in their lives, and have heard about and observed the difficulties they've had,
So I get it. And, sniff: no, there is nothing I can do about it. I checked my last long range plan, and fixing trans people isn't on my TO DO list. Just so you know.
Medical and social service workers should of course respect their clients. That doesn't mean believing everything they say, or accepting as truth everything they believe in. I don't believe everything that I have believed in the past, and some ancient truths now seem pretty crappy. So, I maybe buy half of what many trans people say about transsexualism / transgenderism.
Hey, I don't believe everything that gay people say about being gay, either. Or, straight people, or young people, or old people, or anybody else. In fact, I don't even agree with everything I'VE said about being gay.
Sure. Most humans are crazy, belligerent, and stupid as hell.
It depends on educational system and how modernity has increased in the recent years. Until 1992 these people were considered sick for UN. but in the recent days, there is not problem at all for being a transexual, except for all of those countries which are religious.
I think it has become accepted because (Western civilization) made a tendency of inclusion during XXIth century. It is well seen when a country does not prosecute the so called minorities.
I the other hand, I do not really know if we really reached a good point of empathy towards LGBTIQ group because far-right political leaders and parties are increasing a lot... But why should they be bothered about transsexuals? I can't answer... They say, this system of progress destroy the traditional concept of "family"
More than being accepted, I guess we all should respect it, just for empathy
:100:
There are many, many cases of post-operation regret but for some reason that part never gets highlighted. (That would perhaps put a stop to the delusion that science can change sex organs). The operations are simply body mutilations. This is not something praiseworthy and neither is encouraging children to take puberty blockers.
What are these factual distinctions?
Quoting Cobra
Words like "male", "female", "him", and "her" existed long before we knew anything about DNA. DNA is just the blueprint that directs how a foetus develops. Typically the presence of a Y chromosome is required for a penis and testes to develop, but when the SRY gene is included in an X chromosome it also causes a penis and testes to develop.
On what grounds would you say that having a Y chromosome is a necessary characteristic of being a man? As someone who is partial to Wittgenstein's approach to language, I can't see the connection. I could (at least historically) understand the connection between the use (and so meaning) of the word "man" and the presence of a penis and testes (amongst other observable traits), and so that male and female refer to phenotypes, and so that an XX male is a male (as the condition explicitly says), but genotypes seem to me to be irrelevant.
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/media-s-detransition-narrative-fueling-misconceptions-trans-advocates-say-n1102686
Also I don't think https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24872188/ or https://www.jsm.jsexmed.org/article/S1743-6095%2818%2930057-2/fulltext were surveys conducted by a trans rights activist organisation.
And the other two surveys weren't.
Are you saying that you don't have a source? If not then why do you believe that there is a high rate of regret? If your opinion is based on some evidence that show me the evidence.
This researcher ultimately submitted and lost a legal challenge. Go free speech!
Vandenbussche, Elie (2021) - "Detransition-Related Needs and Support: A Cross-Sectional Online Survey"
Singh, Devita Bradley, Susan and Zucker, Kenneth, (2021) - "A Follow-Up Study of Boys With Gender Identity Disorder"
Cantor, James (2016) - "Do Trans Kids Stay Trans When They Grow Up?"
Clarke, Anna Churcher (2019) - "‘Taking the Lid Off the Box’: The Value of Extended Clinical Assessment for Adolescents Presenting with Gender Identity Difficulties"
Davenport, Charles W (1986) - "A Follow-Up Study of 10 Feminine Boys"
Delay, Dawn; Martin, Carol Lynn; Cook, Rachel E; Hanish, Laura D (2018) - “The Influence of Peers During Adolescence: Does Homophobic Name Calling by Peers Change Gender Identity?”
Dhejne, Cecilia; Lichtenstein, Paul; Boman, Marcus; Johansson, Anna LV; Långström, Niklas; Landén, Mikael (2011) - "Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden"
Drummond, KD; Bradley, SJ; Peterson-Badali, M; Zucker, KJ (2008) - "A Follow-Up Study of Girls with Gender Identity Disorder"
Green, R (1987) - "The 'Sissy-Boy Syndrome' and the Development of Homosexuality"
Kosky, RJ (1987) - "Gender-disordered Children: Does Inpatient Treatment Help?"
Lebovitz, PS (1972) - "Feminine Behavior in Boys: Aspects of Its Outcome."
Marchiano, Lisa (2017) - "Outbreak: On Transgender Teens and Psychic Epidemics"
Money, J; Russo, AJ (1979) - "Homosexual Outcome of Discordant Gender Identity/Role: Longitudinal Follow-Up."
Singh, Devita (2012) - "A Follow-Up Study of Boys with Gender Identity Disorder"
Steensma, Thomas D; McGuire, Jenifer K; Kreukels, Baudewijntje PC; Beekman, Anneke J; Cohen-Kettenis, Peggy Tine (2013) - "Factors Associated with Desistence and Persistence of Childhood Gender Dysphoria: A Quantitative Follow-Up Study"
Wallien, Madeleine SC; Cohen-Kettenis, Peggy Tine (2008) - "Psychosexual Outcome of Gender-Dysphoric Children"
Zuger, B (1978) - "Effeminate Behavior Present in Boys from Childhood: Ten Additional Years of Follow-Up"
Zuger, B (1984) - "Early Effeminate Behavior in Boys: Outcome and Significance for Homosexuality"
Only one of those has something to do with what we are discussing.
https://www.docdroid.net/57t8V1q/clarke-2019-extened-clinical-assessment-pdf#page=6
So only 9.4% wanted to pursue medical intervention but then changed their mind, and of them a majority had never even been formally diagnosed with gender dysphoria.
And from that you want to conclude that of the people who have been formally diagnosed with gender dysphoria and have actually transitioned there's a high rate of regret? That's very bad logic.
Do you have an actual study that concludes that there is a high rate of regret amongst people who actually transitioned?
Easy. Male = he/him
Quoting Michael
You say "complex", I say "confused".
Intersex people do not have an equal amount of male and female characteristics. They have mostly one or the other, therefore they would fall into one of two clusters I mentioned in my post to Michael.
How is it that "gender" became part of a discussion on changing "sex" if they aren't both related or the same thing?
Quoting Harry Hindu
So it's one's physical appearance that determines whether or not one is a man or a woman (rather than one's genes)?
Quoting Harry Hindu
You said that pronouns refer to sex. In modern usage pronouns refer (also) to gender.
People express negative attitudes towards the minorities. No one is unhappy about surgeons in general, or the government, or about straight people who endanger their bodies to accentuate their sex. Straight men ruin their bodies with steroids. Straight women overdo plastic surgeries and suffer from bulimia. No one has expressed their disapprovement of straight people, but the thread is filled with negative attitude towards transgenders. I'm disappointed in some forum members and even more so with the moderators who allow clear violations of the site guidelines to happen.
Quoting Tom Storm
Quoting Andrew4Handel
Quoting emancipate
Apparently your reading comprehension is lacking. So desperate to virtue signal..
It's not virtue signalling to object to some of the comments in this thread. Whether any of them break the rules is another issue and something we're looking into.
So, the question then seems to hinge upon whether the surgery does what the doctors say it will and whether the recipients are satisfied with their decision. To the extent someone undergoes gender reassignment surgery fully aware of the risks and rewards and they are satisfied with the results, I can't see how anyone would have standing to object.
If you scoff at a man in a mini-skirt and find the visual absurd and laughable, just admit to that bias and stop with the talk about whether this or that cosmetic procedure is or isn't reasonable. The truth is that the acceptability of women in mini-skirts and men not is a social custom of no ethical consequence. The fact that a woman can wear men's slacks and that not be considered degrading, humiliating, or sexually deviant is all social construct and has nothing to do with nature or morality.
This is all to say that unless you have a real moral reason why men must act as traditional men and women as traditional women and all you wish to do is remind us of your adherence to traditional Western mores, then what else do you have to add to this conversation other than telling us of the obvious complications that accompany various surgical procedures?
Complications? Yeah I'd say it's pretty damn complicated to do the impossible.
I don't believe anyone can change sex or that anyone should be able to legally be declared the opposite sex because I value truth, facts and reality.
I cannot change my evidence based beliefs due to peoples feelings and their desire to impersonate the opposite sex.
You can silence me on the internet but not change the way I perceive the facts of reality about the immutability of biological sex. Why not try and defend trans ideology rather than attack the tone of the thread?
Trans advocates have successfully censored numerous people on twitter and YouTube and got governmental support and institutional capture and this one place where can can freely give our opinions.
Forcing people believe in trans identities is like forcing people to believe in someone else's religion.
No one should be forced to endorse your beliefs about your self or compromise their own values for someone's self perception.
Then refute some of the points being made. This is a philosophy forum for presenting arguments.
Quoting pfirefry
Being in a minority is not a protected or virtuous status. Serial killers are a minority.
I am not attacking a minority just not believing an ideology. There are lots of different people using the trans label including nonbinaries and a-sexual's and they don't even agree amongst themselves about definitions.
The so called "truscum" (not my name for them) believe you have suffer from gender dysphoria and have surgeries to be classed as true trans but other like Eddie Izzard believe you simply have to identify as the opposite sex to earn your preferred pronouns and enter women's spaces.
Actually, all fetal genitalia are the same and are phenotypically female, so all men are not men but masquerading women. We've both got frick'n nipples for Christ's sake! We can even lactate.
Quoting Bitter Crank
What have they given up?
What extreme examples are you referring to? I have highlighted several cases of people having gender affirmation surgeries that ruined their health. Most trans "women" don't have their penis inverted and castration (70-90 + percent.) Those that do usually have complications.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/bvzpy8/sex-reassignment-surgery-india-trans-death
"Days before her death, Alex told a media outlet called The Cue that she became a victim of “gross medical negligence” during her gender confirmation surgery in June 2020 at a private hospital called Renai Medicity. “My private part looks like a piece of meat,” she said in a video interview. “I want to conduct a resurgery. I want justice.”
Lia Thomas has undermined all women's right to a fair sporting arena.
Thousands of young women on just giving asking for money to remove breasts is not an extreme example it is the new norm and a historical anomaly.
I feel Your only object here is to get people censored. No trans identified person is being forced to read this thread.
Lots of people are unhappy with botched surgeries and people who have cosmetic surgeries are often criticised and the surgeons condemned as unethical. Most people want to avoid surgery and medication wherever possible and don't want to become life long patients.
I personally do not believe trans people exist because I don't believe you can transition from one sex to another or one gender to another. I disapprove of people trying to make me believe they were either born in the wrong body, have changed sex, deserve to be treated as the opposite sex and a range of other beliefs under the trans umbrella. This the only ideology where people are allowed to try and force people into sharing someone else's mental states.
If there was no trans activism or trans ideology this combative situation wouldn't have a risen but people are trying to force other people to share their false and delusional beliefs about sex and gender. People are being interviewed by the police for "misgendering people on line" and being fired from jobs for thought crimes/not being rehired.
Unfortunately. I think on top of the untold harm that has already happened we have many more years of this. No Frankenstein surgeons or, academic ideologs or trans advocates will be held accountable.
Surely you're not this dense though and you realize that your mental state is not formed a priori. What that means is that there is no pre-societal norm for what constitutes male versus female behavior. That you cut your hair a particular way, wear particular clothes, engage in certain societal roles, and do whatever it is that you think is male oriented behavior is not something that exists outside societal dictates. It is not inherently morally right or wrong to act like a red, white, and blue American girl or boy. It's just a social norm for the here and now.
What this means is that if I live in a society where the social norm is for men to wear pants and not skirts, then that ideology is forced upon me. I am forced to share the mental state of that community. You can't claim a trans person is imposing her beliefs on you anymore than you are trying to force your beliefs on her. All you can say is that the two of you have different world views, neither of which are more moral than the other.
The big difference however between you and the trans person is that your norms dominate society and you've never been asked to consider any views other than your own. Well, today is a new day and your norms are no longer implicitly accepted.
What a happy world it was when everyone thought and acted just like you. The good old days, right?
I disagree with this analogy obviously. I don't think most men look good in women's clothes. Women's clothes are designed for the reality of women's bodies and their feminine appearance. Some women look better in less feminine clothes.
I wear what feels comfortable and am glad that sensible looking clothes are available.
There is a difference between someone wearing women's clothes to deceive someone into thinking they are female and someone wearing feminine clothes to conform or not conform.
I would certainly not deny society operates by force. You won't get another argument out of my on that but at the same time we can reject societies ideals in our head and reject society without being told that we cannot even disagree with a societal norm. Saying I have to call a man "she" is undermining my evidence based logically formed beliefs.
Anyhow. There is a difference between societal norms and biological facts. A woman is a biological immutable reality with a womb, ovaries and in whom we all grew as babies, not a societal trend. A woman is not a cervix haver or people carrier. It is not an imposition to state biological reality.
I went bald in my mid twenties and have never attempted to rectify that. I was born with undescended testes and then I discovered I only actually had one testicle and that has since went back up inside my body leaving me with an empty scrotum. (I Don't no whether I am infertile). I mainly hung around with girls in primary school/kindergarten and I don't like sport and mechanics or guns. I am hardly a male stereotype or rampant conformist.
However if you conform to the latest fashions and standards for men and women it doesn't usually entail self harm or body modification/mutilation.
The only way you can say trans ideology is harmless is if you say any harm is automatically negated by the mental state of a trans person. So allowing a man to beat women in swimming is no longer a harm because it increases the overall good feeling in a trans persons brain. It is insane and it is being forced on us. I grew up in a religious cult I am well versed in brainwashing and psychological manipulation.
Reread the articles and links to the extreme distress people face after having genital mutilation. I can provide loads more links and don't ask me to accept this. Fistulas, adhesions, UTI's arterial bleeds etc
They seek no gain from making you believe they're a woman. Unless they wish to date you, they can dress as they want, or does just the thought of their dress piss
you off? Quoting Andrew4Handel
But appearances are changeable, and so a man that wants to look like a woman can do that and she can call herself "she" and her friends can do that as well, and you can cross your arms and refuse, and they can call you a dick and you can say "fine," and they can say "fine" back. That's where this goes. I'm just wondering why that's your preference. Quoting Andrew4Handel
Thanks for telling me about your nads. Mine are bold and made of brass. A true sight to behold.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
You are aware it's possible to be supportive of the trans community without supporting trans MtF competing in biological female sports?
And sorry about your cult experience. I'm getting a lot of side info here in not sure what to do with. Maybe harness those feelings of being an outsider and empathize with others who feel ostracized. I'm just asking you appreciate you're attacking not some massive political force trying to command your thoughts, but what you're actually doing is beating up on our most vulnerable and fragile. Quoting Andrew4Handel
You've read the horror stories and have decided you wouldn't have this surgery done regardless of how you identify. That's a fair call, but not everyone is like you and others choose otherwise. Why do you get to choose for them?
Yes they do. If I want to make people believe I was in the twin towers on 9/11 I want to implant a false belief about me in peoples mind.
People get gratification arousing responses in other people. Isn't that the whole point of wanting to be a celebrity?
Reading on trans subreddits and elsewhere people clearly need almost everyone to affirm their identity whereas I don't need anyone to affirm my identity and you will not find me asking you to believe or affirm anything about myself.
Sometimes my nieces and nephews call me aunty probably because they have one uncle (alive) and 5 + aunties.
A personal identity that needs validating by everyone else is unstable in my opinion.
Caitlyn Jenner has spoken out against biological men in women's sports and he has been derided as a transphobe on trans subreddits likewise any other trans person who doesn't agree.
The point about sports and acting awards and the like is that calling a man legally a woman entitles him to compete with women in this sphere. Otherwise if you don't let these men in women's, sports, prisons and acting competitions you are essential acknowledging they aren't women.
Only a few trans people have spoken out in favour of limiting men's access to spaces and awards but most of these still want access to some women's spaces like toilets.
This response suggests you are not really interested in real peoples real identities over pandering to an touchy feely (as portrayed) ideology. Just because people didn't identify under the attention seeking gender umbrella doesn't mean they are all virile confident stereotypical members of some stupid cis gender identity forced on us by the gender religion, with perfect lives and bodies.
Accepting your biological sex reality does not say anything about you other than that you are in touch with one aspect of reality. Do we support acknowledging reality or not?
What feelings of being an outsider?
You just randomly introduced that sentiment to me.
Being in a minority does not make someone an outsider.
Everyone is is some kind of minority but socialise based on shared human traits. Indulging someone else's delusions is not my idea of embracing someone into the human fold.
I agree with Descartes that the only thing I can't doubt is my own existence. So any other belief I formulate is going to be constantly subject to scrutiny and scepticism.
Legally making me call a male a female and vice versa or lose my job is anathema to this. It is a good reason to oppose censorship.
Society should have a say in medical ethics.
What makes it unethical for a person to knowingly consent to the procedure?
This study of 214 patients evaluated 20 years after their surgery states, "One hundred eighty-one (85 percent) patients in our series were able to have regular sexual intercourse, and no individual regretted having undergone GAS."
That is, after 20 years, zero regrets.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsurg.2021.639430/full
Before I examine your study let us point this out.
I gave links to several people people who regretted having surgery, or had serious health problems and some even committed suicide.
So before I even click on the link to your study I doubt it's validity.
Reddit's detransition now has nearly 30,000 members and there are many stories on there of peoples regretting transition.
So presenting me something that mentions zero regrets I find almost laughable.
Before I even click on the study I assume it is self report on a minority of people who had the surgeries.
I was unaware that surgical ethics revolved solely around subjective feedback if so I find that rather staggering. I have no doubt medical ethics is a highly flawed area but having no objective measure of harm is ridiculous.
Jazz Jennings and several other children have been minors when having life altering irreversible treatments on them. Do you actually want to post pictures of botched surgeries and mutilated bodies on here.
Also 214 people out of nearly 8 Billion humans. Very persuasive.
If you're interested in the actual studies, as opposed to searching for data supportive of your conclusions, you can start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detransition
I'd also point out that your argument from the data isn't entirely coherent because your specious moral argument makes it ultimately irrelevant to you.
That is to say, if your objection is to the primitive state of medical science, then the solution would be to promote advances in those medical technologies as opposed to condemning transsexuals.
I posted evidence of real Trans identified people including one person who committed suicide after a botched attempt to turn a penis into a vagina.
It is not anecdotal. It is not social media. It is news reports on what trans peoples said and did.
You presented a study which averaged to ten people a year which claimed they said they were satisfied with gender confirmation surgery.
There was not enough detail to validate these claims. I am very certain I can link to you to more cases other than the dozens I have already highlighted of people regretting affirmation surgeries.
Do you think a 214 people is an adequate representation of a study effecting 7-8 billion humans? In my university studies I was taught these kind of small figures are not significant.
Your study was based on 10 people a year having these surgeries not the thousands of young woman trying to raise funds to have healthy breasts removed on Just giving so. I feel you are acting in bad faith. It would be great if only 10 people a year were having these surgeries!!
As a Gay male. If I saw a study involving 214 people I would assume it didn't represent me.
I am not sure what your stance is. Whether you are actually pushing for more men to have their penises turned into pseudo vaginas?
Yes, that's the case, until the xx and xy chromosomes are activated and the pubic hump is differentiated into female or male body parts. The rest of the body is differentiated as well -- pelvic width, musculature, bone length, CNS, etc. This is true for mammalian development across the board (except for duckbilled platypuses (platypusi?). Nipples, likewise, again across the board. But men don't start lactating without a major hormonal push.
Men are men, women are women. East is east, west is west, and never the twain shall meet. (Kipling. Not a serious quote)
Quoting praxis
Might-have-been history is always fun to write, if unreliable.
"What was given up" probably won't be visible to younger gay people, let alone heterosexuals. Even old folks like myself are too young to remember some aspects of "gay liberation". But briefly:
forming gay all-male communities
outsider status
an alternative set of values
Stonewall, 1969, was not the beginning of gay liberation: It was a landmark that was latter mistaken for the beginning. Pieces of gay liberation had been happening for the previous 80 yers, here and there. Whitman's Calamus poems (1859) were about "the manly love of comrades"--eros, not agape or brotherly love. Gay men were around before then, of course, but mostly unacknowledged--which is what made it possible for them to exist (carefully) in plain sight.
Sex and companionship were a key part of the early gay community, and its forms could develop outside of the mainstream culture because, again, it was scarcely acknowledged. To the extent that gay men violated norms on sex roles, race, class, and age, the less visibility to the outside world, the better.
There were some high ideals in the Stonewall era too, but by the mid-1970s, gay activism was focused on opening the American military to gay men (Leonard Matlovich). Some of us never thought that that fight was worthwhile. BUT, high ideals had given way to across the board acceptance in everything from the military to marriage.
Outsider status is a valuable element, in that those who have it are free to develop a culture as they see fit. Join the mainstream, and that's no longer possible. Gay men developed a sexual culture of having many partners with less emphasis on long-term commitments. The mainstream objections to gay culture were about morals, and how promiscuity was immoral. Later (1980s) the health risks of unprotected promiscuity were highlighted, and true enough, there were avoidable risks. But the upshot was, "settle down with one partner", which is the heterosexual solution.
A major piece of public health effort was aimed at eliminated the locations where gay men met. Under cover of disease prevention, the key infrastructure of the gay male sexual community was lost.
Grindr has had a less liberatory benefit than one might think. By individualizing / privatizing the search for a suitable sexual partner, social settings like gay bars have been seriously diminished.
Marriage, children, and mortgages are a time-tested way of pacifying men. Once married, once having a mortgage, and maybe children, one takes on commitments that mean one had better comply, be compliant, else one may be fired, making the marriage/mortgage burden all that much heavier.
Do you happen to believe that gay people exist? Do you believe that it is possible to change sexual preference from the opposite gender to the same gender? Do you disapprove of people trying to make others believe that they're engaged in same-sex relationships? What do you think about forcing same-sex marriage ideology onto others?
Like I've said twice in this thread:
Biological sex is based on a combination of traits:
- chromosomes (in humans, XY is male, XX female)
- genitals (penis vs. vagina)
- gonads (testes vs. ovaries)
- hormones (males have higher relative levels of testosterone than women, while women have higher levels of estrogen)
- secondary sex characteristics that aren’t connected with the reproductive system but distinguish the sexes, and usually appear at puberty (breasts, facial hair, size of larynx, subcutaneous fat, etc.)
Using genitals and gonads alone, more than 99.9% of people fall into two non-overlapping classes—male and female—and the other traits almost always occur with these.
You seem to be focused on the XX chromosomes and not the rest of the characteristics.
Quoting Michael
The problem is that you haven't defined gender in such a way that makes it useful to use if it's not related to sex. What is gender if not sex? And why do trans genders attempt to change their physiology if gender doesn't have to do with physiology?
Well, yeah. Free speech and all that. Your rights to do what you want stop at infringing on my rights to do what I want. We've all been called names we don't identify with. Get over it.
And I can dress like a Dark Sith Lord and demand that you address me as "My master". What is so special about sex/gender that people can identify as a sex they are not, but identifying as something else you are not, well that's just crazy?
Yet you accepted that someone who is XX male is male and so clearly it's false to say that "in humans, XY is male, XX female". It may be that incidentally 99.9% of men have XY chromosomes, but given that there are men who don't have XY chromosomes it follows that having XY (or XX) chromosomes isn't a measure of biological sex. It certainly may influence biological sex, but the reality of genetics is that other things can influence it as well, even if they don't occur as often.
There are people who have XX chromosomes (which you admit is possible for men), that have high levels of testosterone and low levels of estrogen, do not have breasts, and do have facial hair. What determines whether or not such a person is a man or a woman? Does it depend on them having a penis and testes? What if they lost them in an accident?
Quoting Harry Hindu
Sex and gender distinction
An easy way to think about it; if your brain were transplanted into a body with breasts, a vagina, a womb, ovaries, etc., would you identify as a man or a woman? I'd still identify as a man.
Are you kidding me? If I were to snap my fingers and change your gender-related brain dynamics, you would be astonished at the huge variety of ways in which your perceptual-affective style of processing your world , including but far exceeding sexual attraction, would change in an instant. You would still be you, but a significant aspect of your personality would undergo a shift.
The critical difference between your example and that of a transsexual is that your claims of dysphoria are in bad faith. In fact, they're not meant to be taken seriously, but are meant as mockery and are contemptuous.
So, there's that.
Transsexuals are dysphoric, meaning they're at unease with their physical state of being because their mental state tends to the feminine, and so they attempt to bring alignment of their mind and their body. There is (again) a critical distinction to be made. They are not delusional, but are dysphoric. If they were delusional, a man might actually think he was indistinct from a woman and then go about calling himself what he clearly was not. That would be like if you thought yourself a Sith, the problem wouldn't be a dysphoria, but it would be a delusion, meaning you had lost touch with reality.
To the extent there is actually a person out there who is dysphoric and so intimately identifies as a Sith that he insists upon being referred that way, then you might have an analogous situation, but the thing is, that's not really a thing. It's just the joke you wanted to tell, and so you told it.
Ask yourself: why is the above laughable rationalization more important to me than being friendly and somewhat accomodating to transsexuals? Why don't I want to be friendly and somewhat accomodating to transsexuals?
You don't care if all the transsexuals think you're a dick - and they do. They do and that's fine with you.
character: the mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual.
https://www.google.com/search?q=character&rlz=1C1RXQR_enUS982US982&oq=character&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i131i433i512j69i65l3j69i61l3.1481j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
The ballad reveals its fuller meaning in subsequent lines.
In the end distinctions of geography, breed, birth, or sex, do not matter at all when those with integrity meet. If you met Caitlyn Jenner would you refuse to use her preferred pronouns? It would seem rude to do otherwise.
I have know several transsexuals well, and I know that they go through a LOT of sturm and drang on their way to a satisfactory conclusion. A lot of homosexuals go through a lot of sturm and drang before they reach self-acceptance. Making any major change in life can be quite difficult.
There are two questions here:
a) Does the trans individual believe what they are saying about their sex/gender?
b) Can one change one's sex/gender in fact?
I think the adult transsexual believes what they are saying.
I do not think that transsexuals can change their sex/gender, but they can, through 'art', appear to have done so, without close examination.
Is transsexualism a delusion? Yes. That's not as dismissive as it sounds. Human beings maintain a variety of "necessary delusions" to get through life. Hard hearted/hard headed examination reveals delusions, but it doesn't make them less necessary.
Example: I think I am an exceptionally good person--fair, honest, kind, etc. A closer examination will reveal instances of unfairness, dishonesty, cruelty, etc. A mentally healthy person can admit their serious flaws, at least in private, but they will want to give priority to the delusions which make them feel like they are decent human beings.
My guess is that the delusion of trans people requires an unusually strong commitment to maintaining the delusion.
People have equally strong commitments to political and religious positions Strong though their commitments may be, they may be altogether mistaken.
Eh. Some say homosexuality is a just a state of confusion that can be remedied by good medical care.
I don't have x-ray vision into people's souls so that I can sort out who's deluded and who's living their truth by the their lifestyle choices. Why do you think you do?
In some cases it is. As you know, only a small percentage of men are exclusively homosexual--about 2.5%. They are not confused. (One group that is confused about this is gay advocates who want to inflate the number of gay people as possible for political purposes.) A much larger share are exclusively heterosexual; they aren't confused either. Most men, though, are somewhere in the range described by Kinsey, varying in what they fantasize about and what they actually do. The confusion is a conflict between what they are doing and what they fantasize about. So married fathers may fantasize about sex with men, but perform sex with women. That (seems to be) much more common than men who have sex with men but fantasize about sex with women. A prison setting comes to mind.
Bisexuality, which is perhaps the norm for a large number of people, has a "bad reputation" among both gays and straights, because they fail gay and straight individual's expectations (not in terms of performance but in terms of group identification). "B" was added to "GL" early on. That's probably less of an issue now than say, 40 years ago, because the "gay community" as such has become more vague and amorphous.
Then there is polymorphous perversity, but that's difficult to pin down and analyze. I am not sure how, but I am absolutely sure that Donald Trump lives on many levels of polymorphous perversity.
Quoting frank
Well, fuck. You should have gotten the upgrade of Soul Vision when it was on sale! It will cost you an arm and a leg, now.
I believe there is an objective reality, but one important aspect of reality is that humans are delusional. My theory is that everybody is deluded to varying degrees. It is a question of "how much" and "about what". Delusions and illusions are the human stock-in-trade. "Mental health" means having some awareness of how much distance there is between our de- and il-lusions (derived from ludere, play) and harsh reality (that 'reality' is soft, rose-tinted, and gauzy is a delusion). Merely knowing that we are deluded doesn't make the delusions go away.
Freud thought that religion was one big fat delusion.
I've only been acquainted with a couple, who I don't really know at all. They never seemed delusional to me. I find it extremely hard to believe that a transsexual doesn't realize what they are. I would think that they would tend to be keenly aware of themselves and their sexuality, much more so than ordinary folk at least, who have less of a reason to be self-conscious. If a trans person somehow forgot their transness I imagine that other people would remind them, and perhaps not always politely.
It’s interesting and perhaps revealing that your description of gender mentions only who one is sexually attracted to, and nothing about what I would consider to be a more central aspect of gender for many in the gay community , which has to do with a global perceptual-affective style, of which sexual attraction is merely one small aspect. For those who dont grasp this , it is incoherent to talk about gayness outside of sexual attraction, and I think that is part of the problem.
I will have to plead guilty to your charge.
When it comes to "being gay" which as you say involves a global perceptual-affective style, I find myself with a deficient vocabulary to adequately express what I experience. I meet men in ordinary social settings and we may immediately recognize each other as gay, but I find it difficult to pin down exactly what the signals are. This may be one reason I have always preferred to look for sexual partners in places where "pre-sorting" had taken place--bath houses, gay bars, night-time cruising areas in parks. Some people seem to be able to walk through a figurative Grand Central Station and reliably find prospective partners.
These is something abut deportment, grooming, details of dress, speech patterns, interests, and so forth that together add up to a strong signal. It's like art -- I know it when I see it. Some people are better at this than others, and some people with sharp gaydar are actually pretty straight. An some very gay guys (part of the 2.5%) don't signal their gayness very strongly. And some straight people see gay, but are not. But, gay signals and gaydar work well enough most of the time.
Gay men perhaps display a less guarded posture with perhaps more relaxed musculature; they seem a bit more carefully groomed; slightly better put together clothing -- regardless of what they are wearing; a more open sort of verbal expression. Perhaps one is more likely to find gay men at an art gallery than a used car auction, but I know people who contradict that. Gay men do seem to regard (see, evaluate) other men more carefully than straight men.
Many Americans believe their country is the home of the brave, land of the free, the best place on earth -- by objective standards. That is a delusion (maybe one of those 'necessary delusions').
Quoting praxis
Under ordinary circumstances, transsexuals are not deluded about how they feel, what they wish to accomplish trough therapy, the kind of sexual experiences they have. What they are deluded about is the idea that one can change one's sex from male to female or visa versa. What they can do is change their appearance, but not the underlying biology.
A successful trans person is not deluded about their fully passing as a woman or man (or, unhappily, failing to pass). Other people provide the evidence that one is passing, or (possibly very cruelly) that one is not.
Nor are they deluded about wanting to change from one sex to another. The delusion is thinking that one can change their biology.
As I said above
Quoting Bitter Crank
This doesn’t really make sense, does it? If we are deluded and delusion is our stock-in-trade then “objective reality” must be part of our delusion, being that delusion is all that we have to work with. We can certainly have faith in objective reality, just as anyone can have faith in their religion, or faith in the possibility of changing their sex.
Yes, it make sense. First, there is objective reality. Second there is us, the observers. We are both capable of observing objective reality (which is why we have science) and we can delude ourselves and others in various ways. Delusions are objectively observable in people. Donald Trump and a few million Republicans have "stolen election delusions". Most Republicans and Democrats are not affected by "stolen election delusions". They recognize that Trump lost the election.
We name "delusion" for beliefs which have no objective support. A belief in an afterlife (hell or heaven) is delusional because there is zero evidence that such a thing exists. A belief in a 6 day creation is delusional because there is extensive evidence that the stars first shone 13 billion years, and so on.
It seems that I have much more faith in the idea that we’re all deluded (cannot know reality) than you do.
That's probably so, especially if you say it. Delusions are, as I said, our stock-in-trade. Why, if we can perceive reality, do we cling to delusions? Because reality is often harsh, cold, and in ever so many ways, unpleasant. We literally can not bear an unrelenting diet of harsh reality without some sort of comforting delusions. To what extent delusional thinking is a feature or a bug varies, depending.
Take happiness: Freud summed up our situation this way (paraphrasing): "Happiness just isn't in the cards." We long for happiness but it evades us. We respond with delusional thinking to cover over our serious disappointments and painful experiences. Delusions help many people carry on, doing what needs to be done.
Perhaps that is an unpleasant delusion.
The rest can be a decision by the establishment and should be clearly communicated. Either by gender self-identification or sex, both are, from what I understand at this point, valid positions. I personally can't give two shits about being surprised at a urinal because someone shows up and whips out a dick when I thought she was a woman.
Bathroom stalls are easy (cubicles for all), sports are easy (who gives a fuck).
Of far more importance, I think, is addressing the concerns of women about safe spaces, reporting of crimes against women, the security of lesbians (and gay men) as protected identities...
Society doesn't discriminate against dresses and long hair, it discriminates against women. Right from birth. If that discrimination remains then redressing it requires the identification of the oppressed group and the limiting of measures of redress to that group, not to anyone who might want to join later, after all the privileges of their birth sex have been enjoyed.
Notwithstanding, the more urgent issue is the degree to which the resolution of such issues is being dealt with in an increasingly hostile and partisan way, ensuring that moderate voices on both sides are muffled in favour of the more media-friendly dogmatists who seem to be increasingly the only voices given air.
All the toilets at a nightclub I go to are unisex.
That is important but not quite the subject of this thread. Or am I missing something you're alluding to that I'm not understanding?
Quoting Isaac
That's the nature of news. The news reports on negative divergences from the norm. Nobody cares about what the silent majority thinks. It's why complaints about "cancel culture" from right wingers who then turn around and prohibit the teaching of evolution theory or critical race theory should simply be ignored. Unfortunately, the narrative that appears to stick is that "right-wingers get cancelled by neo-Marxists" which they then get all the room in the world for to lie about.
The other nature of news nowadays is a lot reporting on opinions, instead of facts. "such-and-such said X" (OMG! SHOCK! HORROR!) without any consideration of whether it's true.
I try to not read the news anymore unless it's an investigative journalism piece.
Yeah, compared the efforts (though still woefully inadequate) to ensure disabled access to buildings, baulking at putting up a few MDF partitions seems like a manufactured problem to me.
Quoting Benkei
Reading through, there seems to be a central issue about the tri-fold difference between self-identification as a criterion for 'womanhood' vs identification on the basis of various indicators of biological origin vs the deliberate medical creation of those indicators. It's the resolution of this issue that impacts the concerns I mentioned. For example, if 'womanhood' is universally measured by self-identification, then redress for discrimination (based on biological features of birth) becomes impossible.
Of course, a very simple solution exists, which is to have criteria for 'womanhood' vary by context. Which is why I mentioned the toxic environment in which these matters are discussed, an environment which essentially excludes nuance and contextualisations.
Quoting Benkei
Should they? I'd rather both than neither. If you ignore their complaints are you not handing them ammunition to ignore ours. The issue seems to be about whether we 'cancel' on the basis of intent to harm or mere disagreement. The moment we set the criteria to mere disagreement (from a left wing agenda), we put in place social structures to do exactly that same thing (from a right wing agenda) depending entirely on who has most social capital at the time. I think that's a dangerous place to be.
Quoting Benkei
The threshold of justification at which an opinion can be declared 'fact' is a social agreement and as such vulnerable to political influence. We've seen (in this topic, and others recently) considerable leverage applied to redefine that agreement and render a range of propositions as 'fact' because of political expediency.
Quoting Benkei
Likewise. The sycophancy makes me sick.
YOU were the one that used the term "male" to refer to someone with XX chromosomes:Quoting Michael
Why did you use the term "male" if ONLY having XX or XY makes one a female or male? It's a combination of these attributes and not necessarily all of them, but most of them, that one possesses that makes one a female or male. Since YOU were the one to label someone with XX chromosomes as "male", what would YOU refer to them as?
People are born with abnormalities. Some people can be born with extra fingers, or missing fingers, or born with a tail, etc. All of these cases are very rare. They are outliers. This is not to say that they don't deserve the same rights as everyone else. It is only to make the observation that these cases are uncommon or rare. We don't then create new categories of hands with or without 10 fingers, or categories of people with or without tails. We're only trying to do that with sex. Why? What makes sex so special? Who is it that is really concerned about what is in who's pants here? It seems that the left are the ones with a fetish for sex.
Quoting Michael
Is that what transpeople are saying - that their brain was transplanted into another body?
There are a few problems with your example, not to mention how outlandish it is and your use of Wikipedia to support your claims.
You seem to be missing the part of how hormones affect the processes of the brain and is why some trans-people take hormone treatments so that they're brain operates more like the opposite sex. So I find it hard to believe that you would still identify as a man if you had estrogen in your system and you observed your body as that of a woman. Have there been any studies that show that trans-people have the body of one sex and the brain of another? If that were the case, then why would trans-people need hormone treatments to feel more like the opposite sex if they already felt like the opposite sex?
Not only that but this flies in the face of your example above because now you're saying that having breasts, vagina, womb and ovaries is a body of a woman, while your brain is a man. You seem to be adding a characteristic to what makes one a man or a woman - the structure and functioning of the brain.
And in your example, you have memories of being a man. Transgenders don't have prior memories of being one sex that conflict with their actual sex. They claim to have always had these feelings. So you seem to be saying that doctors transplanted their brains just after birth.
The two types of gender described above are contradictory. One describes a social construction, which is an agreement between two or more people to fulfill expectations of the others in the group by abiding by the roles that were agreed on (wearing a dress if you're a woman and wearing pants if you're a man). Because we have to wear clothes, we need ways to identify the sex of others when performing mating games.
This is the complete opposite of a personal feeling - one that isn't agreed upon with the rest of the group when playing mating games. Not only that, but they are identifying as the opposite sex, not a different sex than the two we know. So they are reinforcing binary gender roles by stating that wearing a dress makes you a woman or wearing pants makes you a man. If gender neutrality is the goal, this is not how we reach it. The goal is realized when we stop expecting women to wear dresses and men to wear pants. Men can wear dresses and still be men. Wearing a dress doesn't make you a woman. That would be sexist and abandoning the goal of realizing gender neutrality.
Who is kidding who here? How does this answer my question? Both you and Michael seem to be saying that trans-genders had brain transplants at birth. Are you both conspiracy theorists?
No. It's an example of a slippery slope. Your faith in transgender's claims are what is being questioned here. It is very possible that some of them make their claims for attention. Some people crave attention and don't necessarily care whether it is good or bad attention - just that they are getting attention (many celebrities come to mind). This isn't to say that there might be some that actually have a condition that they can't help, just like anyone with delusions. What I'm saying is that we're going about addressing the problem the wrong way, like reinforcing the ideas a person with anorexia has by agreeing with them that they do look fat and should loose more weight.
Is a schizophrenic mocking and being contemptuous when making claims stemming from their delusions? How do you know that I'm not delusional or schizophrenic? You'd be mocking a person with a biological condition that they can't help.
I could have used a host of other examples as a slippery slope. People can identify as another race, or even species. Again, what makes sex so special?
Quoting Hanover
How would a person of one sex know what the mental state of the other sex is like? You seem to be confusing the wide variety of behaviors of humans with specific behaviors of the sexes. Men can behave in feminine ways but still be men. Not only that, but how did they come to believe that their mental states are the opposite sex? Were their brains transplanted at birth like MIchael and Joshs believes? Or were they raised by parents that wanted a child of the opposite sex so they raised their child as if they were the opposite sex? In other words, are the causes biological or cultural?
It seems to me that you are more concerned about what people that you don't know and have never met, and probably never will, think of you.
The fact that you and Hanover dismiss my example is just evidence of what I am saying - that you easily dismiss the claims of anyone that says that they are something that they aren't except if it were sex. How do you and Hanover know that my claim is "not to be taken seriously, but are meant as mockery and are contemptuous."? How do you know a trans-gender person isn't doing the same - mocking social roles in a society where it is a law to wear clothes and that we have agreed that certain sexes behave in certain ways so that we can tell who is who when playing mating games?
What would gender be in a society where there are no clothes, or social roles expected by the sexes?
But what about gay men and lesbians? Do you think that they had , if not ‘ brain transplants’, then a gender-determining event prior to birth that makes their brains , in many cases, different than heterosexuals i. terms of a robust and stable perceptual-affective style?
I recognize that whether someone should surgically alter their body as a result of this is a separate question.
I linked to an article about a condition known as "XX male syndrome" and asked you if you would refer to a person with such a syndrome using "he" or "she". You said that you would refer to such a person using "he".
If you prefer then I'll rephrase the question. Is a person with XX chromosomes but also an SRY gene that is responsible for the development of a body that is typically associated with a person with XY chromosomes a man or a woman?
Quoting Harry Hindu
No, but I suspect that the way they feel about themselves and their body is analogous to the way that I would feel about myself and my body were my brain to be transplanted into a body with different genitalia.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Yet trans-men exist, so it shouldn't be hard to believe.
Quoting Harry Hindu
My feelings of being a man would be a product of having lived as I did before my brain transplant; their feelings of being a man would be a product of whatever it is that is responsible for transgender people feeling the way they do. Both of us have an inner sense of being a man that is incongruent with the actual body we have.
So regardless of why we feel the way we do, the fact that you can understand that I can identify as a man even after having my brain transplanted into a body with breasts, a womb, ovaries, a vagina, etc. shows that you can understand gender as distinct from biological sex.
It would be what it is, a robust and stable perceptual-affective style that subtly accompanies all of our behavior. It is what allows dog experts and breeders to quickly recognize make from female dog personality features. The same gender-associated behavior distinctions can be seen in most other mammals, including us. If such powerful, global perceptual-affective effects can be produced between biological males and females, then we already know that there can be all sorts of intermediate forms of gender.
I trust the man who tells me he prefers men despite the lovely argument I could offer him that he's just choosing to act that way to be shocking.
The same holds for the man who identifies as female or the female who identifies as male. To the extent you can accommodate their situation without damaging another's, tell me why you need to intervene.
Quoting Hanover
Because doesn’t grasp ( and is perhaps threatened by) the concept that his brain, like every other human , has been perceptually organized from birth along a gender dimension that dictates a ‘certain’ personality’ style. He can likely get the concept of personality traits like temperament, shyness or extraversion being inborn, but he has no category for gender as also a kind of personality trait. It is invisible to him because he has never had the experience of being a make among a community of makes who from his earliest memories sensed that he was different in all sorts of subtle ways, beyond his control, that where somehow all interconnected on the basis of a perceptual-affective style that marked him as more ‘feminine. Harry would argue that these were all socialized, much the way Skinner argued that language was all about s-r associations until Chomsky showed an innate patterning to language. There is an innate patterning to gender also.
I know you don't think you're a dark sith. But, if I'm wrong, convince me otherwise. Swear to it. Put your personal integrity on the line and tell me you do. Show me examples of how you've lived your life that way. Give me names of those who can verify this for me. Prove your seemingly absurd claim and shame me for my rush to judgment
You act like deciphering intent and motive is all that difficult. We each do it 1000s of times a day. For someone so interested in human nature and what it entails, the abilities of social animals in social settings seems to be something you think non-existent.
Of course they do! That's the whole point!!
They make themselves look like a woman in order to get the social and economical benefits that women have.
Some examples:
In poor Asian countries, many young men transition into women because this way, they can more easily find work as female(-looking) singers, dancers, and prostitutes.
A petite, balding man is generally not considered attractive as a man; but if he transitions into a woman, he makes for an average or even above average good-looking woman with the psychological, social, and economical perks that come with that.
If a woman is stuck in a lowly job or doesn't climb up in her career, nobody bats an eyelid; but expectations are higher for men. So some men, afraid of career failure, transition into a woman where career failure is not so heavily stigmatized.
Male-to-female athletes: those men couldn't cut in the men's league, but they can outperform women. (How about female-to-male athletes??)
Quoting Hanover
By consenting to such a procedure, they express their disdain for social norms, and they want their disdain to be respected by those who hold to the social norms.
They want to have a special place. They want to be one of the special categories of people who do not have to engage in mutually reciprocating and mutually acknowledging relationships with others. Historically, these categories have been the royals, the aristocracy, the clergy, and the generally wealthy and powerful. They could look down on the commoners and the plebeians and despise and abuse them, and it wasn't considered problematic to do so, they got away with it. Who wouldn't want to be in such a special category?!
Transsexuals and some other groups are demanding uneven, non-reciprocal relationships with people who are not part of their category.
I'm supposed to be accomodating and friendly toward a trans, but the trans doesn't have to be accomodating and friendly toward me. No shit.
No, aggressively projecting onto others is easy.
Your favorite is to presume ill will by default and to act in bad faith. So you "are" always certain about what the other person is thinking, eh.
You don't talk, you don't listen, you impose. You hit first, and if the other person doesn't fend off your attack to your satisfaction, you consider yourself to be right and to know the truth about the other person. Facts be damned.
Rather typical for a lawyer, but not conducive to open and meaningful communication.
No, the question is what determines the importance of whether one is a man or a woman, or something other.
Personally, I think gender/sexual distinctions are important for organizing social and economical life, primarily for practical reasons. So that people know which public toilet to go to, or which part of a clothing store to go to, and such.
Beyond that, I think issues of gender/sexual identity are trivial, superficial, transitory, and a waste to invest into. Regardless if it is a heterosexual woman investing into making herself look particularly female, or a heterosexual male investing into making himself look particularly male, or someone undergoing a sex change operation. Things like that are a waste of money.
This is just the starting point, the initial "cards one has been dealt". After that, development can proceed in many ways.
Having a temper or being shy used to be considered marks of bad character back in the day, and a person was expected to eliminate those marks. Nowadays, the terminology has changed ("having a temper" falls under "emotional dysregulation" and "being shy" falls under "social anxiety" or "risk aversion") but those are again and still, considered undesirable traits.
I see no reason to think that either personality or cognitive style are permanent or pervasive.
It's sometimes convenient to think they are. And many people tend to persist in theirs, so this makes for the impression that they are permanent and pervasive.
But on the other hand, people who want to improve thier life are told to "change their mindset", "overcome limiting beliefs" and such, which goes to show that neither personality nor cognitive style are necessarily (deemed) permanent and pervasive.
You re lucky you have the luxury of not having had to grow up a feminine acting gay male who was endlessly reminded by his male and female peers of how non-trival, non-superficial and non time-wasting gender behavior was to them. And it was precisely because they assumed my behavior was merely an arbitrary and silly choice, a learned phenomenon, that they were able to justify their ridicule and bullying to themselves.
We are born with many personality traits that are robust and stable. to recognize them in others is to see their style, the art of their being with you. Recognizing the art of their personality style allows you a greater intimacy with them. Gender behavior is an art of being, and not seeing it deprives both you and others of this intimacy of relation.
... people for who they are?
The way the term "identity" is used in discussions of people's identity, is a misuse, compared to what the term means in logic. At best, it's a misleading use.
"Identity" implies permanence, context-independence. A square is a square, even if it s among a thousand circles, and a circle is a circle, even if it is among a thousand suqares, or looked at under UV light, or whatever. Human "identity" is not like that, because human "identity" is subject to change, subject to arising and cessation, and it's context-dependent. The same person is sometimes a teacher, a patient, a customer, a husband, but not all at the same time in the same place; sometimes, their skin color is relevant, other times, it isn't. And so on.
Things that are subject to change are not fit to be regarded as self.
This still doesn't mean that those who question the nature of human identity are "resenting or undermining people for who they are".
Do you understand that?
What do you know of my growing up, or of my present?!
For one, I'm fairly certain that you don't want to be intimate with the majority of people on this planet. I'm fairly certain that you don't want to be intimate with me, heh.
For two, the topic of this thread seems to be particularly close to your heart,and associated with trauma, which might still be too fresh to discuss this topic at a forum like this.
Personality style has nothing to do with cognitive beliefs, knowledge, rationality, experience. Style is not a content of thought. Can you overcome shyness? Yes, but the underlying disposition is still there. One simply learned to channel it. People on the autism spectrum don’t line to be considered pathological. They prefer to be considered as having a cognitive style. One can say the same of those with Wilson’s syndrome and many other inborn dispositions that give distinct personality profiles. Is autism a belief that one could or should outgrow?
https://youtu.be/JnylM1hI2jc
More importantly, mine is a genuine question. I'm actually not sure whether you understand what I'm talking about. There have been discussions about identity at the forum, but I don't recall correctly whether you participated and to what extent.
Thinking of such traits as permanent might actually be a coping mechanism.
I think people are more flexible and more malleable than the official discourse acknowledges them to be.
Life is hard enough. Thinking that one should be accepted and respected "for who one is" is for the most part a dangerous idealism.
Other than in the harsh reality of living in abject poverty in a third world country where men find their only option for survival is to physically alter their gender in order to enter the sex industry so they can offer themselves up to Westerners, your other examples are pretty much nonsense.
Setting that aside, determining one's motives for gender reassignment surgery doesn't require armchair psychoanalysis and speculation into their mental states, but it only requires that you ask them. Unless you're committed to there being universal conspiratorial fraud among the sisterhood of transsexuals where they all provide false reasons for their desires for transition, I think we have to take their word for why they wish to transition. The surveys don't indicate they're doing it because they're old and bald and don't get the winks and stares they once did, so they now want to install some pretty breasts on themselves to get attention.
I can say that this thread has shaken out some pretty crazy and entertaining posts, and I do thank you for your contribution in that regard.
Quoting baker
I think the social norm they disdain is that normally they are disdained and they ask not be disdained. They want not be considered abnormal, which sounds normal enough to me, but it's also contrary to what you argued above, which is when you said that they relish being different and enjoy the freak show they throw in your face. That is, they alter their sexual organs just to make your head spin, which they wouldn't do if there weren't people like you. It's all about you I guess.
Let me switch gears just a bit so that I can tease out more of your opinions. Is what you say of transsexuals applicable to gay people? That is, do men have sex with men and act effeminately in order to gain attention and do they then try to normalize their behavior by creating laws allowing them to marry and not be discriminated upon based upon their sexual preference?
A homosexual man told me that most homosexual men are macho types like heterosexual men.
In my experience, the quickest way for a woman to find a good friend is among homosexual men. But I don't think this has to do with the man being homosexual per se, but rather that he, as a person, had to work through some quite difficult things (due to "not being ordinary"), and if successful, emerged as a decent, sensible person.
The most sensible persons I have known have all been homosexual men.
Flexibility and malleability without a self-consistent thread of intelligibility is nothing but chaos and confusion. You seem to believe that things like dispositions and styles are nothing but prisons that hold us back. I admire your desire for personal growth and transformation. We all desire that, but sheer novelty is meaninglessness. Meaningful change can only take place through pre-existing channels of thought that make such change relevant and coherent to us. A life is an evolving theme or style, not a random lurching from one meaning to the next. We are never the same person from one moment to the next, but we continue he to be the same differently.
The people who know you will be able to say that you’ve changed a lot in your life, but they will also be able to say you’re the same person you’ve always been.
That’s your evolving style, gendered and otherwise.
You seem to miss the essential role that style plays in allowing us to venture forward in life.
I alluded to this in a different context in this thread, but I do think humans have very strong innate social skills that allow us to navigate our complicated social world, not the least of which is the ability to locate potential sexual partners. All those unidentifiable clues come together easily for some and are impossible for others. I've heard women complain about what else they have to do for the guy to notice them, and I've seen guys asking me whether they think a girl likes them after the girl has practically thrown themselves at the guy.
I was just in a restaurant with my wife the other day and we saw our waiter stroking the hair of an attractive waitress as they talked by the cash register. My wife and I both quickly exchanged glances, and I said, "must be his bestie," which she agreed. We had both registered previously he was gay and we were figuring out why he'd be getting so cozy with the attractive waitress.
This is also why it's so difficult to alter our gender identification. The slightest clue will let us know that man in the dress is not a woman. We're just way too good at noticing little clues.
Yes, absolutely, Homosexual men are definitely the most sensible of men.
Quoting baker
Some gay men are even more macho than straight men, but maximum-machismo is sometimes more 'art' than 'nature'. That is, some gay men cultivate machismo (and so do some straight men). Lots of men and women find machismo attractive, though maybe not as a steady diet.
Quoting baker
Yes. Gay men can be close friends with women because they are not sexually interested in the women. They are 'safe'. Conversely, a woman may make a very good friend for a gay male because there is no sexual attraction. Gay men can, of course, be very close friends with each other, but there is often a sexual tension between gay men that also exists between straight women and straight men.
Good observational skills can be developed, but they also require that one be open to the flow of cues, signs, subtle behaviors, and so on. Sometimes I have 'closed the door' to the clues others are broadcasting for a sort of self-protection from too much information.
I do hope that your bad faith will somehow come back to haunt you.
But if it doesn't, then that's just proof that might indeed makes right, and you actually have nothing to complain about.
I think you underestimate the daily struggle for survival.
If you knew more about the gay community, you’d learn that that’s a pose. Whereas for many straight men, a non self-conscious macho comes naturally, it’s more of a deliberate performance for many gay men, such as in the leather community.
"On the day I heard that my penis would be huge, I sobbed."
"When I’d asked the surgeon how big my impending penis was going to be, he could only guess, pointing to the reusable water bottle in my hand, a metal cylinder nine inches in circumference: “Smaller than that.”
“I would rather have died on the table than not had the surgery,” one Korean American guy with great sweaters responded (and, like everybody here, gave me permission to repeat), to a chorus of nodding Zoom heads."
"One of the nodding heads in the group belonged to a nonbinary white person who was still horizontal in recovery from having had, a week prior, the worst happen, which was that after their procedure, in which all the fat and skin had been stripped from their left forearm from wrist to nearly elbow, along with major nerves, an artery, and veins, and then shaped into a tube and connected, in careful layers, to skin and blood vessels and nerves in their pelvis, their new penis had failed."
"But here they were, already getting ready for their surgeons to harvest a whole other part of their body within the month with zero hesitation. Because those three days they’d had their penis, they said, before being rushed into an eight-hour surgery that couldn’t save it — the feeling of it, even just for one moment, even still bloody and painful and packed with stitches: worth it."
"I woke up last December in a hospital bed and before even glancing toward my lap, the room spinning from anesthesia and my lungs partially collapsed from four and a half hours on surgical ventilation and hundreds — plural — of stitches and a 40-square-inch hole in my thigh where I’d been skinned down to the muscle, I could suddenly feel, in a way I could never have fathomed, that this was what being alive was."
Just shows you what lengths people will go to to find self-acceptance in a culture where the concept of psychological gender is still uncomprehended. I’m glad you at least comprehend the distinction between biological sex and gender. You will help to one day make such surgeries unnecessary. Because, of course, that’s the only thing that’s really going to stop it.
Do you think other people owe it to you to accept you and comprehend you?
They owe it to themselves to understand themselves, because failing to do so will cause unhappiness both in isolation and with others. This requires recognizing the bond between personal growth and overarching styles and themes of perception.
You seem to be saying that ignorance of gender identity theory is part of the problem and Bitter Crank seems to be saying that “delusion” is problematic, or rather that sex/gender cannot be changed. It’s not clear if BC believes sex and gender can be more or less independent of each other.
Personally, I have no problem with separating biological sex and gender identity or ‘style’. It makes me wonder where sexual attraction fits best though. Is sexual attraction more biological sex or more a part of psychological gender? The fact that some transsexuals are not gay seems to indicate that it’s more biological sex, and also that many gay people’s gender matches their biological sex.
Yes, but this is a fallacy of composition. For the vast majority of humans, and most other species, sexual traits are intrinsic and easily identifiable phenotypically and consistent with the genotype of that entity. There is nothing wrong with the fact that transexuals exist outside of the understood norm, but there is a problem with using a uniquely small smaple of an entire species as a predicate for an argument that has implications for all members of that species.
Quoting Hanover
Well no, the violation of reason begins with the violation of the law of identity. A male is a male forever, as determined by the male's genetic composition. "She" will always maintain the final authority over her own usage of words and the manner in which they are employed. However, I will maintain the exact same authority in the opposite direction. And her pronoun does begin to have an ontological valence at the very moment that the individual in question places an expectation of a particular kind of usage of language on the part of others. Especially a usage that violates a persons individual paradigm and coherent understanding of a concept, or word. If that isn't a factor, there is no issue.
Quoting Hanover
Then you should let these people know that such a manner of usage is expected on their part to not only be employed by them consistently, and not ambiguously, but inquired of others as to whether or not they are also voluntarily willing to participate. Otherwise, it is authoritarianism lite. Keep in mind such a standard is, in fact, a fallacy of ambiguity, so the responsiblity for keeping the peace as regards usage is that of the person using language differently than established usage on the part of majority of the population.
Quoting Hanover
No, I don't think so. I think he has an issue with the idea that science is being disregarded, in favor of whim. Which I too have a problem with. The more this kind of accusation get's tossed around, the more people will embody this accusation just to piss off whoever is doing the tossing.
Language is not mandated by ontology. Language is determined by use. There is no male "essence" that can be reduced to anything, including chromosomes. If a person walked about and looked in every way like a man, you would call him a man, even should you later learn of some strange chromosomal variation. This is to say that you don't use the word "man" to reference an XY constitution, but you use it to reference a host of factors, many of which are not entirely consistent from case to case. The usage of the word "man" finds itself evolving.
When I was growing up, we learned the pronoun "he" was to be used to designate the third person objective because there is no neutral personal pronoun in English. You would say, "One should always eat his green beans." Why this reasonable person had to be a man was a matter of convention, but it's since been changed. If you want to maintain it, have at it, but you'll sound antiquated by some, sexist by others. The words you use are like the clothes you wear. They communicate how you wish to present yourself.
Quoting Garrett Travers
I'm not arguing for prescriptive word usage from either side, but I am pointing out that be aware of what you wish to convey when you choose your words. If you are aware that a person wishes to identify as female and you insist upon using a male pronoun to refer to her, you will not simply be communicating your desire to adhere to traditional standards, but you will communicating your lack of respect for the person you're speaking to. You can tell her to take no offense and that you're simply a traditionalist, but I don't see that really working.
Didn't say it was. I said that langauge becomes an ontological force when living entities actively place expectations of usage upon other extant and conscious beings. That's as ontological as ontological gets. As far as XY, that's half correct. I am referencing XY, but only in relation to consistent, and reliably observed emergence of XY phenotypical characteristics. Thus, to expect me to do something different isn't just absurd, it is outrageous, and it is particular the perception of that expectation that has ignited furor. No kidding. Now, that doesn't meanthat such an expectation is consistently present in fact when being perceived, and one should keeo that in mind at all times.
Quoting Hanover
These are all acceptable conclusions, I agree.
Quoting Hanover
And, believe it or not, that is precisely what we on the other side of this debate are hoping that you and your ilk also remain aware of in our direction, by and large. It isn't the usage of these pronouns that has ever been the issue, I swear to you. It has always been about the prospect of you expecting me to abide concepts that violate coherent understandings without my consent, and perhaps even using force to make me comply. This is PRECISELY what ignited the "Jordan Peterson" event. As far as offense goes, it means nothing to me. However, if offense means something to others, then it will be their responsibility to facilitate such offense-free environments through proper communication with other conscious human beings of equal, but separate value who possess different coherent world view, who exist in that environment. My assertion, and belief, is that if this is seen to by the lgbtq community, they will absolutely have no issues, or very minimal, with any human in this country as a general rule. Please relay this info to your lgbtq friends, as I have done myself.
Men were called "men" long before we knew anything of chromosomes. My guess is that you wouldn't know a male chromosome if you saw it, and if tomorrow you learned that half the men had XZ chromosomes and not XY ones, you'd consider yourself educated. What this means is that you likely call men "men" because they look like men and act like men. You don't call MtF transexuals "women" because they don't look that way to you. If medical science could do a better job, you might change. That is, if the person had a functioning uterus and all other sexual organs and looked indistinct from any other woman, maybe you wouldn't have any objection.
What ignited furor was the supposed immorality of men acting as women and the societal expectation that it be accepted as normal. The passion did not arise over esoteric word usage and the furor that emerges when one is asked to use a new word. I don't remember such outrage when people were asked to stop calling Pluto a planet.
This is specifically because the only thing we had to go off of, again, were consitently observable, emergent characteristics of the male phenotype. All species have this detection ability, and employ them functionally, by and large. And, my wife is a biologist, so let's keep the accusations of ignorance to oneself, moving forward, I won't be polite about it after this. And as far as MtF transexuals, I actually may, depending on what their genetic code revealed to me just in technicality. However, again, an biologically abberant expression of genes does not, and should not constitute a conceptual approach to the whole of the species, especially when the established conceptual approach is, in fact, accurate for 99% or so of the rest of that population. The outliers will have to be appropriately integrated into the conceptual framework, thereby expanding it without dismissing already coherent and correspondent understandings. You see?
Quoting Hanover
So, no it isn't. And if you keep accusing people of this kind of ill-will, I'm going to show you what I think of people who would seek to use shame to overpower and dismiss reason and established science. Quit doing this. I have explicated to you the real issue at hand, that is better served by your intelligence in the pursuit of formulating conclusions not derived from social phenomena that is strictly conflict based as a matter of course. Philosophy, humanity's last and only hope now, needs you to assess these kinds of situations with that kind of approach. We need to fix issues, not perpetuate them.
Quoting Hanover
That's correct, because word usage isn't the usage. It is the perception of compelled, or willingness to compell such usage. For example, I have never stopped calling Pluto a planet, and guess what, it has since been reinstated in itsplanetary status. So, the people who thought I had aught to change my approach can kiss my ass and join me in the enlightened crew after I get my apology. Now, they can still join even though they haven't given one to me, but I'm always gonna know they owe to me, which will be enough for. And yes, it did ignite furor in the physics community, but the physics community is known for employing reason and adversarial co-operation in the pursuit of truth and homeostasis within paradigms of science. See what I'm saying?
Quoting praxis
My understanding was that BC thinks it’s delusional to believe you can change your sex, but he seems to agree with me that psychological gender, as a perceptual-affective style, is independent of biological sex, which is what I interpret him to mean by ‘gaydar’. For myself and my peers, gaydar doesn’t simply refer to the ability to detect if a man is sexually interested in another man, but rather the identification of a constellation of behavioral and appearance cues( dress, pronunciation, interests, posture, demeanor, walk) as pointing to what I have been calling a gay gender-associated perceptual-affective style. It’s interesting how it’s common for members of the gay community to refer to each other as ‘she’ or ‘queen’ or ‘girl’. I don’t think this is just social
conventions that we learn from each other. This use of language comes directly from the way we feel inside, this equal dose( and in those men who are strongly effeminate a much higher dose) of feminine style and masculine style.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Quoting Bitter Crank
Quoting praxis
I feel strongly that for myself and many other gay men I know, the gender-associated perceptual-affective style is directly responsible for sexual attraction. I believe that , as Freud said, in the most general sense we are all bisexual in that we all have the capability to learn to enjoy sexual relations with both biological males and females. But the strong preference most gay men feel for same sec partners is a result of the way the structure and feel of the male body implies behavioral traits ( strength, aggressiveness, etc) that gay men gravitate to. Think of sexual partnering as like a dance. To grossly over-generalize so you get the point, Heterosexual attraction is a dance of yin and yang: the yielding, more passive , emotive , soft characteristics of femininity ( and the feminine body) complement and complete the emotionally unaware, dominating or commanding aspects of masculine behavior and the masculine body.
They fit like pieces of a puzzle. For many gay men , who have bits of both masculine and feminine gender within themselves, the fit is more of a twinning than a yin and yang. Many gay men are repulsed by the signals they get from straight women who exude feminine passivity and softness while expecting the gay male to exude decisive, strong, commanding masculine traits. The gay man exudes a mixture of both sides and is attracted to that same mixture from their partner.
I dated a woman in college and that was pretty much the dynamic: her expectations of strength and decisiveness from me, for me to ‘take care of her’ even though she was my intellectual equal and headed for her own career.
The reason we call people male or female in the vernacular has nothing to do with their genes. It has to do with how they look and act.
Quoting Garrett Travers
Of course it is. Gender roles have played and continue to play significant roles in our society and a blurring of who is male and who is female has caused the outrage. Maybe your outrage comes from the technical word changes and you'd be just as mad if we started calling bowls "cups," but I think more is at play in this battle over gender identity than just words.
Quoting Garrett Travers
It ignited interest and debate. There is no moral consequence to how planets are named or designated. There is when it comes genders. That's just part of the Western tradition and the norms for our society.
Phenotype is an expression of genotype, or epigenetic influence. There is no distinction, irrespective of recognition of such a fact.
Quoting Hanover
The blurring was done by people not adhereing to the genetically established paradigm, not the rest of us. Which, again, is fine if your usage is not presented as a compulsion, the perception of which being what has caused the outrage on the side of traditional paradigm adherents.
Quoting Hanover
No, it's a battle between voluntary and involuntary participation in a new linguistic paradigm. Seriously, that's the issue. That of which only requires an unassuage perception of involuntary paradigmatic integration on the part of non-paradigm adherents. I promise you that that is the only place you genuinely need to look. Remember Pluto and how the scientists settled their differences.
Quoting Hanover
There would have been had there been any perception that the acceptance of such a proposition, which happened to not be true techinically, were expected to be incorporated into a paradigm via involuntary participation.
Quoting Hanover
Scientists didn't lobby government to write a code in law claiming that Pluto must be accepted as a planetoid, or one would face rammifications administered by a monopoly on force. You know, like how Bill C-16 did? Like how the attempt to instantiate hate-speech laws has engulfed the social-reconstructionsist platform? That's specifically the difference: force.
There is no law dictating that you are required to call transsexuals anything. You can be as offensive or inoffensive as you like. The US has no hate speech laws. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/no-theres-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/
If your beef if over a specific Canadian bill, then maybe you have point there. I really don't follow what Canada does or know how over-reaching their free speech limitations are. I'd be opposed to limiting all sorts of bigotry and stupidity because I do think the right to free speech includes that.
Very true, nevertheless heterosexuals who can enjoy sexual relations with both sexes, perhaps even in a ‘twinning dance’, are still sexuality attracted to the opposite sex, at least primarily. I wonder if the same is true for homosexuals.
Carefully read what I am saying, I made no such assertion. I brought to your attention that in certain Western nations, there are indeed enforcing such laws, such as Canada. As an aside, other such Western nations are actively debating in the world's finest educational institutions, such as Oxford and Cambridge, to instantiate such compulsions and restrictions on speech with the threat of force. Broadly speaking, the propostion of violence-regulated speech codes are becoming more, and more prevalent in positive consideration. Meaning, the perception of a threat against free expression I accordance with our internal coherence on given topics are, in fact, a genuine perception. Not that the U.S. has instantiated those compulsions or restrictions, America dies on that day.
Quoting Hanover
No, not specifically. What C-16 represents to me is a threat of similar compulsions being placed on me by my states, and the popularity of this growing to a point where fiat sentiment overcomes human reason. I have no beef, per se, with C-16, it is the responsibility of Canadians to dispose of their little fascist mommy's boy and be free again. The same will be our responsibility with such tyranny comes to America, which again, is a genuine threat at this point in history, without question.
Quoting Hanover
Yeah, same here.
Quoting Hanover
The right to free speech includes all human expressions that do not violate the human expressions of others. Any other standard is at best illogical, at worst the pursuit of interpersonal ownership and control of consciousness. And I will debate anybody that thinks they to go with me on that topic, any time, any place, and people, any number of people.
Let's look at this from the 100 mile overhead view so you can maybe understand my questioning these objections.
We have a group of people who generally are ostracized and ridiculed and thought of as sexual deviants. Their behavior is considered sinful and immoral by large segments of the population as it violates specific rules about gender roles and sexuality in our society.
Against that backdrop, objections are raised not as to the immorality of the behavior or as to how it simply violates societal norms, but as to the outrageous burden they place on average folks living day to day. Where we used to have very clear grammar rules, we now have to worry about "him," "her," and "their," when we didn't have to before.
So I drill down on this question about language burdens, and I'm told it's not the specific words that really cause the problem, but it's in the abstract, where I shouldn't have a governmental body telling me what to do as it relates to speech. The transsexual pronoun issue is just one example from that abstract concern.
I then drill down further on that question, and I'm told it's really not an issue in the abstract because it's conceded that your jurisdiction doesn't impose such prohibitions. You then explain the issue is actually in the hypothetical because you fear the cancer of Canada might spread southward and you'll then be burdened by having a government tell you how to speak. That is, today we find ourselves on the precipice, teetering back and forth, and unless we snuff out this pronoun mind control, we might as well hand over our First Amendment free speech rights to the KGB banging at the door.
My response to this is that I agree that free speech rights are worth protecting and I would object to burdens being imposed by the government with respect to it. I am however extremely suspicious when someone claims that it is the transsexual that poses our greatest risks to free speech. It makes me wonder whether this group is being singled out as the greatest threat to our free speech because they actually are, or whether it's all a pretextual effort to further attack this historically attacked group.
I'd be a lot happier with gaydar if it were more reliable. Like radar, it's a great advance over flying around in the dark. One might use 'gaydar' as a very narrow 'sex-finding' skill, but it is based on a 'gestalt' that includes [i]"the identification of a constellation of behavioral and appearance cues (dress, pronunciation, interests, posture, demeanor, walk) as pointing to what I have been calling a gay gender-associated perceptual-affective style."[/I]
Quoting Joshs
While I have heard gay men refer to each other as "'she' or 'queen' or 'girl' [add in 'sister'] since I started traveling in gay circles (some 55 years), there have always been some men who did, and some men who didn't. I associate it with 'camp'. Some men 'camp' and some men don't. Some men are campy all the time, which I find kind of tiresome. Without a time machine, the only way we have of determining whether this is historically 'built in' or 'learned' is to look at print sources which are unreliable at capturing occasional instances of campy speech. Does Walt Whitman use feminine pronouns for men? I don't think so, but that's a guess.
"Camp" (high camp, mid camp, low camp"... see Susan Sontag on Camp, 1964).
Why do some men use, or not use campy speech? One guess is that it depends on whether or not they have immersed themselves in campy gay bars from the get go. It takes practice to do well. Men who don't drink and smoke (and go to bars) are less likely to be campy [theoretical postulate... no evidence on hand]. Men from rural hick backwaters [me], however profoundly gay they might be, tend not to be campy. Class has something to do with it. Lower class, more likely; middle class--too insecure; upper class -- more likely to practice high camp. [not fact based; conjecture]. And, as you say, at least some of it seems to stem from the self-protrayed gender role. Some guys are consistently butch/macho/masculine, and some guys are consistently the opposite, and probably always were, one way or another.
Oscar Fingal O'Flahertie Wills Wilde (1854-1900) practiced high camp. He was gay and straight (much more complicated than merely gay, straight, bisexual).
Do you believe there is such a thing as psychological gender, apart from biological chromosomal sex?
Paychological gender would refer to a brain-wiring that produces what I call a perceptual-affective masculine or feminine style. This difference in behavior is what allows dog experts and breeders to tell male dogs from
female dogs based on their behavior. Do you think the same brain-wiring difference separates human males and females?
I agree.
Quoting Hanover
That is correct. Or, the perceived burden, which is just as powerful a motivator most of the time.
Quoting Hanover
No, that's not the issue. This issue is what you described above, "outrageous burden." That burden being the expectation, and potentially forced participation of, adopting a linguistic framework that violates my coherent one, instead of pursuing compatibility, which is the easiest to achieve in the world, believe it or not.
Quoting Hanover
Correct.
Quoting Hanover
No, it has and is being proposed as legislation all across the world as we speak.
Quoting Hanover
No, I explain that objective instances of it happening, and by proxy the push to make it happen all across the world, is NOT a hypothetical, it is a clear potentiality.
Quoting Hanover
No, we found ourselves inching closer, objectively, as has been done in other parts of the world, to something that violates human reason. And, just for clarity's sake, any proposal that includes the compelled expression, or silence of expression the Human Consciousness that isn't itself a violation of the Human Consciousness, is evil and must be battled to the hilt. The historical record is clear as to what states do with that specific intrusion into human life.
Quoting Hanover
No, they're not worth protecting, they're the sole point of origin of all human activity and no claim to a right to the ownership of that human activity by anyone other than the human in question will ever be anything short of evil that must be eradicated from the face of the earth.
Quoting Hanover
The moment that violations of the Human Consciousness are no longer being proposed as a matter of legislation, such a concern will disappear forever.
Quoting Hanover
No, they are attempting to single themselves out as justifiable arbiters of the monopoly on force to the degree they currently wish to employ it, a monopoly which is itself illegitimate to begin with. There is no group, by the way, of any kind that hasn't been historically mistreated. And none so much as philosophers. Power is indiscriminant. Governments abuse whoever they have to abuse to get what they want.
Is this all learned theater? Did you see La Cage aux Folles?
Remember the scene where the champagne was uncorked and everyone did a girlish scream? Do
you think that was pre-mediated theater or a deeply pre_conscious , reflexive perceptual reaction that gets to the heart of what I’m talking about?
Camp isn’t based on thin air, it’s the translation of a perceptual style many gay men are born with into something exaggerated and put on. Gay rural bumpkins may not know anything about camp but I will guarantee you they have those same perceptual tendencies that make many gays unable to hide what they are despite their best efforts.
You need not fight the American Revolution again. Your side won. We wrote a Constitution that has enshrined every principle you speak of into the very fabric of our country, so much so that we intepret our Constitution much like the Bible, it's each inerrant word leading our every move.
I know what horrors lie beyond our border. That's always been something worth fighting to protect ourselves against.
Leave the transsexuals out of this battle for the soul of our country is all I'm saying. They aren't the enemy. They are the scapegoat. It can be hard to decipher one from the other.
This sort of thing was just outside my cultural and experiential zone. Jerry, Rich, and Vic, three guys I met in my first year at Backwater State College (1964), were, I long since understood, campy and cruisey, but at the time that was something I hadn't previously witnessed. I did not know what to make of it.
So yes, I can acknowledge that these three guys, 2 rural, 1 urban at age 18 in backwater Minnesota were campy. Going back a little further, even I exhibited campy behavior at the age of 12, which wasn't appreciated.
La Cage, as a film, contained no actual spontaneous behavior of any kind. It employed a fair amount of exaggeration for effect, but sure, the gay characters didn't seem artificial.
Gay men in the Upper Midwest seem to be more tightly wrapped than gay men elsewhere in the country, though there are exceptions. When I moved to Boston from Minnesota in 1968 I found most people in Boston to be more open, spontaneous, and expressive than Midwesterners people. Others have observed the same differences.
I am a good example of a tightly wrapped, tightly screwed together gay man. I always needed a couple of drinks to loosen up enough to engage other men in bars, and I was by no means the only one. Do Midwesterners learn to be tightly wrapped and screwed together, or is it just the way we are? Geographical Determinism? Extreme weather? A disease spread by wood ticks?
If you’re from Minnesota , there may be that Lake Wobegon Lutheran thing going on, “where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average."
Is a man who has sex 60% with women and 40% with men homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual? Depends who is applying the definitions, I suppose. Kinsey (1894-1956) conducted his research in the 1940s and 1950s. His Institute at U-Indiana carries on today. How bisexual men found partners in the 1940s isn't clear to me -- I'd have to read a batch of Kinsey material, I suppose. And Kinsey's research was a new field: there was not a lot of nuts-and-bolts research before his.
Homophile advocate organizations (who have a vested interest in larger numbers) tend to claim 10% of the population as homosexual. I think this is wishful thinking. A friend of mine always asked, "If 10% of the population is gay, who is getting my share?"
In 2021, IPSOS, a French market research firm, conducted a large survey in 21 country, all continents. They found:
80% of people worldwide identified as heterosexual, 3% as homosexual, 4% as bisexual, and 1% each as pansexual, asexual, and other. Results indicated that significant differences in sexual identity have emerged between generations across the globe, with the youngest group, or Generation Z, being more likely to identify as bisexual (9%) than Millennials (4%), Generation X (3%) and Boomers (2%). Generation Z and Millennials were also more likely to identify as homosexual, with 4% and 3% doing so respectively, compared to 2% of Generation X and 1% of Boomers. In addition, the survey found that men are more likely than women to identify as homosexual (4% vs. 1%).
There are, of course, obvious problems in pinning down actual sexual behavior. Unless one can use a massive and intrusive 'bird watching' approach, one has to rely on self-report.
A paper document means nothing to a society that does not value such principles. I don't speak to you from the perspective of any written document, either. The Constitution is an artifact of a philosophical tradition that predates the Enlightenment, and from whence almost every Scientific Revolutionary and Enlightenment principle was plagiarised, precepts that have given rise to the most thriving societies in the history of Human Kind. The Constitution, particularly the first 2 Amendments, are nothing more than the logical conclusions regarding what a government has any justification to do to people, and what it is sworn to protect in accordance with that philosophical tradition. And it is from the perspective of that trdition's continuation that I engage with you. And, so you understand, the provisions of the first 2 Amendments are not meant to lead you, but allow you to your own leading, as long as you don't violate the same intrinsic entitlement of others. We are a failed society to the very degree at which those 2 Amendments are violated, particularly the 1st.
Quoting Hanover
I agree. And something I am committed to protecting if the need arises.
Quoting Hanover
That's been precisely my point, friend. The enemy is not the people who differ in opinion, or understandings of concepts, but those willing to use force to make you share, or participate in their behavioral implications. By and large, this is not a phenomenon among the majority of any group of individuals. But, it is specifically those who are perceiving unequal treatment that are preyed upon by the power hungry to induce the aggression required to desire, and achieve such authority in the form of enshrined law. We have been a failed society from the exact moment that Bill of Rights was rattified, and subsequently violated through discriminatory recognition, and the complete violation of it in the form of those who did not make the preferred list of the big club. The state, and all of its permutations are not just your real enemies, but the enemies of Human Kind. Nonetheless, I will always leave them out of the battle for the soul of the Human Race, as long as they do not stand to violate it themselves.
Just reviewed some of the findings on the site, interesting. Strangely, I noticed that one of the most commonly searched topics on the site is penis size. Not to boast but I'm happy to report that I'm above average. :party:
This is something else that Sigmund Freud got wrong. It isn't women who have penis envy, it is men. We all want to know how well we hang in comparison with other men--desperately hoping and mis-measuring to show that we are at least 1/8th of an inch above average.
It's not the ship, it's the motion of the ocean. (consolation prize)
Yes, but not in those kinds of terms. The way it appears to be me, given what is known about cognition, is that personalities are split into types. This as a result of genetic predisposition, epigenetic influences, abuse and trauma, and ostracism or overparenting. Psychological gender is not the right term to be using, and such a concept only applies to a radically small proportion of society. Menaing you don't just get to appropriate terms from 90%+ of the population and apply them to things that do not make coherent sense. Psychological gender, as a personality type, is better understood as something more like identity-ambiguity personality type. Gender is used to describe what is already coherently established and associated with a vast. vast plethora of biological disparaties between men and women, and are not terms to be appropriated by people that cannot even define what they are themselves. You ask these folks what these terms mean, and they say anything but the established paradigm, and offer no alternative explanations. Some simply leave it at, "it cannot be defined by me." In which case I'm left to insist, "then go find a way to do so without using words already in usage to describe something else."
Quoting Joshs
And just exactly what is this brain wiring? Any clearly observed instances of it? Any reason why an aberrant brain wiring would imply the use of labels already in use by other people? This is the ambiguity I'm talking about with this stuff. It needs to be clearly defined, so that I can integrate it into my linguistic paradigm in a separate, but equal compartment to men and women, and gender. You understand? That's a big problem here. There's a reason why the logical fallacies are present and identified in logic. The moment one is introduced into an assertion or an argument, it derails the entire logically coherent body of thought that led up to that point, if it isn't highlighted and dismissed. The fallacy of ambiguity, making assertions predicated on not agreed upon langauge, is what that is. It isn't just a desire of mine, it is a requirement to clearly define terms, before any peaceful and productive conversation can be had on the subject. And damn sure before legislation begins to be proposed.
Quoting Joshs
That's not even a question in neuroscience. Differences in the male and female brains have been an established scientific fact for years now. That being said, you have to understand, the human brain is literally the most advanced, sophisticated, structural and functionally complex, creative, destructive, and productive singular system in the known universe, literally. Meaning, it can't just be a wiring thing that constitutes a conclusion. Personality types arise through complex processes that involve many factors. I do believe identity-ambiguity is a naturally emerging set of personality types within the context of the right influences on brain. But, in short, no, I do not believe anyone is "born this way," beyond what is genetically established. Nobody is born anyway out side of consistently observable biomarkers and genotypical phenomena, except in cases of problems in gestation. I think something far more complex is at work in all things human brain related. But, we don't know enough yet, which just intensifies the ambiguity issue.
Here's a source on differences, plenty where this comes from: https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.html
The article you linked to mentioned male and female
chromosomal differences as a potential source of the gender-based behavioral differences they discuss. But it has not been proven that genes are the only source of such brain differences. There has been as much attention directed toward the hormonal environment in the womb, and this has been suggested as an explanation of homosexuality. That is, that more feminizing hormones and less testosterone in utero can create a more feminine brain in a male body.
If this is true, then perhaps many transsexuals can be seen as gay men and women who want their bodies to ‘match’ their brain wiring.
Is specifically assert this exact position above.
Quoting Joshs
Yep, that's what I said.
Quoting Joshs
Yes, if that is the most rationally consistent way to go about it. Again, all I care about is that established science isn't being overlooked, and that I am not forced to participate in something that violates my coherent linguistic framework. I need time to assess and integrate information. Which is exactly how they would feel If I brought to their attention something that violated their framework of understanding and expected them to participate. They would literally respond with opposition in almost every case of such a proposition.
How is it rational see a biologically male sex and a psychologically female gender as a woman, or a biologically female sex and a psychologically male gender as a man?
Notice how I said "IF," that's a conditional It isn't rational within the context of our current linguistic paradigm. And I have actually said here that it is not proper for trans to be appropriating an established linguistic paradigm and expecting us to use it. However, if we can peaceably conclude a rational element to it, then there isn't a problem, we'll just be able to integrate it into our paradigm without negating it.
And who gets to be the judge as to whether they correctly understand themselves or not?
Garrett Travers.
The traditional model expects biological males to operate in a particular perceptual-affective style considered "male", and biological females to operate in a particular perceptual-affective style considered "female". You switch this up a bit so that even biological males can be considered to operate in a particular perceptual-affective style considered "female", and biological females to operate in a particular perceptual-affective style considered "male".
But neither the traditional model nor you encourage one to, you know, just talk to the person. Instead, you both encourage people to act within scripted roles, and to interact with eachother in terms of those scripted roles (because this is what "perceptual-affective styles" are, scripted roles).
Remember, you said:
Quoting Joshs
No, people who have dogs and several other species of animals often tell them apart by their biological sex by looking under their tail/between their legs. Not by behavior.
There's a reason why a certain school of psychology was called "rat psychology", with all its pejorative implications.
No. What "ignited furor" was the superficiality level at which the entire discussion should take place, and the bad faith in which it should be conducted.
Such surgeries have always been unnecessary.
Quoting Joshs
Many heterosexual people have the same view of their own gender identity -- that's it isn't merely about whom they are sexually attracted to, but "who they really are, as persons".
Women's magazines, for example, are full of descriptions and prescriptions about what "a woman" is supposed to be like. From what I've seen on websites for "manliness", there is a similar model focus as to "what it means to be a man".
All in all, I see this as an obsession with roles, models, basically, play-acting. As if "who one really is" can and should (!) be defined with a model, and then an actual person is supposed to fit themselves into some model, which functions as a Procrustean bed.
Go on....
Linguistic paradigms are ever-changing; they are not determinate objects. Even if they were not constantly evolving, who could be qualified to establish the supposed boundaries of a linguistic paradigm?
No, you're misunderstanding entirely. You've practically just reiterated my exact point and then criticized a conclusion that I didn't express. Let me clear up my writing: Paradigms that have already been established by the exact ever-changing evolutionary processes you and I both acknowledge, are not subjects that anyone will tolerate threats being used to changed. You, all of you here, need to understand that just such a proposition is not only exactly what has been being posited all over the world - even made law in Canada - but is exactly what this whole debacle has been about for 7 or so years now. Specifically that proposition, nothing else.
To be even clearer:
Changing the paradigm through organic means and peaceful communication is not the problem. The problem is the paradigm being associated with threats of forcing me to participate by law, calling me names for not participating, getting me fired because I don't participate, asserting that science is non-existent, exposing young children who aren't your to this in any more than a descriptive manner, or talking young children into undergoing life-altering modifications of anykind through manipulation. There is not, and has never been, any other issue than that.
Do we understand one another?
OK, seems I misunderstood you.
No worries. People get heated about stuff, especially this. Propaganda feeds the hatred, my friend.
Yes, it doesn't actually require it taking place, humans need only perceive such a threat to respond in defense. That's why when you're dealing among the general populace, it's essential that communication is extended as a voluntary proposition, this is the basis of ethics, as well as business. My consciousness (and everyone else's) has too many self contained neural data sets that constitute paradigms of navigating through the world and maximizing self, and valued other(s) homeostasis. And it belongs to me, not people who want me to adopt their paradigm. Consider such in Mormon terms. What's more reasonable, to approach your door with the presupposition that if you don't want to adopt, or even talk about adopting my Mormon paradigm, then I should peacefully vacate your purview? Or, threaten your job because you won't accept Joseph Smith as prophet? There is nothing different between any paradigm.
Yes, or threaten your job because you do accept Joseph Smith as a prophet, for that matter.
Yes. It's very funny too, because, even those doing the threatening are doing so out of some perceived threat of the exact same kind, just inversed. New, freshly integrated paradigms that are hot off the coals with a bit of coherence and some corespondence think they have the fucking world figured out, and when you say "nah, sounds dumb, leave me alone," bam, inner explosion leading to outward aggression. You've just insulted a new, heavily emotionally valenced coherent network of data that individuals perceive as a part of their identity itself. The key around this, is to know what one's brain is doing. But, people aren't being educated on such things, now are they?
A more apt analogy would be for them to threaten your job for being anti-Mormon, which they probably would.
That's why I led with that. In this analogy, it is the people of one Kuhnesque paradigm of language (traditional male/female biology and norms) being threatened, by and large, to accept a new one (identity ambiguity) that hasn't been established in any Kuhnesque manner, or in any manner they seem to be willing to coherently agree upon. Which is oddly, a sort of break in the Kuhnian paradigm shift model, as paradigms are usually replaced with paradigms of greater coherence and breadth. A paradigm shift predicated on one of ambiguity replacing a coherent one is a recipe for extended paradigmatic friction. It's been 7 years or so now of endless friction. To put this into perspective, the paradigm shift that took place as a result of Hubble's constant being introduced to cosmology took a full ten years, but was in its peaceful transitional phase within 3. Guess we'll see where this goes, eh?
A reference: https://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/Kuhn.html
Is it necessary to know what the brain is doing, neurally speaking, in order to know what we think and to assess whether or not it is rational? No amount of examination of neural processes, even if you could reliably equate them with specific trains of thought, would enable you to distinguish between an irrational and a rationally valid train of thought I would hazard to assert. Well, at least it doesn't seem possible to imagine any way that could be done, in any case. One might argue that we don't know what the future of neuroscience might bring to the table, but I think it is precisely for that reason that we should stick to what it is capable of right now. Promissory notes as premises do not good arguments make.
Quoting Hanover
Well, the difference there is that one is a matter of personal faith and the other is an example of bigotry. For a Mormon to threaten your job because you don't accept Joseph Smith as a prophet might be seen by a Mormon as being justified because that position is anti Mormon, but that conclusion would be unjustified unless you showed some signs of actually being against Mormonism, in which case you would be fired for bigotry, which I think would be justified, especially if the job in question were an administrative position in the Mormon church.
Yes, in the sense of some sort of observation. I can distinguish between my own rational thoughts that I employ to inform action, as opposed to emotion. But, each person's rational capacities are so different that we would all mistake eachother's rationality for irrationality. You see this just in people's arguments.
Quoting Janus
Yes, because the current paradigm of understanding is pretty consistent and supported. There's no real reason to challenge. It isn't as if new research is being conducted that challenges the paradigm. There may be ambiguous stuff that arises that can easily be placed within the scope of the paradigm, but no anomolies that need to be totally addressed independently.
Quoting Janus
Exactly. The idea is simple, if one is going to take the path of the philosopher, and therefore most rational: provide evidence of something that challenges current established science, or yield. When evidence is presented, it becomes our duty to investigate things. But, people do not need to confuse ambiguous evidence, with anomolous evidence. Ambiguous evidence is simply evidence that seems incompatible with the current framework, but is actually compatibe. Like quantum mechanics and relativity.