Gender Identity is not an ideology
We've had a lively discussion in the "Gender elevated over sex is sexism" thread - thanks to the OP posted by @Philosophim - I invite you to read the thread for some background.
My position has been that gender identity is something formed during fetal development, during the differentiation and organization of the brain during the third trimester of pregnancy.
People do not "decide" to become transgender - they are born that way.
There has been reference to the "trans ideology." Transgenderism is not an ideology - which we may define as a set of beliefs or ideas shaping a view of the world - but transgenderism is not about what the transgender person "believes" but rather who they are - their internal identity, processed by the brain.
In advancing their right to be their authentic selves, we might say the ideology that they do advance is one that respects and protects human rights.
By contrast, the word ideology better reflects the anti-transgender position. People opposed often have very rigid concepts of male and female, and often their opposition is tied to a resentment of having to recognize anything outside of their narrow paradigms.
The problem with this is that ideology unchecked may lead to the gutting of basic human rights. Consider the man in the video below. He is very angry. He’s speaking on stage at Turning Point’s (founded by Charlie Kirk, now run by his widow Erica) Americafest. He cites Charlie as a martyr, then scapegoats an entire community, cloaked in a warped version of Christianity. His speech is chilling - he calls for rounding up transgender persons - and yet earned him a standing ovation.
He says (or rather snarls) -
“The person who pulled the trigger (on Charlie) is part of the demonic transgender ideology that warps the minds of our young children, that poisons them, that is antithetical to creation itself … God doesn’t make mistakes. Transgenderism is a lie from the pit of hell … and I’m sick of seeing transgender violence and murderers in my country … what a horrid and wretched ideology … it’s time to kick in doors, come on FBI, do some door-kicking, round them up.”
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DSi3WJiEewU/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==
My position has been that gender identity is something formed during fetal development, during the differentiation and organization of the brain during the third trimester of pregnancy.
People do not "decide" to become transgender - they are born that way.
There has been reference to the "trans ideology." Transgenderism is not an ideology - which we may define as a set of beliefs or ideas shaping a view of the world - but transgenderism is not about what the transgender person "believes" but rather who they are - their internal identity, processed by the brain.
In advancing their right to be their authentic selves, we might say the ideology that they do advance is one that respects and protects human rights.
By contrast, the word ideology better reflects the anti-transgender position. People opposed often have very rigid concepts of male and female, and often their opposition is tied to a resentment of having to recognize anything outside of their narrow paradigms.
The problem with this is that ideology unchecked may lead to the gutting of basic human rights. Consider the man in the video below. He is very angry. He’s speaking on stage at Turning Point’s (founded by Charlie Kirk, now run by his widow Erica) Americafest. He cites Charlie as a martyr, then scapegoats an entire community, cloaked in a warped version of Christianity. His speech is chilling - he calls for rounding up transgender persons - and yet earned him a standing ovation.
He says (or rather snarls) -
“The person who pulled the trigger (on Charlie) is part of the demonic transgender ideology that warps the minds of our young children, that poisons them, that is antithetical to creation itself … God doesn’t make mistakes. Transgenderism is a lie from the pit of hell … and I’m sick of seeing transgender violence and murderers in my country … what a horrid and wretched ideology … it’s time to kick in doors, come on FBI, do some door-kicking, round them up.”
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DSi3WJiEewU/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==
Comments (38)
That's scary.
I think the issue is viewing everything from a point of view individual rights to begin with, that is an ideology in itself, and historically a pretty unusual one at that.
We have many norms that have little to do with individual rights, but are aimed at making society work collectively. And they can even be arbitrary (non-natural) to some extend, and still be important to be followed. It's important that everybody drives on the right or the left side of the road for instance to avoid a mess in traffic... it really doesn't matter what anyone's preferences are on the issue.
One could see the institution of hetero-sexual marriage and gender-roles in something of a similar way, in that is presumably beneficial for a stable society to have man an women committed to each other and to the families they raise.
People like their norms and get angry, like in traffic, if they get broken. I do think that is something that comes natural to humans. We get educated into following a certain set of norms, ideals and role-models and we then usually spread those in turn to the next generations etc and that ultimately produces a certain kind of society... we are mimetic beings is you will.
Contrary to what most seem to believe, Liberalism, individualism and the promoting LGBTQ+ rights is a certain way of viewing and organising the world. It does promote certain kinds of ways of living that are different from say those that Christianity promotes.... there's no 'ideology-free' society.
the current US government gave them an inch, and they took a mile.
Yes, I did say that. It's an ideology adhered to by a wide swath of different groups
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
is this meant to discredit it?
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
What side of the road a society drives on does not interfere with anyone's personal rights.
Active anti-transgenderism interferes with Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Yes, stable families are good for society. But this particular "norm' does not work for everyone. Besides, it's an inaccurate presumption that anything outside the "norm" is bad for society.
The characteristics that make a society stable are trust, fairness, inclusion, safety, mutual support, respect, honesty, compassion and empathy - and there is no indication that transgender persons cannot contribute in these ways.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Anyone who gets angry at transgender persons for living their lives according to their own (nonharmful) "norm" needs to check their judgement at the door.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
if a society is to respect human rights, respecting the rights of transgender persons comes under that umbrella. it is not a category unto itself.
I think you are referring to this:
Quoting Questioner
if so, no, I meant the anti-transgender faction
No it's meant to imply that it is an experiment that hasn't been shown to work in the longer term, as opposed to other traditions.
Quoting Questioner
Yeah but pointing to Universal rights is a bit like pointing to the bible to argue in favour of some Christian teaching... it's only convincing to those that already believe in it.
Quoting Questioner
Allowing more and more exceptions does erode the norm, that's just how human psychology works.... The idea "Why should I adhere to the norm if other shouldn't?" creeps in.
Also there is a difference between tacitly allowing some people to deviate from the norm (like it was before say 2010) and actively promoting it like it is some kind of new norm (after 2010).
Have you just made these up by theorising about it or is there actual evidence that these are indeed the characteristic that make a stable society? The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Quoting Questioner
Again, this only follows if you already believe we should view these things solely from the point of view of individual rights. Not everybody does.
Oh, so you are arguing against individual human rights. Sorry, this just opens the door to all kinds of suppression and oppression done in the name of "tradition."
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
I can't agree with this analogy. Universal human rights is a rational response to abuses of the past. Christian teaching from the Bible is based on ancient stories. But I will say I do believe that Jesus would be totally on board with universal human rights.
But if your argument is that you do not believe in basic human rights, you have lost me.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
What "more and more" - this seems a fear-based response.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
I'm not sure what you mean by "actively promoting"
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
I can retort to this by asking, what evidence do you have that any family outside the "father-mother-children" paradigm is less stable?
In any case, certainly you are not arguing against those characteristics contributing to a society's stability?
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
This opens the door to harm done to others.
Quoting Questioner
I reject this, so we're already at big odds.
But I mean being gender critical isn't an ideology either. Yet, you have people citing it to support clearly ideological nonsense, some of which is obviously dangerous. So to on the TRA side with the Zizians and plenty of small (and yes, mainly inconsequential) militias arming to the teeth and going after those they decide are wrong, or individuals like Jessica Yaniv waging legal wars against people due to her clear delusional world view.
I suggest we can bring up plenty of examples like your clip there to indicate an "ideology" behind trans activism, at least, and it does clearly seem to be a 'worldview'. So, to me, 'being trans' is clearly not an ideology, but the worldview it tends to embed within can be. There are plenty of trans people who entirely reject the worldview that tends to come along with trans identity - this is the biggest point to me in assessing the factions at play.
So "being trans" might or might not fit the bill, but I think more clearly both sides are talking about legitimately scary, dangerous factions. No problem admitting there's no parity when you have groups like the one you've posted the clip of supporting shit like that as compared to usually pretty isolated examples on the other side. The only comment I will make on the other side is that we're yet to see the psychological damage done by the trans ideologues (small as those groups might be) in convincing children they can change sex. A fair bit of the psychological distress seems to be borne from this lie.
Quoting Questioner
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10313020/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Not conclusive, but it seems to be pretty replicable. Averages and all that as a pinch of salt. It wont work for everyone.
A functioning society is prior to individual human rights, because without a functioning society there is no way to protect any kind of rights. Traditions are typically a key factor of how those societies are ordered and remain functional.
No society no matter what tradition will ever be perfectly free from oppression. If that means one needs to constantly fight said traditions until there is no more oppression, that essentially means you will end up dissolving the very foundation that enables one to even talk about rights.
Quoting Questioner
There's nothing rationally 'necessary' about human rights. They came out a particular Western tradition, out of Christian and Greco-Roman notions of natural law, that diverged from how the rest of the world saw things. The Chinese tradition for instance never develloped this notion of individual rights, but allways kept viewing things from a more societal point of view.
It's really the historical event of the belief in Christ that shifted the Western tradition from viewing things in terms of tribal/group consciousness to the individual. That's not the result of reason, but a shift in basic values.
And I do think there are a lot of issues with the concept of human rights. To name a few, 1) the idea that we should attach rights to an abstract notion of the individual removed from cultural, familial and societal contexts is I think antithetical to how human beings naturally tend to behave. And 2) the idea that we, 'the west', should universally impose a notion that is alien to other civilisations is also rather problematic.
Quoting Questioner
Quoting Questioner
From the occasional reporting about say a gay-pride event in mainstream media, at a certain point LGBTQ+ issues became front and center in a deliberate attempt to 'normalize' it to the general public. First in the US, and then with some delay in Europe, with interviews, seperate LGBTQ+ sections in newspapers, opinion pieces etc etc...
Edit: Also the whole pronoun debate. It doesn't get any more 'normative' than demanding everybody to change how to use language.
Quoting Questioner
I don't know, it's an experiment like I said, and the jury is still out it seems to me, whereas we do have 'evidence' that heterosexual mariage as a norm worked reasonably well just by virtue of the fact that we are the descendants of a culture that had that norm.
Quoting Questioner
Sure, but I don't think preventing harm is the only factor morals should be evaluated by, I'm not a utilitarian.
Yes, there are extremists in all groups. But the outliers should not decide the rule. We need to look to leadership to provide the greatest benefit for the greatest number of its citizens. For example, the policy coming out of the Trump administration has led to transgender persons fearing for their lives.
Quoting AmadeusD
I like that you introduced the word "worldview" - good word. Although, I am not sure what you mean by the "trans identity worldview."
Quoting AmadeusD
No, sorry, that study does not apply, since it compares stable families with families that have dissolved. Not the same thing at all as comparing cisgender parents to transgender parents.
What kind of traditions are you talking about?
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
I think the best foundation of a society is one that includes basic human rights.
Tradition is good, too, but tradition should not be elevated to something untouchable when said tradition interferes negatively in the lives of others. Slavery was once a tradition, too.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights came out of the abuses of WW2.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
How do the protection of human rights erode attachment to family, culture, or country?
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Eek, you're getting into nuisances here. Like, kinda like, whining.
Any religious, cultural or civic traditions... like marriage is a Christian tradition.
Quoting Questioner
What is the justification for it? Or we're fine to just assume it as a dogma, whereas for everything else we demand reasons?
The idea that we should emancipate people from and critique traditions continuously is itself part of a tradition, set in motion with the onset of the enlightenment.
Quoting Questioner
It's not the human rights themselves that erode those attachments. Human rights are the result or end-product of a constant process of questioning and critiqueing traditions. They became detached from any living tradition... bloodless and abstract.
Quoting Questioner
Are you serious? You asked me what I meant with actively promoting (as opposed to tacitly allowing), and I gave you the answer.
I think this is the crux of the matter for you? Well, Christian marriage is certainly available to those who desire it, It's not going away. But some chose alternative lifestyles. Why should they not be given that choice?
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
I think framing human rights as dogma in a negative light, yet advocating for Christian marriage for all, is somewhat an inconsistent position.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Some traditions should be questioned and critiqued.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
You didn't cite active promotion, you cited nuisances. No-one is taking out ads in the newspapers, "Become transgender today!" No-one is coercing anyone to become transgender.
I'm not a Christian, I'm not necessarily promoting the Christian institution of marriage here... it was just an example of how one could view this issue from another perspective.
This is probably where we don't agree:
Quoting Questioner
Earlier I said the following:
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
I don't think anyone needs to be coerced into being transgender for it to have an effect on people, because I think people tend to copy things they see. That's why advertising works. People will opt more readily for marriage and take it seriously if they feel that is the 'normal' thing to do, if they see other famous and succesfull people do the same.
Just by virtue of normalising a whole host of other kinds of relations and genderroles, you will influence some people following these other models. Now I'm not saying that is necessarily a bad thing, but I do think you effectively alter society in a way a Christian or Muslim might object to given the way he views the world and the kind of society he would prefer.
All of this to say that it's not ideology-neutral either way, which was part of your original claim.
Definitely with you this. I do my best not to - but then, I don't see someone like Kirk as an extremist where plenty will. I thikn that's unfounded and unfortunate - again, there may just be daylight we can't cut across if so. Not an accusation on you, just talking about the wider conversation more generally.
Quoting Questioner
Well, there seems to me to be a stark different between trans people who essentially just see the world as it is, and accept there's an unfortunate aspect to their nature on the one hand, and trans people who make it their entire identity and everything in their life hinges on ways in which that identity can be inculcated into all those other aspects. That seems ideological. Yaniv is probably a good, while comedic (from a detached perspective anyway), example there. The way people make that joke about how a Vegan will let you know they're vegan - even if trans people weren't, in 99% of cases easily identifiable physically, the group I'm talking about will make it plenty obvious before you have a chance to assess their height and find out their surname (quip, not claim).
Quoting Questioner
That wasn't specifically a question I was answering (hence, not quoting it). In a "fully trans" family, it will be a nuclear family, albeit with the sexes switched for the gendered roles. I think the logic applies.
I also don't see how that difference changes the conclusions of the study - the point is that the dissolved families are more likely to draw outside the noted framework (fwiw, I don't care and wouldn't encourage or discourage any type of family unit that isn't abusive).
Yaniv has caused more harm than help to the cause of transgender persons, so not quite so comedic. I don't think she is representative of the vast majority of transgender persons, and should not be used as the example to represent the community. She is no more representative of that community than Trump is of the American people.
My claim was that identity is not ideology. Ideology may be constructed around that - like whether or not to provide a safe space for transgender persons to be themselves. If religious dogma interferes with that, that is using ideology to suppress identity.
I also think some are born that way. For others I have my doubts, and wonder if they haven't been influenced by culture to some extend. That's why I don't have an issue with helping transgenders, but at the same time do have some reservations about the way it has been dealt with culturally.
Interoception is the ability to connect with and interpret the body’s internal signals. A sensory, or neurophysiological capacity, it’s like a data stream coming from the body to the brain.
Alexithymia is a difficulty in interpreting those signals. Signals may be received, but it’s not always possible to make sense or meaning out of them. (The result of alexithymia is often a feeling of disembodiment.)
Research shows that the lower interoceptive coherence in transgender individuals corresponds with worse mental-health outcomes.
Further research shows that “nonautistic transgender participants reported significantly higher mean levels of alexithymia than nonautistic cisgender participants, and that there was a significant overrepresentation of individuals in this group who met the clinical cutoff for alexithymia.”
Transgender individuals experiencing dysphoria are literally and biologically less connected to their bodies.
This interferes with the construction of self-identity, which naturally relies on the signals interpreted by the brain. Only if you feel connected to your body can you say, “This body is me.”
And indeed, studies show that gender-affirming care improves interoception and decreases alexithymia – a decrease associated with increased emotional clarity:
“Alexithymia changes were found after gender-affirming hormone therapy for transgender women in both fantasizing and identifying … These findings suggest a considerable influence of estrogen administration and androgen suppression on brain networks implicated in interoception, own-body perception and higher-level cognition.”
This also appears to support the research that shows that gender transition, by treating self-alienation, restores and strengthens diachronic unity.
That's fair - As i say, from a detached perspective. But I agree, anyway. It's just cartoonish. Maybe that would have been better phrasing.
Quoting Questioner
I think the apt way to put this is "republicans". Otherwise its apples and oranges. Not to say your point about Yaniv isn't meaningful. But do bear in mind, that applies to plenty of voices in the trans community, including those who carry out violence and intimidation on behalf of their identatarian thought regime. I know this isn't representative of "trans" but its what the world has to deal with. I hope it's been noted I know (well, and not so well) plenty of trans people due to both my previous "extreme left" social life and my work life. I have no problem with people expressing themselves. Its that I do not believe for a moment that "trans" is some immutable, born-this-way characteristic of anyone. Feminniity and masculinity may be biologically influenced, but I can't go much further than that. Clear, social aspects influence those traits far more than biology in the modern world and that gives pause.
Quoting Questioner
This may become redundant, but I don't understand either of these as processes. They appear to be either conditions or facilities (one of which I have been diagnosed with in the past). Onward..
Quoting Questioner
It seems more correct that this is an issue identifying and processing emotions and noting them via body language or subtle spoken language. Its a very "spectrum" condition. I was diagnosed with it as an aspect of DsD at one point. It is known as "emotional blindness". Careful not to conflate the former, which is the body's ability to process internal signalling like temperature, hunger and muscle tension with the latter, which is problems processing emotions.
Quoting Questioner
This indicates an overlap between trans and autism spectrum disorder. This is expected by most who do not take trans as a standalone mental state. It actually indicates that what's being discovered is high levels of autism in those claiming a trans identity. Two ways of looking at hte same coin.
Quoting Questioner
These terms do not make sense, I don't think - you are, biologically, your body (well - not quite. But you cannot escape your body in any way). You cannot be biologically disconnected from it in any way other than to remove parts of it (lets not go there). I don't know what you might mean by "literally" in this case.
Quoting Questioner
I disagree, but i fully understand the point and take it. As with the previous note above, that conclusion could (and I read the majority of the paper) equally indicate that being focused on oneself for long enoguh will do the trick. That seems true.
The suggestion in the paper could be correct, but it could also simply mean that TW who have been self-obsessed for a long enough time increase their bodily awareness and therefore interoception. It could just be a matter overcoming an internal ignorance.
I don't know - but it's hard to read those papers (particularly in the middle of hte replication crisis, and with such incredibly small sample sizes) as showing much.
yes, honestly, I did too wonder too if I was choosing the right word. I changed it to "elements" and then changed it back. Facilities or capacities may be better words.
Quoting AmadeusD
Good addition to the discussion. Yes, I do understand that interoception and alexithymia are two different aspects of internal body function, but they are connected in the loop that contributes to self-identity.
When we cite "emotional blindness" - to what are the emotions blind? Clues and signals from the body.
Quoting AmadeusD
Not exactly. From what I read, being "nonautistic" was a controlled variable in the study, since autistic persons tend to have higher rates of alexithymia. The two relevant variables in the study were transgender vs. cisgender.
Quoting AmadeusD
I don't mean connected by muscle, blood and bone, but by the electrochemical signals coursing through your nervous system. Nervous system communication is confused and can result in depersonalization.
Quoting AmadeusD
It all made perfect sense to me. I can't see a reason to introduce self-absorption or an "internal ignorance" into the discussion.
Hmm, tough one. I can't say this strikes me as 'right'. Emotions seem to come from (or at least arise in) the mind. Not being able to adequately parse the mental states that accompany what we routine call.. pick your poison: sadness, exultation, disappointment etc.. seems to be what it refers to. But you're otherwise right, in that this is included in the loop that creates a perceived self-identity.
Quoting Questioner
I'm unsure what control is used changes my (tentative and certainly not detailed) conclusion. I understand that the groups in question were those groups - I would want to see a comparison with autistic non-trans people and non-autistic trans people. I think the results would edify this study nicely. But again, replication etc.. so happy to accept both possible interpretations.
Quoting Questioner
Oh, ok I see what you mean. Fair enough - maybe hte terms were just unclear.
Quoting Questioner
Because they adequately explain the results. It might not be the case, or might be a mild contributing factor (I think that's fairly uncontroversial to claim).. I suppose partially i'm going by experience too. Again, happy to accept both interpretations as it stands.
That the body reacts faster than the mind is well established scientifically:
Your body reacts before your mind during triggers because your nervous system constantly scans for danger through a subconscious process called neuroception. This automatic threat-detection system, located in primitive parts of your brain, evaluates safety and risk without requiring conscious thought.
Quoting AmadeusD
Well, this would go against well-established practices of how the scientific method is used. In any one study, there must be one independent variable and one dependent variable, and all other variables that might affect the outcome of the dependent variable must be controlled. So looking at autistic/nonautistic/trans/cis - introduces too many variables.
Quoting AmadeusD
Well, this introduces a totally new hypothesis and suggests a new study to be done!
I'm unsure an article on a Ketamine clinic's website is the best source for this type of thing. But that's not a problem, because I'm aware this is true anyway. I just cannot understand what it says about my point there - emotions arise in the mind. They are mindstates.
Quoting Questioner
So yeah, standard method would be to introduce a control group for each aspect you're studying. That wouldn't be hard, but you'd have the data to compare between all four groups. And actually see something worth repeating, in my view.
Quoting Questioner
I don't think it does - probably most lay people who don't have proximity think this way. Seems to me this is hte case for most self-image problems. Not sure how this owuld could differ..
I suppose, but like all neurological responses, they begin with sensory input
Quoting AmadeusD
But why would you want to see this:
Quoting AmadeusD
Quoting AmadeusD
Herein lies your misunderstanding. Being transgender is not a "self-image problem."
Hey Questioner! Your tag wasn't set up right and it didn't actually tag me. I just happened to visit the lounge and saw this. Perhaps that's best regardless as it gave you time to talk to other people. I am not important, ideas are.
Quoting Questioner
But this is not scientific certainty. We have to be careful, myself included, of asserting exploratory science as true and settled. We're still not quite certain what causes people to be gay, much less transgender.
What I would be glad to discuss is, "How would I view the issue if it a developmental error/genetic vs error in thinking? Let me answer your other points first, I'll come back to that if you would like me to.
Quoting Questioner
Actually, people do decide to become trans gender, if you're talking about 'transitioning'. The medical term for wanting to be the other sex so much that not being it is relatively stressful or painful is called 'gender dysphoria'. Which translates to, 'gender distress'. There are a whole host of things which can cause gender dysphoria. Social transition and medical transitions are treatments to help the individual cope with gender dysphoria. As for 'trans gender' like a boy liking dolls, I just view that as sexist language. And I think you can decide to be, or not be sexist.
Quoting Questioner
No, transgenderism is absolutely an ideology.
"a: a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture
Ex: progressive/liberal/conservative ideology
b: the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program
Ex: said that the election was not about ideology
c: a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ideology
An ideology isn't necessarily wrong or right, but it is a group of ideas and assertions about how things are and how they should work going forward. Transgenderism is a branch of gender ideology. Gender, the term in itself, is not an ideology. Its simply an assertion that people have a belief about how men and women should act in society. This can be individual, or cultural, and is subjective.
So what is gender ideology? It doesn't just apply to trans gender people. Its any idea about what gender means for people, and how we should apply and use it in life. To my limited understanding the first pushes for gender ideology were in support of feminism. Again, it being an ideology doesn't make it right or wrong, but when it comes to transgenderism, it is very like 'the integrated assertions, theories, and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program'.
When I refer to transgender ideology, I refer to its sociopolitical aims. Would you deny that it has sociopolitical aims? It being true doesn't make it bad remember, its just noting that when transgender groups start to ask for language and laws to change, that is by definition a sociopolitical aim.
Quoting Questioner
To be clear, using trans gender in the descriptive sense is not an ideology. If a person believes they have a gender that conflicts with their sex, that is an accurate description of the situation if the person is honest and unconfused. Of course, it doesn't assert that its 'correct' that a person believes that either. I could truly believe I was Napolean reincarnated, but that wouldn't make it 'correct'. You also cannot factually say gender is is not a belief, but a brain fact. We still don't have final scientific evidence of that yet. Maybe one day we will. I'll have no issue then. But until then, its a lie or embellishment from an ideological group that wants control and power. Not to knock transgender ideology in particular, its the low hanging fruit every ideology is tempted to eat.
Quoting Questioner
We might also say its selfish, narcissistic, deluded, and/or sexist. Again, you're making assumptions of morality without proving it first. "Authentic self" is normally a sexual phrase, what do you mean in this instance? If I'm brushing my teeth, am I my authentic self? Is it when I'm typing? Dreaming? What does that mean? Again, its language meant to appeal emotionally instead of rationally. Your problem, and the problem of 'ideologues' or those who pursue an ideologies success over questioning whether it should, is you already assume its basic premises are good without having done the intellectual effort to prove it actually is.
Quoting Questioner
Not so. Its just an accurate description of the situation. If an ideology is trying to assert that its more than an ideology, which is typically what ideologies that desire power do, it wants to elevate itself as a fact and above ideology. You can see the same arguments in politics too. "I don't like convervative ideology..." Conservative voter: Its not an ideology, its the truth!
Ideologies can gain power because they assert 'their truth'. You know and have the emotion of certainty and self-righteousness by your side! You know better than other people! You're more moral than other people! Time to go save the world! I am guilty of this just as well, so I'm not putting you down. I'm not above you, I'm right with you. Just another person trying to do right in life.
Quoting Questioner
Oh, I'm quite certain some who hold any ideology of any kind are resentful of having to recognize anything outside of their ideology. How do you view me? When you think you're right, its very easy to see the other person as stupid, bigoted, ignorant, backwards, evil...'other'. But that's what we can't let happen. Philosophy teaches us to look past social pressures and the 'easy' way that makes us feel good. It asks us to work. To question our own stance even more than we question others.
The stance I hold is one after countless months of questioning and attacking it on my own. To love philosophy is to hate one's own ideas. Trust me, I've hated plenty on it. But I find despite my best attempts to bring it down, it stands tall where others fall. That is why I bring it to others. Maybe someone else will knock it down. And if not, I have something good for other people to think about.
So feel free to ask me questions. Accuse me of whatever you like if you wish. We're here in a polite discussion and I will not take offense to anything as long as its a question that I have a chance to answer and it doesn't descend into personal insults. Not that I think you will, you strike me as a rather polite and good hearted person Questioner. So ask away.
Would you say that's true always? I understand some "conditions" to essentially be emotions arising without any sensory input. Have I misunderstood you?
Quoting Questioner
.......................................................................to get the results of such a comparison:
Quoting AmadeusD
Why else?
I want to see this so we can accurate determine whether there is a direct correlation between being trans and being autistic. That would tell us a lot.
Quoting Questioner
It is, unquestionably, a self-image problem. Whether that problem reflects some internal tension is up for grabs (i think not, but there we go). If it were not a self-image problem, we would not be hearing about it.
And your theory is?
Quoting Philosophim
here's the thing - why is a scientific theory need to believe people when they tell us who they are? Yes, science marches on, but if I talk face-to-face with a person who shares their experience, I am going to try to understand, not judge them.
Quoting Philosophim
Transitioning is care for a state of being recognized long before that.
Quoting Philosophim
You are still not getting the concept of gender identity being imprinted in the brain.
Quoting Philosophim
Not to the transgender person.
Quoting Philosophim
No, no, no, no, no. Please re-read all of my previous posts.
Quoting Philosophim
All they ask is that basic rights not be denied
Tell me - do you approve of the Trump administration barring all transgender persons from military duty?
Meet Bree Fram -
As a kid, Bree Fram dreamed of becoming an astronaut. After 9/11, she joined the Air Force and deployed to the Persian Gulf, where she tested new technologies to protect convoys from improvised explosive devices. That assignment led to her specialty: managing teams that built novel systems. (One came up with tools that could be used to take over an attacking drone, forcing it to fall from the sky.) The military kept sending Fram back to school, and her advanced degrees piled up. When the Space Force was created, she drafted its blueprint for acquiring the technologies of the future and ensured that new initiatives didn’t get smothered by bureaucracy. Her mission was cut short by a biographical fact: Fram is transgender. Upon arriving in office, Trump barred from service anyone who did not identify with their birth gender.
The Purged
It is attitudes like yours that make it so difficult for people like Bree
Quoting Philosophim
Oh dear. So you are operating from fear, rather than reasoned thinking?
Quoting Philosophim
I feel sorry for your transgender friend you have mentioned in the past. I don't think you can be a very good friend.
Quoting Philosophim
You fail to grasp the argument. Transgender persons only want to live their own truth.
Quoting Philosophim
Why can't you just accept them as they are?
then the independent variable would be "autism/non-autism" and the dependent variable would be the incidence of transgenderism
Quoting AmadeusD
Let's look at this again. I had some difficulty with the word "image" because it tended to ignore the deeply embedded self-identity created in one's mind. But maybe that's where self-image is created, too. So, with transgender persons, I would imagine that the image they have of themselves does not align with the image portrayed by their outside body.
That we need to do more research to figure it out, and in the mean time find the best approach with what we know now.
Quoting Questioner
I didn't say people didn't have gender dysphoria. Of course I seek to understand. Sometimes you understand and disagree with a person. Understanding does not mean acceptance of what you are told. Surely you understand what I'm saying but disagree.
Quoting Questioner
This is not an argument or a discussion you're presenting. This is an emotional accusation. Do you want to talk with me, or at me? I used to try talking to people to persuade them that gay marriage was ok. Your hostility and approach are sounding similar to many religious zealot's approach with me.
Quoting Questioner
I spent a little time and writing to flesh out why. This is not a discussion from you about what was said. This is you just saying "No".
Quoting Questioner
I can see this isn't going to go anywhere then. You have already decided on your rightness, and there is not a discussion to be had. Very well then, let it end.
Quoting Questioner
I am only commenting on this because I want you to pause. Were you a good person for saying this? Do you know the bond my friend and I have had for years? The pain he had as he confided over months and made his decision? The fact that I've supported him in his transition? No. You do not.
I invite you with a hand shake, and you bite my hand. Your sympathy is not for people, but for your own purpose. You are merely another ideologue that seeks to hurt what will not bend to your will. Its one of the worst evils we can sink to.
Quoting Questioner
It is obvious that transgender individuals are "less connected to their bodies". WE don't need studies of fetal development to figure that out.
Of course it is interesting to try to understand the causes of transgenderism (is that a word?). But it is irrelevant politically and ethically. Acceptance of trans people (and that includes using their new names and pronouns) is a matter of decency and good manners. If some transgender individuals are "born that way" and others are not, would it be reasonable to discriminate against the latter group, but not the former?
I'm not sure. It doesn't sound right, does it?
Quoting Ecurb
Agreed.
Quoting Ecurb
I would say that discrimination is never reasonable?
Although I am not quite sure what you mean. Could you help me understand with an example?
By insisting that gender identity develops in utero, you suggest that it is biological, like sex. But gender is culturally determined. So attempting to redefine it as biological supports the notion that proper use of gendered pronouns (for example) is biologically determined. I disagree. It's a matter of politely accepting the gender identity of others, whether or not it is biologically determined.
Rachel. Dolezal. A bit quippy, but that is why. We want to know who the people around us are - I do not want to date a male, when I have intended to date a female and I am well within my rights to hold that view, and react "badly" if that deception was perpetrated on me. If your entire point is to "pass" as the opposite sex (which is what transition is for, by and large) then that is at least partially the intention. I see no malice or anything else in this, but it is deceptive and those caught by the deception are justified in being unhappy about it. Not because they're, for instance, homophobic, but because they did not consent to the situation they are in. I think its key to remember that many objections within this milieu are actually not to do with the person being trans at all. This can be gleaned from the sports debate - whereas most people (i think this is even true for lets say "pro-trans" people) agree males should not be competing against females in, at the extreme least, combat sport - Not because they are trans, but because they are male - if a transman wanted to compete, go ahead. But you'll notice the issue is the potential for harm, which results from males in female spaces - the fact of "trans" is relevant except insofar as it caused the situation. All that might sound mealy-mouthed, but I think its correct. I certainly have no issue with trans people per se, but will go to the mat on several issues in this thread for reasons that happen to be in the orbit.
Quoting Questioner
That is definitely not the case for all - and certainly not hte most visible. The right for a male to enter female spaces is not 'basic'. This said, you have to be honest and acknowledge that plenty of trans people (most, TRAs which I understand in any group are usually the worst) want privileges. Demanding free surgeries is an example. Elective, cosmetic surgery is not a healthcare issue and it has been shown that medical transition does not improve mental health long term when controlled well, rather than relying on short-term self-report.
Quoting Questioner
I would have agreed with this, if TRAs and the entire ideological movement didn't also exist besides trans people who want to do this. I think the concept of "my truth" is absolutely unacceptable in a civilized society, so we're going to disagree on that anyway - but just on empirical grounds, the people Phil and I and referencing (and we need to be honest about this, as above) are overly, explicitly and aggressive expecting/demanding that others live "their truth" (i.e the trans person's "truth") despite either believing it is a lie, or not really caring enough to engage. You don't have to take part in my self-image, and you don't have to take part in mine - again, even if* it reflects some "true" tension between the mind and body in an individual.
* I don't believe it does anymore than Children claiming to be x are in most cases. I just htink trans people are reasonable, intelligent and adult in most cases.
I don't buy it. I doubt many trans people want to "pass" so they can date. If you know someone well enough to "date" (have sex with), you would probably know if he or she were trans. So desired pronouns indicate a public identity, whereas sexual activity is private.
Nor are using desired pronouns "a lie", because pronouns (these days) refer to gender, not to biological sex. The "truth" is that a transwoman is a woman, in terms of her public image, persona, and gender. Therefore the "lie" would be referring to her as "he" or "him" (given the current definition of these pronouns).
"many" is doing a lot of lifting here, but I'm not complaining. You could be right (althought, i have an extremely hard time believing that there isn't at least a desire for this in trans people in general - that's one of the primary reasons for transition - not "to date" but to experience life at the opposite gender which in the case of a straight person, would mean becoming same-gender attracted and dating in that milieu being different to that you're in when dating "straight" prior to transition.
But I agree, it's not going to be some wide-spread intentional thing among "trans people" so you're right to put nuance in that. I do not mean to intimate some assumption about trans people dating. Although.. (see below)
Quoting Ecurb
This is true, but (again, I think this is an honestly issue, even if uncomfortable) you can find umpteen videos on the internet of vlogging transwomen (almost solely, though not exclusively) crying in their car because they did not tell their date they were trans, and when it came up the date ended. It seems more likely that a fear of rejection leads to this dishonesty. Fear of rejection is not novel, special or particular to the trans experience. Its certainly heightened, but that is because you are essentially looking to fulfil a role that the other person cannot have you in - and are within their rights to feel that way. There is also the irony that "rejection" is a much, much bigger risk to the person when they have been dishonest.
There is the trope about a trans woman being at risk when a straight make takes her home and finds out she's trans. Yep, and that' abhorrent and should never, ever happen - homophobia (or, self-hatred) should never cause harm to others. BUT - why wouldn't you have said you were trans? Because you wanted to pass, right? You knew that the person knowing you were male would end the date. There is a non-zero number of situations where a transwoman has gone out with a man, passed, ended up in the bedroom and then the man realises and complains - the transwoman generally will not understand why there's such vitriol. Well, buddy, because that's essentially sexual assault. You did not gain honest consent. You deceived.
When I say "the people Phil and I are talking about" I am indicating precise this type of person. Who inarguably exist. My wife and I have both dated trans people in the past and both been lied to about their identity. In my case, it wasn't a big deal because as soon as I met the woman in person, it was patently obvious she was male and had edited her pictures. Luckily, I'm not all the way straight so we still shot the shit and had a good night.
My wife was not so lucky. A rather mentally unstable transman tried to claim her newborn as his own, in an attempt to "pass as male" - telling his friends he was my stepson's father in front of her, when they'd known each other two weeks. These are people we are referring to - they aren't vanishingly prevalent, but you're right that its not a majority - the point is we're not saying it is. We're just trying to talk about that group.
We should probably also be careful not to fall in to certain holes about that - there is a line that men are less positive toward trans partners due to https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-025-01586-2?utm_source=chatgpt.com. That is bogus. They are straight men (aside:the fact that things are worded this way, even within the studies is certainly interesting to the pronoun issue)
Quoting Ecurb
I reject almost everything that underlies this sort of claim. Not quite hte place for that discussion - Phil's other thread is the place for that if you'd like to go there.