What's wrong with being transgender?
I was listening to a talk with the Sophie-Grace Chappel who is a Philosophy Professor at the open university in The UK. I agree with a lot of she/he/it has to say about philosophy and hold no prejudice when analyzing what he/she/it says.
Now look I am not an a close-minded arsehole, people can do whatever the hell they please as long as it doesn't cause dis-ease or impact on to someone else's life. But I just can't for the life of me see any reason in why there is acceptance over such a thing in society.
It is completely against our survival in evolutionary terms and looks like an aberrant disorder of the mind that serves no purpose and is completely backward to procreation as a species. For if everyone was a transgender and/or gay that would mean no one would have babies (assuming IVF does not exist). Even if such a world did exist with IVF included and boys looked like girls and girls looked like boys... it would be incredibly weird and look more like something out of a freakish absurd comedy-horror film.
That aside, can you imagine pretending to be a women your whole life? Does not that image seem related to a slightly psychotic child who never stopped wearing mummies dresses/lipstick and still sucks on his finger?
It seems to me that in order to quench the rowdy disorder that comes from different people's opinions on what our social codes should be (moral relativism) people end up saying they accept all sorts of outrageous things in life (like transgender people) but secretly on the inside they keep their opinions to themselves because they know it would cause unrest due to the social order we formed to quench the rowdy disorder that comes from people offering or rather shouting differing opinions (moral relativism).
I don't mean for this to sound harsh, but rather just truthful. I want to see if there is a flaw in my thinking here.
Now look I am not an a close-minded arsehole, people can do whatever the hell they please as long as it doesn't cause dis-ease or impact on to someone else's life. But I just can't for the life of me see any reason in why there is acceptance over such a thing in society.
It is completely against our survival in evolutionary terms and looks like an aberrant disorder of the mind that serves no purpose and is completely backward to procreation as a species. For if everyone was a transgender and/or gay that would mean no one would have babies (assuming IVF does not exist). Even if such a world did exist with IVF included and boys looked like girls and girls looked like boys... it would be incredibly weird and look more like something out of a freakish absurd comedy-horror film.
That aside, can you imagine pretending to be a women your whole life? Does not that image seem related to a slightly psychotic child who never stopped wearing mummies dresses/lipstick and still sucks on his finger?
It seems to me that in order to quench the rowdy disorder that comes from different people's opinions on what our social codes should be (moral relativism) people end up saying they accept all sorts of outrageous things in life (like transgender people) but secretly on the inside they keep their opinions to themselves because they know it would cause unrest due to the social order we formed to quench the rowdy disorder that comes from people offering or rather shouting differing opinions (moral relativism).
I don't mean for this to sound harsh, but rather just truthful. I want to see if there is a flaw in my thinking here.
Comments (201)
Well... just a teensy bit harsh, perhaps. If everyone were gay or transgendered, we would be in deep doo doo. Fortunately for the species' future the rate is quite low. Out of a population of 320 million, there are perhaps 3 to 5 million gay men and maybe a million transexuals in the US. That's a low rate. It's a lower rate than than the rate of heterosexuals who are not reproducing themselves. If you are worried about the future of the species, get on all those heterosexuals who aren't breeding.
I am gay. I knew I was "different" from an early age -- way before I had a set of words to describe myself accurately. Like most young homosexuals boys born in the 1940s, I didn't announce to my first grade class that I liked boys. I kept it under cover. It didn't seem like the sort of thing one announced openly. (At the time it definitely was not.) I was not ready to deal with my own sexuality and community rejection while I was in high school or the first year or two of college. Some gay people act early and often, and if they can manage it, maybe OK. A lot of gay people need more time--into their 20s or 30s.
I am fairly unhappy with parents who have become aware of their children's possible transgender status who allow, or maybe encourage their young transgender children to go public in elementary school. The children--whose sexual identity isn't developed yet--are not ready to take on the stones and arrows of community resistance or peer rejection. Quite a few people decide they are transgender as adults, and decide to act upon it in the 40s, 50s, or later, even. I think the individual should deal with this at home for a while, and then gradually do so publicly--maybe around 16.
Some day in the future, MAYBE it will be possible for children to declare their sexual orientation while they are still in diapers, but we are not there yet.
These days we tend to not find ways in which we are all alike. We tend to find ways in which some of us are very different, and then we make a big deal out of the difference and the lack of acceptance. Like the enormous suffering of transgendered Somali community (all 3 of them in this town).
I think we would be better off understanding that gay people, celibate people, transgender people, and so on think, act, and function pretty much like everybody else in all sorts of consequential ways. Of course there are differences in sexual behavior between gay men and straight men, but compared to the similarities in occupational, intellectual, or recreational performance, sexual object choice is kind of minor.
In evolutionary terms, gay animals are quite common. I suppose if they could cross dress, some of them would. If they could get an operation some of them would. Evolutionary speaking your counterfactual example is absurd. You don't all of a sudden become a transgender so an entire society won't either. It's a deviation from the norm but that doesn't make it wrong. Down syndrome is a deviation too as is my red hair. Neither are reasons to condemn gingers or mentally retarded people as doing something wrong.
Also, a transgender isn't pretending to be a woman. You don't have to pretend to be who you are either do you?
Because a society which decides what is acceptable, (if it doesn't bother anyone else), is oppressive and nobody wants to live in an oppressive society? Does it have any benefit on society whatsoever to enforce arbitrary rules? If so, why not enforce even more arbitrary rules?
Quoting intrapersona
That's "naturalistic fallacy". But there is an axiom, "evolution is always smarter than us". There may be valid reasons for a species to not be exclusively preoccupied with reproduction. We don't go around killing people off just because they can't become parents. There are many theories about the ways that people benefit society by working and engaging in an economy. Evolution has probably already found a balance for humanity, and strict binary gender roles apparently hasn't worked yet. Also, look at other species where males and females are virtually indistinguishable, (ever try to sex a chick), or may even naturally and spontaneously swap gender, (possibly some frogs), or role in reproduction, (seahorses).
Quoting intrapersona
There are theories that we all do exactly that anyway. Like Simone de Beauvoir says, "One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman". In that sense, the social definition of "woman" is not biological, but how closely someone conforms to social expectations. But it is good that what you say means that "maturity" is rejecting pretension and choosing another role.
Quoting intrapersona
As above, I don't think we should be ruled by "rowdy disorder" or "social codes". I don't think it is moral relativism, but more apply the current standards of individual rights and responsibility. Once society takes on the role of decided what individuals are required to do, then it robs individuals of their rights and responsibility. We are no longer rational agents, but just extensions of some arbitrary social conventions.
In a way, maybe your reaction, (that a transgendered position), being so offensive is exactly the point. It is evolutionary pressure pushing back on being too restrictive, preventing us to adapt to novel conditions and experiences. If nobody ever dares behave in any way that might offend you, we might very well be headed for extinction for failure to adapt.
All of these issues are far more used as examples how wrong the World has gone, how much that SJW mentality dominates us, how far too permissive the society has become, and because of this, it's going down the drain. Part of it is the age old idea of that our society has become decadent and loosing it's steam, has seen already it's best days, the Untergang des Abendlandes attitude.
Or perhaps you're conflating people thinking there's something bad or wrong about something, and people just not liking that something. I bet a lot of people initially feel it's somehow icky to for example physically interact with a clearly transgendered person (or at least in certain combinations), but that doesn't mean they secretly think there's something unacceptable about that person or their choices. They might secretly simply realize that it's really just in their own head, and be able to separate their own preferences and biases from what they think should or shouldn't be socially acceptable.
Actually there are all sorts of ways in which transgender people can benefit the species. First of all, it's important to consider that human beings don't need to be baby machines in order to contribute to society which is itself a fundamental bedrock of modern child-rearing. Individuals whose normal sexual functioning is compromised for whatever reason, be it atypical psychology or a physically damaged/incomplete set of reproductive organs, are not actually hindering the human race or it's future by failing to pass on their genes. In fact, it would be best if the very healthiest among us were the only ones to reproduce to ensure that the next generation has as healthy a gene pool as possible.
Strictly speaking it doesn't really matter how many MTF trannies there are because a couple virile men could pitch in and shoulder their share of the reproductive burden; only FTM transsexuals would actually be a throttling or limiting factor on the maximum number of babies that we ought to churn out
Genetically speaking, the ability for variation to occur is a necessity for evolution to occur. What some call aberration can eventually turn out to be indispensable innovation. Having a high variance in sex and gender identity inherent in a gene pool may be a reflection of a healthy ability for individuals and groups to adapt to the pressures of changing cultures and environments. See the following paragraph for examples.
Quoting intrapersona
For someone who cannot otherwise be "happy" (in the long run for static psychological reasons, not a child's whim as some parents seem to think is the same thing), that's the only purpose that it needs to serve. If by being happy they can become a more productive member of society, then it will have been worth it to let them live out life as the gender of their choosing, presuming that we have moral or ethical purchase on their personal decisions in the first place.
Beyond that though, there are all kinds of social situations where "gender bending" fits right in; stress relief. When groups of men are on their own for extended periods of time, such as in prison, while on long hunting trips, and during extended war, transsexuals or individuals who can easily transition into a typically feminine role, would eventually become quite popular indeed... In our tree-dwelling evolutionary history we were most likely some kind of pan-sexual gender bending nymphomaniacs at some point who took every opportunity possible to have sex just for the stress relief that it can provide. Bonobos (a great ape) notably are up to this behavior all day long and in the reality of their social structures it serves a useful purpose.
Whether instances of transgenderism are just accidental but necessary evolutionary spandrels which appear as anomalies in population groups (due to how gender and genetics (or the psychology of gender) works), or is an actually load bearing part of our evolutionary history of genetic adaptation and resulting adaptability, I cannot say, but what I can say is that since nobody has a moral obligation to birth or sire 2.6 children and a dog, it doesn't really matter what gender people choose live as. If that's required for their happiness, then I would argue we're morally obligated not to interfere with them unless they are causing some kind of actual harm.
Quoting intrapersona
I know right? If we forced every boy to become a girl and every girl to become a boy, we would be living in a very silly world indeed. Very very silly. This world would be marked by two things: It's silliness, and it's complete dedication to forcing children to swap genders. For the sequel we could have a wheel-of-gender-fortune that includes that list of 32 new genders and spin that at the birth of every child.
For real though: the baby train is not under threat; we will not all be transgender one day; developmental variance is a function of the way evolution allows us to adapt as individuals and as groups over the long run; living in confusion or depression is less mentally healthy than being happy and transgender.
What possible reasons are left with which you could argue for the condemnation of the decision to transition between genders?
But what does this framework stand upon? One could say that the common denominator is "humanity". To identity as a human primarily, prior to and "more existentially" than the above mentioned distinctions, is to realize a common and indissoluble solidarity with every person who has ever lived. And with those yet to be born. That seems to be a significant step in a person's psyche-spiritual development. A step that perhaps some do not take within their lifetime. Maybe that's something to put on the "bucket list".
And beyond that? Or, (if one thinks of going deeper) "below" that? Is there anything below/beyond that in terms of the foundation of our identity? Perhaps. And thankfully, it may not be all that uncommon. To go deeper than one's human identity is to identity with other mammals, and with all living beings. I dare say that someone who has deeply bonded with a pet has possibly transcended a strictly human identity. And this is disregarding the strange, otherworldly hypnotic powers of pet cats. ;) Dog lovers know this, as do those connected with other mammals, reptiles, birds, and fish. And even insects. It is quite an experience to have a praying mantis turn its head toward you, and calmly consider your presence. Your consciousness is connected with its consciousness in way not dependent on IQ.
Perhaps three of the strongest things or forces in this world are gravity, water, and tree roots. Powerful and unceasing. Our roots go down deep, perhaps deeper than can easily be imagined. This is our very strength, since a tree cut through completely at ground level can regenerate itself. Humans have their own kind of heliotropism, growing upward and building higher and higher. Which is as it should be.
Let us not neglect our powerful geotropism, even though it is mostly not visible and might seem to be in the muck and mire of existence.
The high hurdler has much skill, as does the limbo dancer. How low can you go?
http://www.minddisorders.com/Br-Del/Delusions.html
Why is it that we seem to allow some people to continue to hold their delusions, or even promote their delusional state, while others we try to "help" them overcome their delusions and see things as they truly are (that they are actually the gender they were born as). It comes down to "Is it moral to allow someone to continue believing in a lie, or to make them face the facts?" Would it be immoral to help reinforce their lie to themselves?
I would like to know how consistent people are in this. Why do we find it okay to tell the religious that they believe in a delusion, but not okay to tell this to a transgender?
Why do we find it okay to allow doctors to make money off mentally ill people to perform a sex change when that essentially counts as mutilating their body as a result of their delusion?
Well what's the latest science on that? Do transgender people have actual physiological differences in their brain or is it purely a psychological thing? What kind of treatment or therapy could "cure" them, and would that tend to be easier or harder than undergoing a sex change, or just living as transgender without a sex change?
Surely the answers to your questions depend on those.
Are you equating gender with biological sex? Because I don't know if many transgender men, for example, believe that they have a penis despite the fact that they have a vagina.
I think gender is usually understood as referring to masculinity and femininity – i.e. a generalised set of attitudes and behaviours. The "issue" is that these sets of attitudes and behaviours tend to be associated with a particular biological sex, e.g. those born with a penis tend to be masculine and those born with a vagina tend to be feminine. But I think it wrong to suggest that it is wrong for someone born with a penis to be feminine (and so identify as being of the female gender) and for someone born with a vagina to be masculine (and so identify as being of the male gender).
For the same reason that we find it OK to allow doctors to make money from people requesting rhinoplasty. Some people are just uncomfortable with their body, and I see no reason to suggest that it is wrong to make changes to it. It's not like it's some holy object that ought be preserved in its natural state.
Right, of course, you even have transgender friends :-}
Look, if you want to be "truthful," why these disingenuous excuses? If you think that there's something wrong with bigotry, well, that's the answer to your question, isn't it? And if you don't think there's anything wrong with bigotry, then grow yourself a pair and own it.
Except that a penis/balls-bearing transexual male raised as a male or a transexual vagina/ovaries-bearing female raised as a female has to imagine what it is like being the opposite. They do for a while have to pretend. Having watched a tall, broad-shouldered kind-of-homely 45 year old guy transition to being a woman, (not a particularly graceful experience for the two of them) yes, imagination, pretending, and just plain stage work is required to get from one gender to the other.
Ditto for the secular Jewish woman who transitioned to ultra orthodox bearded manhood. Ditto for most of the transexuals I have know. It takes a hell of a lot of "balls" to pull these transitions off, whether it goes well or not.
Cartoon:
Surgeon and woman sitting in consulting room...
"I can't make you look young again, but I can make you look like
you've had a lot of expensive plastic surgery."
In my opinion the reason was what you said in the sentence just prior to that one:
Quoting intrapersona
Quoting intrapersona
Well, people could still decide to have kids in that situation in order to continue the species, but suppose instead that no one thought it was worthwhile to have kids to continue the species. What would be the problem with that if everyone were to feel that way? People should do what they want.
Of course, not everyone is going to feel that way. Some people will decide to have kids.
Anyway, on these sorts of issues, I'm as libertarian/libertine/laissez-faire as one can be, and if I have any sort of "mission" in life, it's to encourage people to be accepting or tolerant of difference in these regards.
Is this the POMO propaganda that male = bad and female = good? :D
Yes but I'm talking about your discourse - you talk as if patriarchy is bad, and matriarchy is good - that's what your discourse is saying.
Dear Stupid, Ignorant, and Morally Fucked Up: I appreciate the three of you stopping by. No. "sex" and "gender" have separate meanings. "Sex" is biology, "gender" is psychology -- so to speak. In most cases, like 95% of most people, sex and gender reinforce, supplement, and augment each other. Men fuck women and act like men. Women want and expect to get fucked, and they are. They they complain that it was unpleasant and it didn't last long enough. Transgendered people apparently experience a contradiction between their biology (male and female) and the gender role they think is naturally appropriate for them. Should one wear heels or oxfords, dresses or pants, and fuck or get fucked?
In the past it was believed (by psychoanalytic psychologists) that homosexuals were heterosexuals who had been deflected from their normal development and could be directed (through therapy) back to heterosexuality. It has not worked. No amount of therapy is effective at redirecting object choice (as far as I know).
Some people think that transgendered or transsexual people have been misdirected to think they they are trapped in the opposite sex's biological body. I am not sure whether any therapy has proven successful in redirecting transsexual / transgender person to think they are in the correct body. Probably not. Very basic personality traits seem to be fixed already in childhood, even normal childhoods, and never seem to fade away.
Sex roles are, of course, important to people, but we have many other roles to fulfill and gays, for instance, fulfill their occupational, recreational, financial, intellectual, social roles as well as anyone else (on average). Guys may think about sex a lot, but most guys don't spend all that much time each day actually performing sex. The average heterosexual (and homosexual) encounter tends to be pleasant, enjoyable, and short--at least from the male perspective. Nobody knows what women want, so we won't go there.
Transsexuals also have many roles to fulfill and they spend most of their time performing those various roles, and do not think about being trapped in the wrong body most of the time--especially when all the identity issues remain locked down and unresolved.
This is the politically correct opinion, which I don't agree with.
How can you say down syndrome is only a "deviation from the norm"? It is a downright disease of the human condition and it as preposterous that we accept it, it is like cancer, it should be eradicated because it serves no purpose other than wasting our resources like time, money, food and much more.
Effectively what you are advocating is like advocating that we accept new humans in to this world with no arms or legs, as if that is acceptable. Down Syndrome are akin to people with out arms or legs in the sense that they have not full capacity of the human organism, they are disabled. Likewise, those with terminal cancer are disabled from full health capacity of the human organism and yet we look at it as if it is abhorrent and should be eradicated. Likewise disorders of the mind should be abhorrent and be eradicated just like cancer or any other disease and not looked on as something that is welcomed in society.
Why would you welcome and accept any disorder that cripples humans and wastes their resources? This is a-like narrow-minded politicians who make suicide illegal so that people in pain with terminal illness have to wait out months in agony just because bigoted conservative assholes won't let them be at peace. To hell with your bigoted, conservative political correctness.
Well, I by no means want to cause offense, I just want to investigate how I might be wrong in my thinking here.
What do you think about what I said about gays having a disorder of the mind? Isn't it counter-evolution and therefor going AGAINST your own fundamental nature? IE the square cube does NOT, i repeat, DOES NOT fit in to the circular hole... so why are you trying to make it?
Homosexuality is like spending decades preparing for a nice meal (child growth), only to throw it all on the floor and gargle acid down instead (something that is not nutritional and goes against what our biology is there for, namely, to eat food in this sense).
Who you are means what you physically are. If you are a human you can't say you are an octopus without pretending to be one. If you are a female, you can't say you are a male without pretending to be one. Just like an apple is not a banana not matter how much you say it is.
For everything else, like fashion, social position etc... then yes, you do. If you want to be a gangster you have to pretend to be one until you do it for long enough that it is natural for you to be it and can't be anything else.
I can see why you would say that, but I am just talking about practicality here. I am not saying what is natural is best but what is most practical is best. It just so happens that what is our fundamental biological nature (reproduction) IS most practical and therefor to say it is the opposite is false.
Quoting swstephe
By definition, a female baby is always born as a female. A woman is a mature female and therefor de beauvoir is right in that you grow in to one. BUT to be a woman necessitates you be a female in the first place, by definition that is. To say you are a woman when you are a man is frankly absurd, I might as well say I am a peanut and not a human.
Quoting swstephe
Then our society must be oppressive, because viewpoints are being imprinted on people whether they like it or not. Most of the just gobble it up without second-guessing or analysing at all.
Quoting swstephe
It hasn't worked? Like it hasn't worked in making 7 billion people over the last 50,000 years?
Quoting swstephe
In one sense you are agreeing with me and in another disagreeing.
You agree that society takes on the role of deciding what individuals are required to believe is ethical and that social conventions currently force people to accept gays, transgender etc. and that such a thing is oppression.
You disagree with me in that transgender is a disorder. You seem to view it as "an adaption towards novel conditions". But what is novel about pretending to be a peanut? Or saying that you are God? It is all deranged thinking and is in no way any more practical, reasonable are novel in any way shape or form.
Nice analogy. I'd never thought of it like that.
I feel uncomfortable around obviously transgender people in the same way I feel uncomfortable when I see a man get kicked in the testicles - it makes me involuntarily imagine being kicked in the testicles / castrated / administered feminising drugs.
But that's my problem, not the problem of the transgender person. It's just one of the many ways in which I am a less than optimally resilient human.
I certainly can't see any reason for laws preventing gender reassignment surgery, provided the patient is (1) determined to be a mentally competent adult and (2) they have had psychiatric assessments to ensure that the desire for the operation is sufficiently genuine, deep-seated and very unlikely to be the subject of later regret.
As I understand it, those are the only conditions applied to such surgery where I live (Australia). There's an additional question of whether it can be funded by public health arrangements, but that only arises in civilised countries, where public health exists. I don't know what the Australian rules are for that, but I know that at least one army veteran has had the procedure, paid for by his (government-funded) veterans' health care arrangements.
Thanks for being earnest and agreeing with me, you call it as it is. I had a debate about political correctness on here which discussed this in much detail but as you say most people can't see the error in their own self-assured tactics of pumping up their own ego through promoting irrational system of common sense PC thought: http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/587/page/p1#OP
I didn't know that an SJW is defined as:
Social Justice Warrior. A pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation. A social justice warrior, or SJW, does not necessarily strongly believe all that they say, or even care about the groups they are fighting on behalf of. They typically repeat points from whoever is the most popular blogger or commenter of the moment, hoping that they will "get SJ points" and become popular in return. They are very sure to adopt stances that are "correct" in their social circle.
Really? I think by definition if someone feels icky to physically interact with a clearly transgendered person then it means they think there is something unacceptable about that person or their choices. Otherwise they wouldn't feel icky.
Ok, that is a good point I have to concede that reproduction is not the be all and end all in our CURRENT society. But I also belief we should all be multiplying at the faster rate possible so that we can create more geniuses per 100,000 stupid people. Geniuses advanced our society and make life better. Thanks edison, einstein etc.
Yes but it says nothing about the principle that is occurring here. It is delusional thinking to claim you are something you are not and we all saw what christianity amounted to over the last couple thousand years.
I did read that and found now evidence to conclude that transgenderism is somehow beneficial in terms of genetic variation.
Do you have any examples of how what some call aberration can eventually turn out to be indispensable innovation in the past in humans or other animals?
Also, I would like to say I agree with you that when a transgender has already made their decision then it would cause them suffering to force them not to live their life out as a transgender but... that is because the issue should be resolved before it starts. Prevention is better than cure. It is like a fungal growth of which the treatment is painful, to let it grow isn't the solution.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
The concern wasn't so much that our survival is under thread as it was the societal acceptance over disordered thinking.
Yes, I agree but there is a difference between identifying your place in nature and outright claiming you are lord zapikof from planet ubiquitos or that you are a female when you are a male. It is lying and/or delusional thinking. Although, I am not saying it is anyone's "fault" just like schizophrenia or cancer isn't anyone's fault.
Wow, I didn't expect to hear a very concise and accurate description of this considering your post in my other thread:
"Your pathetic attempts at insulting me just show me that I'm wasting my time with a loser. The list of reasonable people on these forums is shrinking. Yep, Im wasting my time"
Jesus man, dealing with you is like going from the north pole to the equator in 2 seconds.
The Normal Distribution will not be mocked.
As you can see, most people cluster in the middle of any distribution of traits where millions / billions of subjects are included. The people in the middle are not "stupid" -- they are normal -- that is they have the usual range of traits characteristic of very large numbers of people.
The "stupid people" are on the left tail of the distribution. The dumber, the fewer. The geniuses are on the right tail. For them too, the smarter the fewer. So when counting traits and people, you should find about as many extremely stupid people as extremely geniusy people.
(Normal distributions are sometimes skewed. Practical experience will inform any moderately observant statistician that the normal distribution isn't actually normal; it's skewed in favor of somewhat-to-very-stupid-people. Secret research has shown conclusively that no matter how fast geniusy parents breed, they can not outbreed stupid parents.)
Aside from the normal distribution, there is always a question of whether society can educate and use a lot more geniuses. I tend to doubt it. A million Einsteins will almost certainly NOT solve a million different and unique problems. Out of 7 billion people, we already have quite a few geniuses and they are not stepping forward with solutions to our problems. The large number of problems not solved by geniuses is due to:
1. Many geniuses are too lazy to get anything done (just as some ordinary people are)
2. Some geniuses are too crazy to get anything done (just as some ordinary people are)
3. Some geniuses are lazy, crazy, and not very imaginative to boot (just as some ordinary people are)
4. Many geniuses are interested in the same few problems. The other 950,000 problems go begging.
5. Some geniuses prefer to do manual labor or engage in meditation. Some are crooks or politicians.
6. Many geniuses have plumbed the universe and have found that we're totally fucked no matter what.
Therefore, forget about it.
This is just redirecting the naturalistic fallacy. Something being practical is is beneficial toward some purpose, which you have already defined as reproduction, so it is circular logic. Nature doesn't necessarily insist on universal reproduction. Many species only mate during certain seasons which seems to promote the species by not exhausting all the available resources or avoiding predators. Humans have similar evolved tendencies, so that we spend a lot of our time doing other things. It seems to be a male sexual fantasy that nature is only concerned about reproduction, which is probably another byproduct of keeping the species moving forward. Evolution works by trial and error over long periods of time. Unless you have run many controlled experiments and have an extensive model of human behavior, you can't conclusively say that some desire for a few humans to disagree with their assigned gender isn't a healthy experiment.
Quoting intrapersona
There is no scientifically strict definition of "female". Is it just genitalia? There are cases of babies being born with ambiguous genitalia. In some cultures, there are communities built around children with this ambiguity. In the west, doctors usually look at DNA and then perform a kind of "sex change" to align them closer to what is socially accepted. There are many degrees of "intersexed" individuals. While developing in the womb, we are all "female" according to genitalia, it is only hormones that push us to develop one direction or the other. So is a "female" XX on the last chromosome? There are individuals born with androgen insensitivity syndrome, or AIS, who have XY chromosomes, but develop fully female bodies because their bodies don't respond to male hormones. The Olympic committee thought this is enough of an issue to require DNA tests for athletes so they can eliminate individuals with this syndrome. Simone de Beauvoir's point was that men are not defined by sexual characteristics, but women are defined by how they are different than men. It means that gender is ultimately a social construct, a way of putting people into general categories. If it were not a social construct, we wouldn't be talking about "men dressing like women", because there is no genitalia or DNA definitively associated with clothing. (In fact, there is a long list of fashion choices that were reversed -- high heel shoes, for example, were considered masculine until the 18th century).
Quoting intrapersona
It hasn't worked in the sense that humans are still not binary. Nature seems to have settled on a certain percentage of hermaphrodites and people who are unwilling or unable to reproduce, and the proportion seems to be globally universal. There is still nowhere in the world where every family can reproduce as much as they want without some negative social consequences. Having that many people is only possible because humans took time out to work on technology and managing their environment to make that number possible, besides just having non-stop sex.
Quoting intrapersona
No, I don't think society should dictate ethics. A society is a collection of individuals who agree to respect each others rights and not cause harm to each other. Doesn't matter if you are talking about homsexuality, someone being transgendered, or heterosexual rape and abuse. That's not oppression because it doesn't prevent you from living your life as you wish. The only negative feelings seem to come from your own feelings of discomfort in having to accommodate people with different viewpoints. I'm just saying, logically, you need to accommodate others if you want your own freedom accommodated. I'm sure there are a dozen things you currently tolerate which would have made your ancestors feel really uncomfortable that we accept without thinking.
Quoting intrapersona
Evolution works by trial and error over a long time. All humans share the same DNA. It is only a poorly understood mechanism which chooses between XX and XY chromosomes, from which we develop into a bimodal distribution. It isn't a disorder for a female to identify as female or a male to identify as male. It would be inevitable that, just like there are genetic outliers, there would be a few psychological outliers, just from chance. The only way you could get clean binary genders is by somehow developing men and women as separate species, (which would throw out the whole practicality of reproduction thing).
Logically, too, I think most people would resist having our motives biologically determined. We like to think of ourselves as free agents. Without it, we are nothing but animals set aside for breeding purposes and condemn anyone who dares step outside. Maybe, in some way, evolution is helping us find our way beyond our biological constraints.
How might you be wrong? Let me count the ways... (The count will take quite some time; I'll get back to you when the processing is complete. This may take many months of computational time.)
Quoting intrapersona
Quoting intrapersona
God, in His infinite wisdom and gracious, loving mercy solved this problem before the beginning of time. No matter how large the peg and how tight the hole, they will always fit together. Because the square peg is somewhat flexible and the circular hole is quite commodious, being gay is not a problem.
Quoting intrapersona
An individual human is to evolution what an individual ant is to evolution. My fundamental nature crosses a lot of categories, of which sex is only one.
It might be considered a "disorder of the mind" IF 1 or 2% of the population were homosexual and 98% - 99% were 100% heterosexual. But that is not the case. Freud said that humans are prone to 'polymorphous perversity' - meaning we are quite capable of being erotically aroused by all sorts of stimuli that have nothing to do with reproduction from birth to about the age of 5 (in psychoanalytic terms).
Kinsey found that heterosexuality and homosexuality are two poles of sexual orientation and rather than being all or nothing, there is a shading of interest in behavior between exclusive homosexuals (2.5% of the population) and exclusively heterosexual (maybe 70% of the population). A fairly large share of the adult male population have a little, some, or quite a bit of attraction to the same sex at various times during their lives. This attraction may be entertained only in the imagination, but when acted upon the behavior is very episodic, brief, and limited in terms of the actual acts performed. In a fairly large percentage of cases, it will be acted upon once or twice in a lifetime, or more often for a short period of time. "Acted upon" may be nothing more than mutual masturbation or getting a blow job
The "slightly interested in other men" guy would probably not look forward to getting fucked by some guy hung like the aroused horse shown below. I'm posting a picture, knowing that it might excite some philosophers to an elevated state of arousal. If you do get aroused, just be aware that you are evidently oriented towards homosexual bestiality. Well, we are polymorphously perverse, after all. The least you can do to demonstrate it.
Go horse go.
Quoting intrapersona
More people more problems. You're presuming that as our maximum number of geniuses grows out ability to take care of all the extra idiot by-products will not proportionally scale together, or unfavorably for Einstein's odds. There might be a limit to how many morons an army of Einsteins can actually manage.
Quoting intrapersona
I don't exactly see the necessary delusion anywhere. The trannies that I know have no delusions about their genitals or their chromosomes. What they do have is a strong desire to live out life as the opposite of their biological gender, for whatever actual or perceived reasons. They don't actually delude themselves...
Quoting intrapersona
Strictly speaking we don't have a full grasp of genetics and psychology yet so we more or less only have bits and pieces of the full story, and with that said, here are some of those bits:
Epigenetics is the study of how genes express themselves differently in different environments, presumably in an adaptive capacity, which helps us understand variance in the same organism across different environments (It is the way in which environmental factors affect how genes react and causes changes to individual organisms). When a fetus is first created it's genetic code will forever (we think) be static, but the possible ways that these genes can "express themselves" can be better understood by considering what they do in all possible environments and how the results can differ. Endocrinology is the study of "the endocrine system", (our internal (and sometimes external) hormone network and how it works) which in the pre-natal environment (the womb) happens to play an integral role in the "masculinization" of male fetuses. The amount of testosterone present in a prenatal environment can vary depending on a host of factors such as the pre-existing level of testosterone present (naturally per the mother or due to previous pregnancies) and so provides a mechanism by which "masculinity" can vary in intensity, which by a very easy stretch has a great deal to do with an individuals resulting sexual preferences. A history of pregnancy with males for instance predisposes individual mothers toward an ability to produce more testosterone during pregnancy (making each subsequent male fetus more "masculine") which acts as a kind of genetic dice roll that contributes to the distribution curve describing "average masculinity of offspring" across large breeding groups.
Whatever the mechanisms, we know that variance in phenotypes exists inherently in human populations. It's easy to surmise that variance in masculinity plays a role in how successful a given population of humans will be. Given possible environmental factors such as constant warfare, having large men is going to be a good trait, but on an island with limited space and nobody but your own tribe to fight, being very masculine or large might actually be detrimental. In the war-inducing landscape the big masculine men would survive more often and gain more social status for their contributions, and in turn get to mate more often and pass on their extra masculine genes, thereby raising the average masculinity of future generations (sliding the distribution curve more toward "masculine offspring"). In the converse landscape large men will have a harder time surviving in times of hardship due to greater nourishment requirements, and if "aggression" does after-all have something to do with masculinity, this could have a deleterious effect on the masculinity of the group through loss of the masculine genes in unnecessary conflict, being out-reproduced by lovers instead of fighters (fighting might not actually earn you anything beneficial to your reproductive success if the risk is too high and people can just as easily (or more successfully) reproduce without fighting).
This phenomenon can very starkly be seen in what are known as "tournament species" and "pair-bonding species", which are two terms used to describe animals with completely opposing mating strategies. Tournament species have males that compete (hence "tournament") for female mates. Deer and lions are two good examples of tournament species which very blatantly compete for control over mating rights (albeit one more violently than the other). Meanwhile pair-bonding species are generally monogamous and often mate for life (hence "pair" and "bonding"). One of the most notable consistent differences between pair bonding species and tournament species is that tournament species have very high degrees of "sexual dimorphism" (the degree to which males and females of a particular species have different characteristics) and pair bonding species have very low degrees of sexual dimorphism (males and females being basically identical apart from genitalia). Crows are a notable example; you can't sex a crow at a distance. Gibbons are a kind of ape which has a pair-bonding social structure, mates for life, and has almost no sexual dimorphic traits, if any.
Bringing this all back to relevancy, humans do have sexually dimorphic traits, but they exist in varying degrees of intensity and across a very broad spectrum which evidently spreads so far that it sometimes crosses the actual "gender norm" line of typically male and female characteristics. That is to say, some males are very "tournament" oriented in that they are much bigger and much stronger (along with other "masculine" characteristics), and other males are no bigger or stronger or "masculine" (aside from genitalia and chromosomes) than an average female, and yet still some (an even less number) males are so non-"masculine" that they by all other metrics possess more typically female traits than male ones (including hormonally). Women too exist across a scale from extremely petite and feminine to very very masculine indeed. We're not hard pressed at all to find examples of manly women and unmanly men.
In tournament species like deer all males have antlers, and in lions all males have manes. This is genetically rigid because their social structures and the selective forces acting on reproduction are rigid. Without antlers the male deer will be killed or maimed by another male if they try to acquire a mate. Male lions will have their necks punctured or broken if they don't have a massive tuft of incredibly thick fur to protect it from other lions. These are the selective forces that ensure each new generation will be selected for these specific (and other) traits. Pair-bonding species on the other hand select for something perhaps describable as "proximity to the ideal parent". Tournament specie fathers generally do no child rearing at all (they are concerned with getting it in and leaving the mother to take care of the rest), but pair-bonding males essentially need to earn their reproductive success by being good child-rearers, which generally means being the same as the mother and working as a team. Sexual dimorphism serves less of a purpose when both parents need to be ideally equipped for mostly the same tasks (child rearing) while the males of tournament species are selected for being equipped to environmental forces which act uniquely upon males ("the tournament").
Now, tying this all together into a relevant and tidy package, humans categorically defy being placed toward either end of the spectrum of "tournament species" and "pair-bonding species" in every way. Sexual dimorphism exists in many individual humans, but in many it is absent; genetically speaking humans have the capacity to have a great deal of sexually dimorphic traits, and almost none at all. Our social structures are likewise highly variable; we have had monogamous cultures, tournament style cultures, and everything in-between. Unlike deer and lions our environment is constantly changing or at least highly varied (often changed by humans themselves) and so it is fortuitous that our social structures can be highly variable in order to better adapt to a wider variety of possible future environments (thanks evolution!).
Overtime, the degrees of "sexually dimorphic genes" inherently present within a local gene-pool could go up or down depending on what selective forces happen to be acting upon the individuals and social structures of that group (which can favor greater and lesser degrees of dimorphism). Largely via the endocrine system (such as the epigenetic process of pre-natal testosterone changing the level of masculinity of developing fetuses), natural degrees of deviation from average levels of masculinity occur within certain margins in human populations, and when a certain deviation occurs enough times, and happens to be a reproductively successful deviation (even potentially at the expense of one's own reproduction but to the benefit of the reproduction of one's group with whom one shares genes), then that specific degree or average level of masculinity will become more prevalent or "the norm" in that gene-pool.
From an evolutionary perspective people who are outliers in terms of the "average male" and the "average female" (being a completely non-masculine male or a completely masculine female) are the results of unlikely genetic and epigenetic dice-rolls but who no less by virtue of being born have been given evolution's consent to see if what they've got is something that works as a part of mankind's ongoing need to adapt to changing circumstances and evolution's constant search for useful innovation. I've left it mostly unsaid up until now but obviously someone's level of "masculinity" can obviously have dramatic effects on their psychology in terms of their sexual and "identity" preferences. Someone is not "born transgender" per se, but instead they are born with a predisposition toward a phenotype which is more rare than others (the masculine woman and the feminine man) which in and of itself can go on to influence their behavior in ways which we rarely encounter and find so flabbergastingly confusing and counter-intuitive. We can sit on the high ground of the distribution curve and say things like "that extreme outlier (in behavior or appearance) over there is deluded/unhealthy/not-normal/disordered/freakish/diseased/horrific/aberrant/comedic/psychotic/absurd/(you get the idea), but in reality all that statement necessarily amounts to is "they are different". "Different" is not the same as "un-healthy". "Different" is a necessary feature of evolutionary progress.
Deer antlers are not the product of deities metaphorically banging their heads together in order come up with the design for "a normal healthy deer", they're the product of deer ancestors actually banging their heads together, over and over again, inter-generationally, until the deer ancestors with weak heads survived and mated less often, or the deer ancestors with strong heads survived and mated more often. At some point "head strength" as a function of gene expression likely crossed a threshold thanks to lucky mutation (an accident, for lack of a better word) and actual small and rudimentary bone protrusions emerged on some skulls which turned out to be wildly successful in a world where headbutting is an important skill, for obvious reasons. From there on a new selection process takes over which favors larger antlers with more pointy bits over smaller ones until you have something not unlike the deer antler of today in all it's once aberrant but enduringly absurd glory. The lions mane has a similar story. So does the eyeball. So does everything else that has evolved. At one point it was all something new; something inherently different and inherently risky, but also fundamentally necessary for "evolutionary progress" to occur.
Maybe transgender and some other sexual and identity based deviances won't turn out to be evolutionarily advantageous adaptations, but positing a strong argument toward that end is made quite difficult by the fact that the extraordinary dynamism of human culture makes predicting future selective forces too difficult to do even if we could predict the complex ramifications that they may eventually have. Furthermore the mere consistent presence of deviant individuals in society and the extant genetic/epigenetic/horomonal mechanisms which facilitate their existence suggests that there are some possible environments or circumstances where these deviancies are beneficial from an evolutionary perspective. The fact that the human (and male human) anus is capable (yes I'm being serious) of producing pleasure from being penetrated (uhh... it's not what you think!) suggests to an extremely high degree that homosexuality is so substantially beneficial of an adaptation to have in one's arsenal (honestly!) that the good god Darwin has seen fit to outfit us all with a fully functioning standard issue multi-purpose rectum for reasons relating inexorably to our reproductive success as a species.
So you see, trannies are indeed an extreme deviation from the norm but still can represent a normal expression of what makes apes so great: adaptability; versatility; variance. Maybe they drew the short developmental straw and are relegated to be a kind of cultural/genetic astronaut in search of new habitable space in as yet unsettled niches. I don't pity them so long as they are happy.
Quoting intrapersona
How can we cure what we don't understand? We can socially engineer our new generations into having prejudice against trannies and thereby reduce the likelihood that any among them will turn out to be one, but I wonder if in doing so we would not be somehow arbitrarily limiting the possible happiness and freedom of individuals who for whatever reason do not conform to the prevailing norm and are otherwise doing no harm. If you propose that we should do something like regulate everyone's hormones as a preventative measure then you're taking evolution into your own hands and playing a dangerous game; one day we might need the gays! The dude who invented the computer was gay after all... What if Einstein was also gay?
Mind=Blown
[END CREDITS]
By what definition? I don't know any definition that says if one feels 'icky' (squeamish? uncomfortable?) about something that they consider it unacceptable.
How does that work with somebody trying to overcome a phobia, or a new medical student learning to get comfortable with giving injections and handling dead body parts?
Many people feel squeamish about handling insects, birds or even animals, and recognise that as a weakness in themself, of which they would like to be rid.
There's nothing inherently wrong with cancer, either. A fortiori because there's nothing inherently wrong with anything. It's just a matter of what people do or do not desire. Obviously most people do not desire to have cancer, so there are organized efforts to try to figure out how we can minimize its impact, if not outright eradicate it. If most people valued cancer instead, then there would be no organized effort against it, and there would be nothing wrong with that, although of course the minority of people who didn't like it would find that situation frustrating.
A lot of your comments seem to be based on ideas that (a) there is some "natural order" which we can violate in some ways, and (b) for some reason, we have an obligation to that natural order, an obligation to not violate it.
It's my view that both (a) and (b) are complete bunk.
I don't know. Are there any physiological differences in the brains of the religious who have delusions of grandeur (that they are important to a god, or that they continue to exist independent of their body)? Did you bother reading the link I provided that shows all the various kinds of delusions one can have? And after reading it did you think about asking what the physiological differences would be for all those different kinds of delusions? This is why I asked if people are going to be consistent. So far, people aren't. It seems like many people on these forums could be categorized as having some of these delusions. Just look at any political thread and you will find people scared of being persecuted by some other political party, or a nihilistic thread where the feeling the world is going to end, or other threads where insignificant remarks, events, or objects are given more importance than other remarks and events.
What kind of cure could there be for the religious?
That sounds like a somatic delusion. What happens when you tell them that they have a vagina when they believe they have a penis? Don't they become offended?
Did you read the part in my link, "Delusions can be difficult to distinguish from overvalued ideas, which are unreasonable ideas that a person holds, but the affected person has at least some level of doubt as to its truthfulness. A person with a delusion is absolutely convinced that the delusion is real."
Wikipedia goes on to say that delusional people are incorrigible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion
That's the thing; they don't believe that they have a penis. That's why they identify as a transgender man, not as a cisgender man.
And you are likely to enjoy getting a swift kick to the crown jewels first by him and then by me. >:O
Having said that, in the last 6 months, someone has been going at night, to different ranches, as far as two miles from our ranch (as per the Farrier who knows more than the mailman ;) ) haltering up mares, turning over their water buckets and leave plastic gloves behind. Now, the mares show no sign of penetration or lubrication so we aren't sure what the gloves are for other than leaving a sign that they were there. The Sherriff has been called out NUMEROUS times and all they say is, you are going to have to catch him yourself, because they have not been able to catch whomever it is, while on someone's property.
So that is what the ranchers are doing, preparing to catch the sick bastard themselves and whomever they catch are likely going to wish they had been caught by the Sheriff first. >:)
And by definition, (legal definition in Germany), a baby of indeterminate gender (1 in 1500 births, over 80,000 per year) is always born as of indeterminate gender. How does your prejudice deal with them? The grave injustice done to these people by enforced gender assignment over the years is incalculable. Why would you want to continue and extend that kind of oppression?
Lesbians, obviously.
No, it isn't the "bottom of the rung". Rungs do not have tops and bottoms; it's the ladder that has those. What you mean to say is that we have succeeded, at long last and with great effort, in reaching the bottom rung of the ladder.
So, what's below the bottom rung?
Probably this conversation about rungs and ladders, I'd wager...
I'd agreed on that one.
Or maybe saying that we have no idea what a phrase like "the world" refers to.
What if they're post-op?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
You both didn't seem to get the gist of my post.
They believe that their body doesn't match their "inside". They believe that they were born in the "wrong" body. In other words, they believe something is wrong with their body when there isn't anything wrong. This is a somatic delusion. People with somatic delusions are incorrigible and absolutely convinced that the delusion is real. So when you question them about their delusion, as if they could be wrong, they get easily offended - you know, just like those religious types.
Just think about it for a second without getting caught up in the politics and ethics of it. These people believe that they have a soul or spirit that is somehow imbued with either masculinity or femininity that is opposite of their body's masculinity or femininity. Do souls or spirits have a quality of masculinity or femininity about them, and can souls be placed in the wrong body?
Really? :-| Why don't you quote the rest of the post instead of cherry-picking in another pathetic attempt to insult me.
Maybe you should think about how you seem to think I'm providing a concise and accurate description when you agree with me, but I'm not being concise and accurate when you don't agree. Maybe you're letting your emotions dictate your search for truth.
Surely you realize that the phrase "born in the wrong body" (or the idea in general) isn't necessarily to be taken literally and doesn't need to include any beliefs about souls or spirits? It can just be a way of saying "a big incompatibility with sense of identity and physical body" in a way which, I suppose, might better describe what it feels like to oneself. No doubt there's a lot of silly people who believe in masculine and feminine souls and what have you, but it doesn't make sense to claim that that's a requirement.
If people get offended when you suggest that really they might simply be delusional and wrong about it, that probably has something to do with the fact that they know that regardless of what you call their condition, they can't just make it go away. Calling something a delusion can be useful if there's a realistic possibility of actually dispelling the delusion, but if everyone involved knows that it's a more or less permanent delusion, then insisting on a negative word like delusion is to be a bit of an ass about it.
You might consider the sickle cell gene. One copy confers some resistance to malaria, two copies gets you anaemia and early onset death.
The trick is to learn how to put up with what we don't like, and that, objectively, isn't a cause of major problems.
Frightened horse, of course, might bolt and cause bodily injury or death. So far as I know, a transsexual donning a wig, dress, and heels and sashaying down the street to Target has not yet caused a horse to fall dead on the street from shock, except when the shoes and dress didn't match. That can kill a horse outright.
There are questions about rightness and wrongness, and those should be debated. The rightness or wrongness of Donald Trump can be debated. There are also questions about liking and disliking, and those need to be resolved. You don't have to like anything on the long list of diverse appearances, but it is helpful to separate "like and don't like" from "right and wrong". Transsexuality, homosexuality, all sorts of paraphilias (like foot-fetishes), tastes in partners, prostitution, and so on can be extremely off-putting.
What a philosopher needs to do with his likes and dislikes is learn to live with them. That doesn't mean learning to like what one finds repellent. It means recognizing what and why one dislikes something and then putting it in context, and moving on. Why should you resolve your likes and dislikes?
Because, to put it plainly, all the things we merely dislike and find intensely annoying are not going to go away. There are things I have found annoying, irritating, and very unlikeable for the last 70 years, and they haven't disappeared, damn them!
You can accept transgendered people without especially liking or understanding their psycho-social dynamics. You don't have to. There are lots of things about the way people tick that I don't like, don't understand, don't find appealing, and so on. That's just LIFE.
"A big incompatibility with sense of identity and physical body" is a type of somatic delusion - just as feeling as if your arm isn't your own so you end up cutting it off.
Quoting zookeeper
This is the typical liberal response to someone asking valid questions and making valid points. They always resort to name-calling when they don't have a legitimate argument to make.
If people get offended because they can't make it go away (meaning they can't make their belief that they are in the wrong body go away) then isn't that the definition of incorrigible? Isn't that an example of believing it with absolute certainty? Isn't that what I've been saying is a symptom of having a delusion?
As far as I can tell they desire to have a body of the opposite gender. That they might say they were born in the "wrong body" has more to do with their personal preferences than any possible "somatic delusions". They simply make a choice about what makes them happy.
.Quoting Harry Hindu
Do you actually think the soul exists? I would call that a somatic delusion.
Most transsexuals (the one's i've met) don't offer up completely retarded explanations along the lines of souls or insides and outsides or any of the like to explain why they are transgender. They will tell you that they are happier living as the opposite gender. and that's their founding reasoning.
Are you really questioning "delusions"? Or are you just questioning a lifestyle choice that you don't fancy?
I don't wish to derail this thread but I had to answer your question VagabondSpectre. Souls do exist and their "gender" is fluid in nature not specific.
I won't hold my breath.
Go ahead and exhale for this could take a bit.
What kind of "proof" are you looking for?
I have been aware of souls existing around me that others could not see since 9 or 10 years old. When I questioned my Mother, she knew her Mother, my Granny had spoke of such things but not her. So when I asked my Granny about these things I was seeing and hearing their message of, she was the first person that didn't look at me like I was crazy. She assured me that what I was hearing and seeing was true. She explained to me that the ability to see souls, interact with souls, be able to see into the future (which hadn't happened yet) was a special sense, a sense that would always be open to me, as long as I never misused it for my own personal gains.
Since then, through out my life, I have been utilized as a messenger to get a message to someone. It could be someone I know or a complete stranger but the soul is always persistent, regardless of the recipients' belief in it. As far as their gender? They are souls, so even though they may have had a gender on this plane of reality, they become fluid in nature once they leave the body and it is rather undefined.
Of course it is a choice that makes them happy. This is what a delusion is - a false belief that is desperately held onto in an effort to ignore a reality that doesn't make them happy. Delusions are a defense mechanism. They are psychological strategies brought into play by the unconscious mind to manipulate, deny, or distort reality in order to defend against feelings of anxiety and unacceptable impulses and to maintain one's self-schema.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
You really need to read my other posts in this thread. If you think that is a somatic delusion but not believing you are in the wrong body, then I'm not sure that you're capable of being consistent.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
You really need to research what delusions are before you enter this conversation. I provided a link in my first post. Here is another:
http://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/guide/delusional-disorder
"People with delusional disorder often can continue to socialize and function normally, apart from the subject of their delusion, and generally do not behave in an obviously odd or bizarre manner."
Delusional people can function normally but when you question them about their delusion, they cease to be reasonable. The become incorrigible. This is a symptom of a delusion - of rejecting reality and replacing it with your own.
I am questing the validity of their claim which you don't seem to have a problem with questioning my claims, or the claims of the religious which are also delusional, but aren't consistent in questioning transgenders. This is what I mean by being inconsistent.
The problem I see is you have only described delusions that might apply to some but not all transgender people. You wield your position as if it applies to all of them, but as I have been continuously pointing out all of the example delusions you have put forward are in no way a necessary part of transgender psychology.
For instance "believing you have a penis" when you actually have a vagina is a delusion. But what about transsexuals who know they have a vagina, and then have a surgical operation to create an artificial penis?. Afterward they know they don't have a "real" penis, but they know they have something that approximates one, and that fits well with their desire to live out life as a male.
Where is the delusion?
I'm not entirely interested in ferreting out all available somatic delusions for analysis. When it comes to souls, I don't believe in them, but if you're going to try and argue that wanting to be the opposite gender is necessarily a somatic delusion, I'll happily start pointing out what else might be a somatic delusion in order to force perspective.
Do you hold it against a person he has cancer then? Is he wrong to have it?
I'm not sure I agree with that. There's something about their identity that is stronger than their biological build, from which a dissonance arises that leads them to want to change their appearance. That's not pretending to be something you're not. That's being different from what you look.
I've dressed up as a woman for a play and was therefore pretending to be one. At the very least these things are of a different order...
Easy. The delusion is the belief that you are a man when you were born a woman, not that you have a penis when you have a vagina. Having a vagina is what causes them stress. It flies in the face of the reality they built for themselves, which is why they have a "sex-change". This is no different than a man who believes his arm doesn't belong to him, and cuts it off. Like I said before, people with delusions can behave normally but when it comes to their delusion, they seem crazy, like attempting to cut off your arm, or having a "sex-change".
When a transgender says that their outside doesn't match their inside, ask them how they know the problem isn't on the inside. Question them about what it is on the inside that is different. Do they believe in souls and is it the soul that is different than the body. If the say no, then what else could it be other than a mental problem? My point about souls is that they either believe they are a soul in the wrong body, or they have a mental problem. What other reason could you use to account for their belief and behavior when it comes to their delusion?
It seems to me that too many people go straight to the ethics and politics of transgenderism, when we need to first address the cause of transgenderism.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Please do. I started it by using the alien arm as an example.
Yes, people with transexual feelings shouldn't be ostracized, they should be pitied and helped, just like other people suffering from mental conditions. They should definitely not be allowed to have any kind of surgery. They should imagine they were living 200 years ago, when there was no such surgery. What would they have done then, not lived?? Clearly they would have lived, and learned to cope with their feelings in healthier ways. I'm more than certain that transexual people found ways to live, and some of them have lived good lives, even in the past. We're not going to re-organise society because of some crazy folks out there, who don't like it the way it is. They have to adapt to the world as it is, not ask the world to adapt to them. This is really so petty and so childish - ugh the world isn't how I like it, therefore the world is fucking wrong, and it needs to get its act straight! Oh yeah, big fucking surprise. The world isn't how any of us want. So what? The world doesn't exist here to satisfy our wants and desires. The world doesn't owe us anything. Stop being fucking whiny children, and grow up...
And how do you expect us - the folks who don't see souls every other day - to believe or understand this? How can we understand this? Are we supposed to take your words as truth, just because you claim it is so? There's literarily no way, as far as I'm aware, for us to verify this, is there?
What's stupid about having a sex change, or choosing to wear clothing typically associated with those of the opposite biological sex?
What's stupid about cutting off your arm because you think it doesn't belong to you?
Also, the equating of being transgender with wanting to have different sex organs (or body in general) is wrong. Someone can be transgender but happy with their body. As I said before, and in my last post, it can just be about identifying with the behaviour/attitude and other non-biological traits that are typically associated with someone of the opposite biological sex.
Excellent!
To answer your first question on how to "understand this" is to be open to listening to what I and other 'seers' have to say, their experiences and what they think they are seeing. How to "believe this" is a conclusion you have to arrive at, as there is no way to convince another of this concept, unless and until you experience it for yourself.
Are you supposed to take my words as truth, just because I claim it so?
I wouldn't at first blush, at second blush or maybe never. Having said that, there are other people that can see what I see and the more open you are to understanding this concept, the more willing others will be to share.
Quoting Agustino
Can you point to God and give me the tools to verify his existence?
Same goes for souls.
Because this one is likely to kill you whereas a sex change operation won't.
Always fun to have people who aren't psychologists try to dumb it down to just plain "stupid" or a mental illness.
How about all those people who don't even classify as male or female? There are a couple of more genders out there.
Well certainly if you can see souls, then I'd expect you to have much greater insights than I would with regards to God no? I suppose that you can converse, and ask the souls you meet about God no? Hence if you asked this question, it would seem strange to me. It's like a man who can see, while looking out the window, asks me if there's a tree in front of him.
Those hermaphrodites are suffering of a malformation, it's a disease, not the natural state of being. Just like some are born with no arms and no legs. Theirs is a physical disease, and there is a physical solution for it, which is similar to a sex change operation.
Quoting Michael
Ehmm let's boil it down to plain stupid as Benkei likes it. We treat a disease of the body by acting on the body. We treat a disease of the mind - for example anxiety caused stomach aches - not by giving the patient pills for a physical illness, but by treating the mind. A transexual has a disease of the mind, NOT of the body. His body is what it is, but his mind is unhappy with it, and feels it should have a different body. It's in fact obsessed about this. Thus he has a mental illness. The solution is not surgery anymore than the solution for anxiety caused chronic stomach pain is investigate surgery - regardless of how much the patient insists otherwise, the doctor should refuse such treatment.
Surgery is objectively injurious to the body, and there is nothing wrong with the body in the first place, and hence surgery ain't warranted.
So are tattoos, piercings, and boxing.
There is for some, hence the desire for surgery.
It isn't classified as a mental illness. DSM-5 is quite clear on that:
Yes, they should be illegal too. (To clarify, not having a tattoo/piercing but giving those in exchange for money should be illegal)
Quoting Michael
Boxing is a sport, it's not injurious to the body anymore than football is. In both you can, however, injure your body in irreparable ways.
Quoting Michael
And I care what the DSM-5 says because? Do you see me bowing my head to that classification and worshipping it?
You're taking about mental illnesses, so you should care what professional psychiatrists say. They're the ones who determine the "mental illness" classification.
No they shouldn't.
Yes it is.
And this directly contradicts the preceding sentence.
So if I am Floyd Money Mayweather and beat everyone without ever losing, how is it injurious to my body? Clearly it can be injurious, it doesn't necessarily have to be. Depends on how good you are.
Quoting Michael
Quoting Agustino
Quoting Michael
I think professional psychiatrists are a bunch of cuckoos pretty much. I think the way in which they work, having multiple and different patients, and spending relatively little with the patient in actual real life circumstances makes them completely unaware of what a patient actually goes through or how to help them. The ideal is an Aristotle walking around with a young Alexander. That's what a psychiatrist ought to be, and that's the one I trust.
Because they are a treasure of victim points for the Left. So we must rationalise and intellectualise a case that gender/sex is completely a social construction, which is oppressive -- like what our insecure lesbian Judith Butler writes. It's very comforting to "know" that it is not us (0.4%) that are confused but other (99.6%) that are confused. They simply do not understand our highly intellectual prose.
I identify as a transgender lesbian black independent oppressed strong woman with 14 children living off welfare, and if you disagree with me, you are an Islamophobe.
You're conflating belief with desire. All transsexuals desire to become the opposite gender (in whichever capacity that is possible), but they don't all "believe they are the opposite gender".
You have to establish something about the desire to live life as the opposite gender, but instead you've just presumed that all transsexuals hold beliefs which contradict biology.
Quoting Harry Hindu
If having a vagina is what caused pre-op FTM trannies stress, then getting rid of the vagina altogether would solve their problem right?
No. It's their lack of a penis which causes them "stress", not the presence of their vagina. There's a difference between cutting off an unwanted body part and modifying a body-part into something more desirable.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Obviously cutting off an arm is going to leave someone physically disabled, but giving them a sex change is only going to prevent them from having children (presuming they were not already incapable), so in order to really make your comparison work, you're going to have to equate the ability to have children with having two functional arms..
It's blatantly a false comparison. People have elective surgeries to tie/snip their various reproductive tubes all the time. So is a vasectomy is analogous to cutting off one's arm? Is taking birth control or wearing a condom is analogous to tying one's arm behind one's back? Is it the result of somatic delusion?
Are people who choose to never reproduce suffering from a somatic delusion?
There are three functions of human genitalia: Reproduction, pleasure, and pissing. Reproduction is the only function lost during a sex change, which is also the only function lost during a vasectomy. Considering that nobody has a prehensile penis and it's not true that in home country, PUSSY grab YOU!, comparing a sex change to the cutting off of limbs is decidedly less apt than comparing it to a simple vasectomy or tubal ligation procedure. Even cutting off your baby toe would be less apt of a comparison because toes help with grip and balance while penises and vaginas do not.
Quoting Harry Hindu Did you once meet a transgender person who communicated their condition in terms of "insides" and "outsides"?
Sure, there are transgender folk out their who are downright lousy with delusions of the somatic variety, but I contend that there are transgender folk out there who are not. Not all trannies hold any or all of the example delusional beliefs that you've presented.
Quoting Harry Hindu
This deserves some sort of "false dichotomy" of the year award. A false dilemma (or a "false-dichotomy") is a fallacy where two possibilities are presented as if one of them must be true when in reality neither of them might be true or there are unstated alternatives to the two possibilities presented. So you've basically said "either souls exist or I'm right that all transgender people hold delusional beliefs". But (and this might be just some crazy hypothesis but) what if both souls didn't exist and there are some transgender people who don't hold delusional beliefs about the way their biology works? Is that really so hard to imagine?
The desire to transition toward the opposite gender is not a belief, it's a desire. If you want to describe that desire as in and of itself "a mental problem", then please explain on what grounds it is problematic. Problematic for reproduction? For the species? Have you been reading this thread? O.0?
Quoting Harry Hindu
Well back on page #3 I wrote a very lengthy post exploring some evolution-endowed genetic, epigenetic, and hormonal mechanisms which give rise, in rare cases, to individual biology predisposed towards characteristics of the opposite gender. While it is arguable that psychological development can be wholly responsible for leading an individual to a state of "desiring to live as the opposite gender", it is highly probable that in many cases hormonal predisposition is a significant contributing factor in psychological development. I'm not saying that the endocrine system causes direct or specific thoughts, but the vast array of reasons that an individual may have for wanting to be the opposite gender can be indirectly contributed to by hormones via things like physical development. You're not really exploring the possible causes if "mis-gendered souls" are the only alternative to somatic delusions that you can come come up with.
In my opinion people go straight to the ethics of transgenderism as a means to condemn it, including by describing the cause as mental illness (or in this case, the irrational belief that one's body is somehow broken). If you want to understand why I'm trying to separate morality and ethics from having unorthodox desires just read the title of the thread. While some transgender individuals might hold delusions about "their insides" (whatever it is they might actually mean by such a vague statement), not all transgender people do because somatic delusion is not the fundamental cause of all cases of transgenderism; wanting to be the opposite gender is.
Consider this hypothetical: There is a machine you can enter and inside a button you can press which will instantly change your DNA and your body to the opposite gender but leaving your mind un-altered. If someone went in and pressed the button because they wanted to, would you say that they necessarily wanted to as the result of a somatic delusion?
The argument isn't about empirical form. A soul is more a logical expression, an understanding of who someone is and how they mean. More or less the point is there is something about a person which cannot be verified by looking of an object in the world. Sure people often say they "exist," but it really means something closes to "meaning with presence."
"Soul" has a lot of baggage, but it's a pretty good reflection of what's at stake here. It's not a question of the body as an existing state, but of identity and how bodies are understood.
In this respect, I would argue "souls" are necessary. When I look out into the world, am I aware of the lives and meaning of more than the bodies in front of me. There is a inner life, a logical expression, which is concurrent with the body-- something of everyone which speaks to me, regardless of whether a person is aware of it, which shows their meaning.
Speaking of (empirical) verification is a category error, an attempt to understand something which is not the body as the body. How do I expect you to understand this? The way anyone does: to respect the necessity of meaning. One is convinced in experiencing the logical expression of identity. Without that, one is stuck in the loop of reducing people to the presence of their empire bodies.
That's what a transexual sounds like to a psychologist. That's clearly the sign of mental trouble, not of physical trouble. It requires a treatment for the mind, not for the body.
Missing the point-- giving you the Queen's body and throne are acts of empirical possession. Souls are not such a possession. They are regardless of it. Even if we don't give you the Queen's body or throne, your is so. The necessity of meaning is not a pass to get anything and everything. That is, as always, is a question of ethics.
And that's what the aversion to trans identity (as opposed to any actions such as surgery) amounts to. It's an ethical position trans identity ought not exist, rather than identification of delusion, mental illness or self harm.
That's why, for example, people like yourself attack trans identity, as opposed to medical procedures which carry expense an risk. You don't say: "Trans people are great, but they ought to avoid the expense an risk of medial procedures relating to bodily transition." Rather, you attack their very identity. They (supposedly) think "nonsense" about themselves and are deeply unethical for making social transition (e.g. being someone with certain clothes and appearance, pronouns, etc.,etc.). Most of all, they are the embodiment of evil for wanting people like you to recognise their identity.
No I have no problem with their identity. I have a problem with allowing my society to let them have access to barbarous means of harming their bodies. And I don't care how they live, so long as they live in a civilised fashion, like all other folks. If they start fucking around and behaving like animals, then I do mind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDDela4jNto
Look at these folks. These folks aren't simply some nice fellow progressives who like to live as they wish without disturbing anyone. They want to make everyone else accept and approve of their way of life, and they find their joy in disturbing and upsetting public order. Hence they deserve to be restrained, quite possibly put in jail, because they simply disturb and affect other people's lives negatively. We need to respect each other in society. These people, through such disgusting and uncivilised protests, disrespect everyone else in their society.
This means you have a problem with their identity. Part of the point is other ought to recognise trans identity as legitimate (i.e. someone is not delusional for being trans) and someone expressing it is no less valuable than a cisgender person.
Trans identity inherently disrupts our present public order. It destroys out ability to ground social position on the sexed body. Earlier in the thread, some were talking of the sex/gender split, as if each concept didn't have anything to do with each other. This is a red-herring employed to maintain the essential relationship between sexual biology and identity. By boxing off trans identity as about only the "mind," questions about the identity of the body are put to rest. Trans identity is allowed to be without disputing what the body means for identity.
But trans identity is also about understanding of the body in relation to identity. For people who fit the "born in the wrong body" narrative, for example, the body is sort of important. It forms part of their identity (the body the ought to have, the body they feel), which they express and want recognised. A respect for being identified as part of a sex category (people with an identity with a particular body) is at stake.
Accepting trans identity means blowing-up our essential understanding of sex and gender categories. It means we can't just look at a body and know which sex/gender category someone belongs to. Sure, we might know the body, but this doesn't tell us someone's identity. Social organisation dependent on the sexed body collapses. If we can't tell whether someone with a vagina belongs to the category of "male" or "female," we can't assign them to a "male" of "female" role on the basis of their body. As a concept, understanding and acceptance of trans identity destroys a major pillar of (current) public order and (for many people) identity (essential sex/gender and its ability to assign social roles).
Why are these Nazis concerned with what I think? Do they see me going around concerned what other folks think about my identity?
The reality is that not everyone is tall, strong, intelligent, heterosexual, or cisgendered, even if these would have been evolutionarily advantageous. It is an inconvenient truth that nobody seems to want to address publicly: not everyone is equal. Some people are indeed better suited to do things than others.
The righteousness of things will depend on what our goals are. If our goals are instinctual and bent on surviving in a pre-technological and pre-leisure community, then indeed those who are not suited to fulfill the necessary roles will be looked down upon.
But as the civil rights activists have pointed out, we no longer live in Darwinian communities. We no longer need to discriminate between appearances for protection. And we no longer need to be heterosexual or cisgendered in order to manage.
Because our collective goals have moved on from our ancestral instincts, we no longer need these obfuscating and discriminatory principles. So there's nothing wrong with being homosexual or transgendered. Although notice how most people would like it if you could be tall, strong, and bright, because it would benefit the community. Once again we have the subjugating nature of goals.
Because it impacts on their lives. What you think defines actions and culture which has a negative impact on them. You do not respect them as people who ought to exist. Instead of being viewed as people who ought to exist, you think them an error of the world, some state which ought to be different because it defies a perfect nature (i.e. not delusional).
And yes, they do see you concerned about your identity: your entire attack on the "progressives" is exactly that. You regularly scoff at the notion that anyone would make the demand that you abandon your particular identity-- "How dare the West demand people give their love of strongman leaders, traditions, etc., etc."
That's, well, pretty bigoted.
You aren't wrong about people wishing not to be trans. Some trans people say exactly that. Sex/gender dysphoria is a horrible experience.
The problem is you take it to be a question of being a capable human, rather than avoiding something that's horrible. Just because a trans person has a horrible experience of dysphoria, it doesn't necessarily means they are incapable of task or less fit to survive. To experience something horrible doesn't mean you are some how useless and unfit for anything else.
Regret, unhappiness and suicides, even after surgery--studies says many remain traumatized
Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population.
There is no conclusive evidence that sex change operations improve the lives of transsexuals, with many people remaining severely distressed and even suicidal after the operation, according to a medical review conducted exclusively for Guardian Weekend tomorrow.
But the left has a ingenious solution for these problems, just increase the minimum wage.
If they're so weak that they can't even take someone thinking differently than them, they are suffering of a mental illness. I live with many many folks in this community for example being opposed to my identity as you would say (though that's probably the wrong way to put it) and I take it. It's not that hard. People are different, they don't have to think like me, nor approve of and live like me.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Yes but I don't scoff at the notion that other people must approve of my identity and think it's the right and only way of being. I go on being who I am and don't give a shit about what others think. They should do the same.
Dont worry, The Willow of DARKNESS will bring his shadow around soon and tell you how these transexuals you cite are more suicidal after surgery because of folks like you, who don't approve of their real identity
Nor did I intend to imply this. I meant that in a bygone age, transgenderism would not have passed the status quo, as we had different goals back then, such as reproduction and gender-designated social roles. In today's day and age, we have much more freedom to be an individual instead of a cookie-cutter derived from evolutionary need.
Compare this to the case with women. Feminists will often speak of the past age in which women were suited to do different sorts of things than men. They didn't hunt, nor did they usually fight over mates. But in the present day we have no such need for these gender roles.
The worry I had was that I would be called out as a bigot simply for saying some people would rather be someone else than who they are, because they perceive the alternative to be superior. Which I suspect is actually more of a product of their environment than some inherent essential human psychological urge. A gay man might wish to be straight because he lives in an environment of anti-gay sentiments. If he grew up in a progressive area, however, this might be different. It all depends.
Not true, you've been railing against the "progressives' all over the place. You scoff at the notion of a world which is run on their principles. You no less argue people ought to follow your identity than trans people or anyone supporting them. You've said people ought to live and think like you countless times on this board-- witness your exclamation of glory that people in the West were finally waking up to the scourge of "progressivism," which would end our culture obsession with permissiveness. You give bucketloads of shit to what people think. You aren't sitting back and saying: "Ehh, it's fine. People can value and think whatever suits them."
Well, it's is a factor. But Emptyheaded's argument is a pretty good reflection of the problem of seeing it in terms of a "mental illness." It fools us into thinking trans identity is something we give a magic pill to cure.
Medical transition is misread as something that meant to make everyone's lives fantastic. It's not. At best, it is imperfect. Is it any surprise that some people who desperately feel they ought to have a different body sometimes aren't satisfied with a (comparatively) poor copy of what they envision? Or that any satisfaction derived from transition doesn't necessarily amount to a cure to any or all mental illness someone has? Emptyheaded thinks he is showing the foolishness of trans identity, but all he's doing is showing the mistake of thinking of it as a mental illness to be cured and the ignorant expectation this raises.
This is perhaps the dumbest thing I've ever read.
Not only not passed the status quo, not even existed! To what extent transsexualism existed before it was conceptualized as a thing (normal or pathological), is hard to say. There aren't any physical characteristics of transsexualism. It's an oddity of humans that we can feel all sorts of things, and act on our feelings with great satisfaction, (or be greatly distressed) but not recognize what we are doing and feeling until we have a label/term/concept which fits the behavior.
"Transsexual" or "Transgender is a recent "'liberation' movement"--the 'T' added onto the GLB: Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual movement for GLBT.
Had Christine Jorgensen been committed to a mental institution and been given shock therapy and a lobotomy in 1951, instead of estrogen therapy and a penis-ectomy, and had a sex change industry not grown up at several large medical schools (like the University of Minnesota), we might not be having this discussion. The "transgender movement" might have been stillborn, and lots of people would have found other obsessions. other problems to focus upon.
Had the American Psychological Association decided in 1972, "No, we think homosexuals really are sick and twisted sons of bitches, and we are not pulling their disorder from the index." the Gay Liberation Movement would probably have developed along different lines.
I never cared for AIDS Pride, which is sort of like gay, bisexual, and transgender pride. Or Crip Pride, Deaf Pride, Blind Pride, Cancer Pride (especially breast cancer pride), Downs Pride, and the rest of it. Dead Pride, I suppose is around the corner. Most of the Gay Community, and many in the wider world, were guilt-tripped into buying the story about the virtues of living with AIDS, not being a victim, and learning so much about life from being intensely ill.
"No, no -- we're NOT victims. We're living with AIDS."
Sure you are. That's why so many of the people "living with AIDS" are dead already.
"AIDS has been so good for me, it has taught me how important kindness is."
Christ--couldn't you have figured that out without anal tumors, constant diarrhea, brain infections, and severe pain?
And living with AIDS... not when that slogan was cooked up. Sure, people were living longer than they would have if they had been run over by a train, but between 1981 and 1996, AIDS was hell on wheels.
You have read dumber things than Agustino's proposal.
I've sat across the desk from psychiatrists on many occasions, on my own behalf. Some of them were good at what they do, some were not. Psychiatrists mostly prescribe medicine for mood disorders and base their treatments on patient reports. Good psychiatrists can cross examine a patient's report and determine whether the patient is exaggerating or covering up their symptoms. Bad psychiatrists aren't so capable.
The actual daily circumstances of the patient are not of great importance to psychiatry, because the model of care by which they are paid doesn't allow for more than the briefest specific familiarity with the patient's life. Besides, all they hear is complaining: They know people are unhappy, and that their jobs and spouses are driving them crazy (literally).
They can't counsel the patient that "Therapy means change, not adjustment" because they really don't have the time to help the patient examine their lives and actually make changes. That kind of therapy requires maybe two or three hundred hours of very good talk therapy. Most psychiatrists will see the patient...8 to 12 times, for perhaps 15 minutes a shot (if you are lucky) or for a half hour per visit if you are severely ill (like manic depression).
Psychiatrists have been called "Paid friends" but that is way out of date. Psychotherapists or social workers can sometimes be paid friends. Psychiatrists are more like hired acquaintances, or hired passers-by.
Having an intelligent, insightful friend or two is very good for one's mental health. Ideally, depressed, anxious, paranoid, vindictive SOBs would have these two or three smart insightful friends to draw upon during the day. The trouble is, the screwed up unhappy people hugely outnumber the smart, insightful population of friendly people. And sometimes, smart, insightful friendly people have perplexing problems of their own. Like all the lunatics they know.
No one with a mental condition should be pitied and helped unless either (a) they want help because they don't like the way they are, or (b) they're unable to function/take care of themselves re simple daily tasks--maintaining shelter, acquiring and ingesting food, etc. AND they (at least seem to) want to be able to achieve those daily tasks.
This argument doesn't work because evolution has no teleology. It's not that organisms ought reproduce, it's just that those that do are more likely to have copies of their genes show up in subsequent generations. So it's not a competition between species, or even just a singular species trying to propagate itself into the future. Rather, evolution can be understood as a 'competition' between individual genes, although here is no teleology or 'want' to reproduce, it's just that those that do, are likely to have gene copies show up in the subsequent generations, and those that don't reproduce, aren't.
However, I think an argument can be made that there ought be a better treatment to Gender Identity Disorder than 'transgendering'. As in, changing genders as a medical treatment is a bad treatment. It strikes me as much like giving liposuction to an anorexic.
What I've noticed (I have no stats or proof for this it's just anecdotal) is that transgender people have these highly rigid notions of gender. As in, pink is for boys, blue is for girls. But not just for how one appears but also for how one ought act. A man ought be responsible and not effeminate, nor 'pretty', nor interested in make up, or other men sexually or romantically, dresses, and a man ought be dominant, confident, not sexually submissive, and a man ought be interested in mechanical things and science rather than art and poetry. And likewise for female to males. It's as if they can't see that you don't literally need to inject testosterone in order to wear suits, be sexually dominant towards other women (transgenders have a far higher rate or homosexuality (in terms of their birth sex) than cis), and not care about your appearance.
I suspect a lot of transgender people had parents with really rigid notions of gender. "No! You can't cut your hair, short hair is for boys, and you are A GIRL, and girls have long hair!" If you imagine a parent with this sort of attitude towards all notions of gender, this could confuse the hell out of a child or teen. A young or teen girl doesn't care about clothes, pink, being submissive, liking arty things, wanting children, boys sexually or romantically, or any other stereotypical notion of the female gender. And yet has it drilled into her, all through her childhood and teens that only boys DON'T want these things. You can see the logic from here: "I don't like X, I like Y. Only boys like Y. Therefore, I am a boy." That's my pet theory anyway..
I suspect that, rather than people with GID starting off with a primary desire being to alter their body to appear like the opposite sex biologically, (and therefore they're really a girl because they have this desire). It's more like, their primary desire is to act and appear like girls do (and therefore they're really a girl because they want to act/appear this way, (and girls don't have penises)).
Clearly not. GID/gender dysphoria is a terrible disorder to have, with an awful prognosis. Apparently 41 percent attempt suicide at some point. Being transgender is just the medical treatment for the disease (gender dyshporia, or Gender Identity Disorder). It's a shame this medical illness has been tacked onto LGB issues and causes/politicized.
Did you read it?
"Over 7,000 people responded to the 70 question survey, providing data on virtually every significant aspect of transgender discrimination—including housing, employment, health and health care, education, public accommodation, family life, criminal justice, and identity documents."
And here a more recent study completely confirming the 41%: "Suicide attempts among trans men (46%) and trans women (42%) were slightly higher than the full sample (41%). "
Quoting Benkei
lol
No, not as of yet and best I can tell, if there is a soul of God, he has plenty of sources to convey any message he wishes. ;)
Quoting Agustino
Souls have their own message to convey and as I said are persistent about it, until it has been heard by the right person.
Do you know what a DSM 5 code is? Maybe you are more familiar with an ICD 9 code is?
Exactly how many Psychiatrists have you seen as a patient in your life?
I am not really curious about God, as I am not really a believer in God, so much as I am a mixer of religions if that makes sense.
Yes I do know what the DSM codes are. I've seen 3 psychiatrist (and a few psychologists), and I have to say they were the most boring and hilariously stupid people. You told them what they wanted to hear, they congratulated you, bye bye! >:O (not to mention that what they understand by normality is being like your average Joe in the street - if Alexander the Great goes in there they'd tell him he's NUTS!) I haven't heard a single useful thing from psychiatrist, quite the contrary, everything they said was so general, and so inapplicable, that trying to apply it actually made your condition worse not better. It's not until I quit listening to their nonsense that I started to overcome my anxiety and become like I am today, when I rarely, if ever feel very anxious.
Yes, because these Nazis want to control what I think. I can't even think a certain way, I'm not allowed. I personally don't care that others think differently, but these progressives do care, so then the rest of us have to do something about them so that they start learning to mind their own affairs without disturbing others - like they do in the video I showed you.
I said I will fight the progressives with exactly the same weapons the progressives use - because those weapons work, the progressives have been proving it for decades! The progressives fight by attacking certain identities - thus I will fight back in the same way. Why? It works! I've analysed the progressive mind, and the reason why progressive movements have been winning is simply because they use moral blackmail of good people like me. The way the progressive mind works, is that what others think and say about you is very important - in fact it's the only thing that matters. Truth doesn't matter. Truth is simply what others think for progressives. So if I call a loose progressive woman a slut, it's a disaster for her, because all that matters for her isn't whether she is a slut or not, it's whether people think of her that way. That's why the progressives are trying to re-define what a loose woman is - she's not a slut, she's liberated, I'm supposed to admire and congratulate her now. She improved from the condition of how women had to be in the past (oppressed!), and that's laudable.
So the progressive mind mistakes other minds to be the same. They think if they call me a sexist, a xenophobe, a misogynist, and morally deformed, then I will lick up to them and start playing their game - like you have forced poor @darthbarracuda to do. He has to watch what he says, he has to beg you not to consider him a bigot, he has to bow his head and be a slave to you. He has to fight back, and show how pro-feminazi he is by struggling with convoluted explanations as to why he admires modern progressive women, so that you don't label him all those things. It's fucking outrageous! You should be ashamed of yourself Willow. The progressives have fooled us into believing we have to defend ourselves from their charges, their slander, and their labelling. They have morally blackmailed us, because they tell us - you are good people, you can't do this - so that they can then continue playing their game. But we don't have to obey. And I don't defend at all. I wear the labels with pride. Because I can wear them with pride. I know I'm not a sexist, nor a xenophobe or a misogynist or morally deformed. I know that. Doesn't matter what the progressives say. They can label me however they want, I don't care. But this doesn't hold the other way. If I tell a loose woman she's a slut, then there's no way she can think otherwise, because it's the truth. That's what actually angers progressives - the truth. They are Nietzsche's weak - they are playing a losing game, and they know it.
So remember friends - two methods the progressives use to control you. Number 1: they morally blackmail you so that you start playing their game and defending yourself "uh I'm not a bigot I'm not a bigot, look how pro-feminazi I am!". Number 2: They prevent you from striking back by appealing to your compassion and benevolence. You're a good person, you can't strike back, can you? Don't let yourselves be fooled. And many many are waking up Willow. People aren't stupid anymore. For quite some time it used to be just me and a few who dared question our progressive masters. But now just look at this thread - so many great people standing up.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Yes - there the appeal to compassion and benevolence continues. "You're a bad person Emptyheaded! You don't have any bit of human love for these suffering people!" People are seeing through this Willow. People aren't stupid.
Most of your post that I'm pulling the above quote from is good; I agree with most of it.
I pulled that quote because I want to offer another angle on the same thing: it's always seemed to me that it basically amounts to kowtowing to contingent social conventions. I don't believe that the social conventions have significant biological roots. In short, whatever a particular biological male/female is like is a biological way that males/females can be, so one can't really be the opposite sex/gender "trapped in a female/male body." If one was born a male/female, then whatever one's dispositions, attitudes, behavior, etc., that IS a way that males/females are.
At that, I have no problem with people wanting to surgically alter their bodies in whatever way, or wanting to simply cosmetically alter their appearance with whatever relations to social conventions.
I just don't agree that as something like a "syndrome" that it's anything other than kowtowing to social conventions. ("Syndrome" is probably not the best word to use, but I couldn't offhand think of a better word. I don't want to imply that there's something wrong with it, but in this case I need a word that implies "taking it seriously" as a psychological state.)
I agree with this.
Quoting Terrapin Station
I disagree with this. If they don't want to eat, etc. then they are suffering psychologically, and require help until they get into more stable waters where they can manage for themselves. We're not going to let people die in the street because they are depressed and no one cares for them. Nobody will be dying in the streets. We will take care of them.
I don't think we should force people to live if they don't want to, however.
Would that we were so kind. We have come close to letting people die in the streets--literally, not figuratively. There are mentally ill homeless people who are (slowly, granted) dying in the streets. It took a long time for the northern city I live in (Minneapolis) to recognize that "public inebriates" need caring alochol-tolerant shelter, especially in the winter. (Most shelters here are rigidly alcohol-intolerant.) We finally have it, and it is a good thing.
In San Francisco there are thousands of homeless living on the streets. I've seen them there years past. They won't freeze, they're mostly not insane (crazy maybe, but that's a different story). They aren't cared for.
Yeah, if these faggots were so good at treating patients, we'd have less mentally ill folk than we do today. As far as I'm concerned, these experts are part of the problem, not the solution. It's in their interest that people are sick and continue to suffer so that they keep coming for their expensive services, and pay them more and more dough.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Yes that unfortunately is true, even in the civilised world, and it's a big shame, that people are left to die in the streets.
Forgive me for asking for a little grace Agustino but your vocabulary is greater then to resort to using insulting words.
Not the type of "problem" the OP was referring to now was it?
Also, what percentage of attempted suicide is a consequence of the intolerance shown towards people with this disorder?
We have a saying in the Netherlands: "As the innkeeper is, does he trust his guests". Meaning people who expect the worst from others usually aren't very nice themselves.
You can question the efficacy of the profession but questioning their moral character says more about you than anything else.
That is quite possibly true, however -
I think, as I've explained before, that the very framework in which psychiatrists work makes them unable to help their patients in any way. They are broken off from the reality of mental trouble, and therefore the help they give, when push comes to shove, is worth nothing. My beef with them is that they accept to work as psychiatrists in these circumstances - that knowing that they can't do much for their patients, they accept to go to their jobs and do a half-hearted job. That's my moral problem with them.
Perhaps this is a problem peculiar to the Dutch?
But isn't this true of many areas of professional work -- including several areas of medicine?
After all, physicians treating problems related to obesity can't follow their patients around and intervene in their dietary choices (they might, but then they could treat only 1 patient at a time). Some psychiatrists treat hospitalized patients and patients who are not, and do not need to be hospitalized. How can a good defense attorney, who has perhaps committed no worse crime than overstaying a parking meeter, possibly understand the circumstances of a first degree murderer?
Psychiatrists, like every other adult, have parents, childhood experiences, difficulties in adolescence, had crushes on favorite teachers, conflicting motivations in college, marriage problems, a long slog through medical school, and difficulties on the job prior to becoming a psychiatrist. All that saves them from irrelevance in their patient's lives.
True, it says a lot about the Left.
This is the bit that led me to question it's methodological robustness:
I'm no statistician myself, but it seems like there is no clear method of sampling whatsoever, and I could not find anything detailing how they discriminated the raw data to ensure that their sample is a representative cross section of all transgender individuals.
But this was not my main criticism of the 41% statistic. My main criticism is that suicide is known to be caused by things like poverty and social isolation/ostracization, which in many contemporary social settings are direct results of "transitioning". Until a tranny is said to "pass" (believably pass for the gender they are trying to conform to) everyone knows that they are different, which leads to social difficulties of many kinds, while the actual cost of transitioning is high (possibly with no upper limit) which makes them at a greater risk of poverty. The point is that being transgender does not in and of itself make an individual 41% likely to have attempted suicide at least once, it has also largely (and perhaps primarily) to do with the accompanying difficulties and social ills which are typical of the average transgender experience in the western world. The study in question acknowledges this several times...
I'm sure right now you're thinking: "Oh this bleeding heart liberal is just making this argument to be PC and deny reality", but I urge you actually consider the position you're taking. You're saying that because the statistics of transgendered lives paints a bleak picture, that this therefore gives us easy and instant knowledge and insight into the true nature of the phenomenon behind these statistical realities.
Saying (essentially) that transgenderism is an intolerable disease because of statistical disparities is just like your average social justice warrior saying that western society is a white supremacist system because of statistical disparities between races. Yet still you inherently presume understanding of the gambit of psychological causes which mechanistically lead to the statistical realities of transgenders, just like how the average social justice warrior presumes that psychologically white males carry out oppression because of privilege preserving angry bigotry inherent to their culture/society/biology.
I know why you're trying to take no bull shit, as it were, and it's somewhat praiseworthy in the current cultural zietgiest where unsophisticated rhetoric is the most commonly accepted unit of intellectual currency, but you need to make sure that you don't tend toward symmetry with your opponents. It might be the easy route, but if you want to raise the standards of debate in the long run you will have failed.
The truth as I see it is that gender dysphoria is probably discomforting or even painful. Gender identity disorders surely are not desirable if pain and suffering or a deprivation of happiness accompany them, but when someone does turn up with a gender identity disorder (and they inevitably do and have done throughout history), what should we do to help them?
Should we not tolerate their their condition in the sense that we use therapy to repress their disordered feelings and thoughts? Should we forbid or hospitalize them from attempting to transition if transitioning in any form increases risks of unhappiness or self harm?
I wonder whether or not the risks of transitioning, even accounting for the poverty and social problems it causes, are not still outweighed by the harm that we might cause by preventing people from attempting to do so.
Surely everyone who gets it in their head that they want to be a different gender should not be instantly taken at their word and given a box of hormone pills, but evidently there are some for whom the decision to transition is the result of lengthy contemplation and exploration of alternatives. Transsexuals can in fact successfully transition, with or without an actual operation, and so I remain thoroughly convinced that your suggestion that their dangerous ailment should never be indulged is not at all universally sound medical advice.
We don't have that many examples of successful transsexuals from history (yet there are still many good examples) probably because the most successful transsexuals went completely undetected, as do thousands upon thousands in the modern world.
Perhaps. But there are many cases in medicine for example, when there's not much that a doctor can do. In that case their knowledge and expertise is limited and that's that. They're not really at fault for that. But I actually think that a large majority of mental illness sufferers could be helped and even cured, and they are not. And that is the fault of the therapists - it doesn't help that they have no skin in the game either.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Yes but they wouldn't have to. It's sufficient for them to prepare a diet for their patient, discuss whether the patient has any particular objections/desires, and then ask them to keep to it, maybe get them to keep a journal and see how it goes. It's the patient's responsibility to follow the advice in that case. But the same cannot be said about mental illness - the thing with mental illness is precisely that the patient struggles to follow the advice or to apply it to particular situations. I don't know if you've ever gone through something similar yourself, but for example, hypochondria of which I suffered, the thought you're ill or will become ill and die can manifest in hundreds and millions of ways. Literarily every kind of symptom I can make myself actually feel. And the question always is how do you distinguish? Say I get a strong chest pain... Is that a heart attack? If you ask a doctor they tell you "if you have persistent chest pains, with other symptoms like shortness of breath, etc. you have to go to the hospital IMMEDIATELY" If you tell the psychiatrist you get chest pains, etc. they'll be like "ahh that's just your anxiety, you have to do something different, it's not real" but the whole question is how do you distinguish real from unreal, not in theory, but in practice?
So the psychiatrist can't help with that. If you ask the question they avoid it. They don't take it seriously. They think "ah must be just another avoidance symptom, just the continuance of the anxiety" - they don't say it, but you can see that that's what they think. You can see they don't give a fuck for real. Just makes you feel worse about yourself. Really someone like Aristotle could have helped. They teach you how to think in practice. Everywhere you look for example you see information about your health that is scary. Even the doctors scare you! It took me a long time until I made friends amongst doctors to understand that what doctors tell the public is very different from what doctors actually believe. For example they tell the public they need to go to the ER IMMEDIATELY in case of chest pain. They don't really believe that, but because the public is full of idiots who would otherwise be killed by their stupidity they prefer to scare them - better that they make more trips to the ER than they die and the doctor gets accused he hasn't done his job. It's the more intelligent folk out there who actually start researching and take these things for granted because it's all they can find.
And I mean most people's understanding of medicine is nonexistant. How can you not worry about your health if you don't even have a basic understanding of disease and how the body functions? So learning all these things took me a lot of time. But now I don't worry because I understand practically what could go wrong, how the body works, what OBJECTIVE signs to check for and so forth. I understand generally - so if there's a problem I would know, just that I would quite possibly not know what it is for sure or what to do. For example one time I got this disease called pilonidal cyst. i diagnosed myself with it, went to the doctor, and he wanted to do surgery on my ass - literarily! So I told him Im not going to do that, i went and researched, read a few medical research papers on it, and then went back and told him what antibiotic to prescribe me. He said ahh but antibiotic doesn't generally work, blah blah. So i told him i don't care, I want him to do it. So he did it, and I got cured. If I had listened to him, I would have been in bed changing bandages for 1-2months... Never trust doctors 100%. Always opt for conservative treatment first, only if it fails go to more extensive one. That's number one principle they teach in med school, only that doctors, by the time they get to practice, get lazy and want to get rid of patients quickly so they choose most certain treatment instead of most conservative.
It's really about learning to use your judgement in practice and trusting it. But you need some knowledge. That useless psychiatrist should teach you medicine instead of telling you that anxious person shouldn't learn medicine. It needs to be an over-arching approach that makes the patient POWERFUL - in the real sense of the term. The purpose of therapy isn't that you emerge out of there the same as you were before your illness - but rather that you emerge a stronger and greater man. That should be the aim.
Really if you ask me, the priest is actually better than the psychiatrist for mental illness. So are great philosophers. Hypochondria for me really was rational. If you don't know shit about the body, how can you not worry? That would be like being in the jungle with no survival skills and not being worried. If you can't distinguish mind-created feelings from actual, real feelings, how the hell can you know what to do? Goodluck finding real answers with those money hungry, greedy and immoral psychiatrists
Y'know, Agustino, you are the precise sort of person that keeps me from throwing my computer out the window and going to a monastery, because I fear if I meet someone like you outside my cell, and had the displeasure of having a conversation, I'd as quickly throw myself out the window in a final retreat.
Perhaps your experience with psychiatrists has been unusually bad.
What psychiatrists spend most of their time doing is treating garden variety mental health problems. They see case after case of run-of-the-mill anxiety, depression, free-floating hostility, suicidal ideation, too much drinking, and so on. My experience is that what these millions of people need is not more medicine (except for acute symptom relief) but a significant change in the way they conduct their lives, and much, much more self knowledge.
Rather than an epidemic of depression and anxiety, what we have is an epidemic of bad work situations, bad relationships, totally unreasonable expectations of life, debt, frustrated aspirations, poor sleep (it's more destructive than most people think), insufficient exercise, too much alcohol and other recreational intoxicants, and (maybe most damaging) very disorganized lives.
None of the actual problems are medical. Tranquilizers and antidepressants can't cure the way people live their lives. That's where "therapy means change, not adjustment" comes in. If you are in a sick, debilitating work situation, then get out of it. if your partner is driving you crazy, then send the crazy-making person packing. Stop drinking so much. Not getting enough sleep? Go. To. Bed. Turn the television and the lights off. Turn off your phone. Etc.
Will this sort of advice solve everyone's problems? No, but it will solve a lot of the problems. A skilled social worker, pastor, or... philosopher could be useful in teaching people what good priorities are; how change can be brought about; what is really important in life. Now all we need to do is find a few million skilled social workers, pastors, and philosophers who aren't busy and find a few $billion to pay them with.]
Some psychiatric practices deal with major mental illness involving psychoses, schizophrenia, bi-polar disease, OCD, criminal sexual behavior, and the like. I have quite a bit of respect for these doctors. The major diseases can be as devastating as cancer, and are difficulty to treat successfully. The manifestations of major mental illnesses are ugly, some of the drugs have bad side effects, and it's all very hard on patients families.
By not indulging in their disorder. Like anorexic -- which someone else exampled here -- do not indulge them by telling them: "you are right, you are fat, stop eating". No, she is starving and needs to eat healthily. The dangers of her conditions should be clear, she in danger of dying.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Strawman. Nice of you to squeeze the words "all universally sound medical advice," which I never claimed. Given that we are dealing with someone who is obviously suffering from some kind of mental disorder, we can't indulge that person. For the same reason you do not indulge a suicidal person. But instead save them. The person in the video says: "I just want to die." According to you, you should indulge him.
How your Leftists mind can twist this is impressive. I will leave that to Haidt to explain. It may be just the tendencies of the Left to virtue signalling.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And I am not making things up, it is officially recognised as a mental disorder:
"The terms transsexualism, dual-role transvestism, gender identity disorder in adolescents or adults and gender identity disorder not otherwise specified are listed as such in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases (ICD) or the American Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) under codes F64.0, F64.1, 302.85 and 302.6 respectively."
See, I can't be insane. Insane people are nonsensical, they say idiot things like most of you guys, not smart things like me.
Even that aside psychology is like an attempted formalization of morality, or religion. It holds to a developmental model, based on psychological maturity, and important milestone points that people can miss for various reasons, and need to be worked past. The most popular personality profiling system is hierarchical, leading to enlightenment. It's all moral language, stripped of connotation. It's how we continue to see demons, and never stopped.
I worked with a very social, extroverted and upbeat transgender. It was a job in marketing and sales. There are exceptions, but (anecdotal) exceptions are a red herring here.
I don't know what you mean, or you're responding to.
You're comparing death by starvation to "behaving as the opposite gender". Obviously nutritional health is more cut and dried than psychological health; your comparison is poor.
Quoting Emptyheady
Who are we dealing with? ALL transgender people? We should never indulge anyone with a mental disorder, and transgenderism is a disorder, therefore never indulge any transgender people? What exactly is the straw man? That you're talking about all transgender people or just that your opinion might have been an attempt at medical advice in the first place?
It's pretty hilarious though that you would accuse me of misrepresenting your position (a strawman) and then go onto accuse me of advocating death by starvation or suicide.
Is transitioning actually analogous to suicide?
Quoting Emptyheady
Did you know that accusing someone of virtue signaling is exactly the same kind of argument as virtue signaling? "I have virtue, therefore my arguments are correct" and "I virtue-signaled, therefore my arguments are incorrect.". They're both fallacious appeals to character that fail to address the relevant argument
What was the virtue to which I was signaling my allegiance by the way?
Quoting Emptyheady
Kindly correct the flaws in the following representation of your argument:
P.1: Mental disorders should not be indulged
P.2 Transgenderism is a mental disorder
C.1: We should never indulge transgenderism
Heister Feister perhaps you ought to actually contribute something to the discussion apart from actual insults. You like to sit on the side and throw snarky remarks at those who fight the good fight. With an attitude like yours I don't know what you'd do at a monastery - perhaps just eat the bread and consume the resources of the monks.
Anything that involves hallucinations is something that these doctors, or pretty much anyone else, can do little about. I'm not talking about those conditions, many of which are biological (OR THE RESULT OF THERAPY ITSELF). OCD though isn't among them. I was at one time officially diagnosed with OCD. By the big brain of these psychiatrists I should still have it today. I have absolutely zero symptoms of it today. I was given antipsychotics (those that are for things like schizophrenia), antidepressants, and benzodiazepines. It wasn't until I got off them - BY MYSELF (please note that, because if it was after the big brain of psychiatrists I wouldn't have gotten off the pills) - that my symptoms started to disappear.
Quoting Bitter Crank
It's not just my experience. It's a fact. It's only the lying books which say otherwise. They don't want you to know the truth. Experience speaks clearly for all those who have it. One of my friends was destroyed by psychiatry - they have actually made him sick. These folks are corrupt to the bone, and they will stop at nothing to destroy all signs of greatness and superiority. Their normal person is mediocrity personified. Bowing the head everywhere. That's "normal" for them. That's the "goal". Can you imagine... Alexander the Great going to a psychiatrist... "My goal in life is to conquer Persia and be the greatest conqueror that history will ever know!" My days, the psychiatrist would likely not even allow him to leave - straight to the special ward with him! How dare he have such a goal?? How dare he think of himself as GREAT and superior to others?? A person should have goals like - get a job as an accountant, have lots of sex, etc. Anything else is not permitted, and is a sign of disease. The psychiatrists are just as Nietzsche predicted, the weak, who because they are good for nothing and cannot do anything themselves, want to stop everyone else from doing. They want everyone else to be mediocre and sit down - not dance - because they themselves cannot dance.
Can you imagine Newton going to a psychiatrist? "Oh you stayed locked in your basement working on physics for years on end? You're sick, you're deformed, you need to socialise, you're wasting your life, you won't discover anything, you will destroy your mind, you need to do more productive things" and on it goes. These serpents will stop at nothing in order to destroy ALL greatness. Everything great about a person - for example, that one can sit without socialising for years on end - that great trait of genius, that is noticed in all men of note - Arthur Schopenhauer, Diogenes, etc. - they want to destroy it. They want to make man a slave to society - they want him to be dependent.
As an aside:
In fact, @Heister Eggcart- I have a suggestion for you. Get thee to a psychiatric ward and talk with them for a little. They'll tell you that you are SICK, that you need treatment, that you are on your way to insanity... and why? Because you believe that sex should be avoided. That alone - can you imagine it - that alone is sufficient to qualify you as deranged and in need of therapy.
Can you imagine - literarily ANY great historical figure - going to the psychiatrist and being told they are, well, great? If Socrates went in there, he would've been put on meds and locked up instantly! He is too dangerous to leave outside. As is Jesus. As was Mohammed. As was any great historical figure. Arthur Schopenhauer if he went in there - disaster! Napoleon! Julius Caesar! Beethoven! All of them! They would be relegated to the asylum!
What they consider insanity is part and parcel of greatness. You cannot be great if you are normal. If you are normal, you are mediocre. And so they use normality in order to keep people mediocre. They keep them in check, every time they aim to do something great, they're told they are sick, they require treatment, there's something wrong with them. And every time they do something small and petty, they are told they are great, they are told they are very smart, they are told all the good adjectives one can imagine.
Quoting Wosret
Yes if you don't do social things, you're sick, you're deformed, there's something wrong with you, according to these bastards. Psychotherapy is a lie.
Quoting Wosret
No. It's morality inverted. Morality has some sense for greatness. Psychiatry has none.
Quoting Wosret
Yes - the mechanism to keep man in check.
And you realized all this, plus the fact that progressives are actually Nazis trying to control your thoughts, after you quit seeing psychiatrists and taking your medication?
Kids, take heed. Take your meds and don't skip sessions.
Your sentiments on mental health are revolting to me, so I'm not going to tickle your fancy and indulge in fruitless conversation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I am comparing different mental disorders, and pointing out the fact that because transgenders suffer from some kind of mental disorder, they should be treated as such.
This is my first serious comment here: http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/36002
Quoting VagabondSpectre
We are dealing with a mental disorder, like anorexia. Not Yolanda from yoga lessons.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Let me explain what I mean with the word indulge. Their mental capacity is defective regarding judgements relevant to their own mental disorder. Therefore, another person with good judgement has the right to (and I would even say "ought to") intervene and override some important decisions that the person with mental disorder wishes to make -- a paternalistic approach. Suicide, starvation and surgery that permanently affect your life are what I consider important decisions. Decisions that someone with a mental disorder cannot make and no one should co-operate (i.e. indulge) as if that person has good judgement.
None of this is controversial, since there are already laws in place that override your autonomy. For example, you cannot just go to the surgeon and ask him/her to cut off your legs without any medical reasons. That surgeon has to refuse it by law, if he/she does not that surgeon will risk some serious lawsuits. You can consider those laws as paternalistic, but they are there to protect vulnerable people who are either temporarily or permanently incapable of making good judgements. Interestingly enough, those laws are there even for people who do not suffer from a mental disorder. People who do suffer from a mental disorder have to live an even more restrictive life. It is simply evil to indulge them in their mental disorder.
What I will add is that there is some value in looking into whether transsexuals become happier when they transition. My understanding of the data is that they don't. That is, if we look at transgenders as those having a mismatch between their biological sex and their mentally perceived sex, then it would make sense to correct that problem by (1) changing their bodies (2) changing their minds or (3) having them simply accept the imbalance. If we choose to change their bodies and we end up with someone with all sorts of hormonal imbalances, depression, urological problems, and social interaction problems, it is important to ask ourselves whether our proposed cure is worse than the disease. That is to say, altering a human body in all sorts of ways to make it look like you want in the mirror may not be the way to go if your objective was to reduce the depression and suicidal tendencies. Sure, you have a really interesting looking body, but does it house a happier mind?
I also want to point out that not all transsexuals were born that way. The narrative we all hear of the little boy who always wanted to wear little girls' clothes, to play little girls' games, and to kiss the little boys is the rare exception to the transgender personality. Most transgenders acted like and felt like little boys and then as men up through their 20s, 30s, and even 40s. There is a very significant difference between gay transsexuals and hetero transsexuals, with the latter being considered a fetish because they are sexually aroused at the thought of being a female. That group comprises by far the largest category of transsexual men. In fact, if one looks at the stats, the numbers of M to F and F to M transsexuals are about the same if one discounts heterosexual transsexuals from the mix. Once those are added in, the M to F tremendously outnumbers the F to M. The point here being that transexualism among men cannot just be viewed as a gender identity issue, but it also needs to be looked at as something that is sought by men for sexual arousal. And there is a very dark side to that equation as well, with the feminization process being part of a masochistic expression.
And that's what I wish to add to this discussion. The idea that transsexuals are just women in men's bodies that need to be freed by surgery isn't a terribly accurate statement. The truth is that most transsexuals are men who find sexual arousal by acting and thinking of themselves as women, and the surgery to free them to do this is far from freeing.
Let's take a second then to not just celebrate every difference, but instead to realize the human sexuality is extremely complex and often its expression is evidence of all sorts of deep seated issues. It is possible that there are some transsexuals who are perfectly normal in every way other than their anatomy, but I fear that is the exception.
Blanchard also holds a priori that there are no natal women analogs to autogynephilia because women can't be perverts. Hell of a lot more girl fags than the inverse in reality though... there has to be, as there's overwhelmingly more content aimed at them.
I'm neither a transsexual nor an autogynephile (or crossdreamer) as my good buddy jack calls it. If I have a fetish it's for lesbians and I don't have particularly stereotypical female interests or anything, and came to the conclusion around twelve with puberty.
I'm a bit intimidated by all you experts though... go easy on me.
Just 20 years ago, I'd say just about all the lesbians and bisexuals I knew were crazy in some way or another. If somebody had done some statistical analysis, the conclusion would probably have been some psychobabble. Of course they were crazy. They led crazy lives.
Now it's different. It's more normalized. Because it's easier to live a normal life, there are more homosexuals who aren't nuts. I don't see why the same wouldn't be true of trans people. Is there some stuff that still needs to be worked through? Sure. Why would anybody expect otherwise?
That's my expert opinion. :-}
Learn to write shorter sentences.
Quoting zookeeper
Well yeah, that's actually terrible. These people have written history, not the others. They have driven the progress of the human race, almost single-handedly. Sending them to the asylum is sending the best of the human race away. These people, and others like them, they are great, and should be respected for it. However, the human race does have a tendency to kill the best of its members or otherwise destroy them. It's called jealousy and ressentiment and I think you might just be suffering from it - you and Heister Feister actually, both of you.
Quoting zookeeper
And here he goes again. Here he goes again kids. The same strategy. Discredit your opponent, not by countering his arguments, but by personal attacks and insinuation. "No, he can't be right, he realised it only after stopping his medicine and after he quit seeing psychiatrists, and therefore what he says is wrong because he's mentally ill". That's what you're saying, nothing more, nothing less. So, because someone stops going to the psychiatrist, according to your picayune brain, they are mentally ill. And don't give me some horse manure that this isn't what you're saying, because we both know what your question aims to insinuate. Whereas it is quite clear to anyone with an ounce of human intelligence that the mentally ill are those who DO go to the psychiatrist, and to leave the psychiatrist is actually the first sign of mental well-being, when one no longer needs or requires a crutch, and has willingly and out of his own initiative dropped it. That is in fact a sign of great mental strength, not of weakness. Weakness exists so long as you require a crutch. My life achievements ever since I left the psychiatrist, professionally especially, but also immediately after leaving the psychiatrist, while in University, are proof that I am not, and I was not a mentally ill man. Mental illness - according to my definition, not the crooked psychiatrist definition - is any psychological trouble which stops you from achieving goals. Someone who achieves their goals - that person cannot be mentally ill. They may be evil - like Hitler - or good - like Socrates - but definitely NOT mentally ill.
Quoting zookeeper
I suggest you go back to caring for your zoo, it seems that your intelligence is only sufficient to deal with the animals.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Heister Feister the man who put my name as his favorite philosopher and has had it there for quite some time! The man who always posts in the threads I post, with some snarky comment and an unwillingness to engage in discussion. Does this guy have a crush on me? >:O There's other people in the forums Heister ;)
In other news, I've got to take prednisone for a couple of weeks for a condition that is none of your God damned business (so stop fucking prying). It's like making me sweat and get a little hyped up, sort of like after drinking a bunch of coffee but without the runs. Having no real vices, having this weird buzz is kind of cool, and I can now see why people get hooked on meth. Yep, just a little anti-inflammatory meds and I'm talking about meth.
The point of this is that I now get how people might want to change their reality, either through meds or through the knife. And by "through the knife," I'm talking about having one's gonads lopped off, just so there's no confusion.
I think I'm going to take this energy surge to the gym to get huuuuuuuge.
:-}
Learn to write shorter rants.
Quoting Agustino
You're a character, Agustino. After I realized you're not trolling, now you're just befuddling. I have no idea how you've not said the wrong thing to the wrong person and gotten shot, yet.
Oh yeeees, I'm very scared, especially of you Feister >:O - you're the Cowboy! Find something better to do than making threatening remarks over the internet kiddie. Any loser can do that ;)
You better be, I can be rather liberal at times...
At times? You mean all the time, apart from sex. In that you're not liberal >:O In fact, you're more conservative than me, who would've thought...
Duh! Nah, Utena showed me that I could be, not only the best at this, but be the very definition of it. It doesn't matter what or who I am, it matters what I do.
It's lupus isn't it? it's probably lupus. I like weed a lot, more than I should (if you still do at my age, it means you're a fuck up). Heard on the radio on the way home that they're building an 800 square meter grow op factory in Leduc, biggest and most advanced in the world!
Sorry about your inflammation.
All people talk about is genitals and how grossed out they are about all that when they talk about transgenderism... it's fucking weird, and dehumanizing, you know. It's one of those things that indicates that everything you know about it comes from television and rumor.
No you won't.
Yeah, when a normal (what I call myself) hears about transstuff I think of a hacked up goober. That's not weird, that's normal. That's what transfolks do. I seen the movie.
If you smoke the weed, you are the fuckus upus. I live under the bright sober light of reality 24/7. Know why? Cuz I can deal with whatever shit the good Lord throws at me without needing to sedate. It's red blooded bad assery, something your Canadian ass don't undercomprehend.
Eat that bitch.
No you're right. I want it because I can't deal. You know, the guy sitting at the gates of hell in the depiction of Dante's inferno is incontinent in the Aristotelian sense, of being an addict.
I wouldn't be posting... or talking to anyone at all if I were high though. Forgetting is the most merciful thing in the world. No matter what's been bothering me, what worries or problems I have, I get to just be distracted by idiocy for awhile.
It's difficult being the only sane one in the asylum... I hope you have a good travel agent for the guilt trip you're sending me on!
14" bicep, neck, and calves. They're all supposed to be the same, and the biggest anyone ever had with my wrist size is 16" without PEDs.
How do we treat someone as if they have a mental disorder?
What perscriptions do you offer?
If you catch a man dressing up as a woman, do you have them committed?
Quoting Emptyheady
Anorexia has objectively unhealthy ramifications on physical health, and that's the only reason really you can say that we ought to necessarily intervene in the life of an anorexic individual. But because transgender individuals are not necessarily inflicting any bodily harm upon themselves whatsoever, what necessary right do you have to intervene?
Anorexia is defined as a disorder where people perceive that they are not skinny enough and continue losing weight to the point of risking their nutritional and bodily health. The disorder is only recognizable when people begin to compromise their own health by not eating enough, and we only intervene because they're harming themselves.
At what point does transitioning into the opposite gender become objectively harmful?
When do we get the right to intervene and what exactly gives it to us?
The fact that transgenderism is listed as a mental disorder?
If it was not listed as a disorder in the DSM would we not have the right to intervene?
Quoting Emptyheady
In the 50's our society used this line of reasoning to castrate homosexuals. We thought that since homosexuality was as bad as chopping off limbs and death by starvation, we went to heinous lengths to try and end it.
So when an individual tells their psychiatrist that they want to transition, the psychiatrist should be issuing a hard "no" in every case, right?
Or are you just saying that since transitioning genders is an impactful decision, we should not let anyone make that decision alone?
Quoting Emptyheady
So when doctors perform sex change operations on individuals who have, with outside assistance, decided to transition, they are comitting an evil act?
Clarify what it is you're saying...
Hanover is Mayor of normal town.
Don't feel any guilt though. Watching your failing is one of those divine pains I'm blessed to feel, rising me up to an even more lofted comprehension of the sacred.
By not indulging them in their mental disorder.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
ok
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Depends on the mental condition of that person, but given this context: yes.
Severity plays a role. Putting on different clothes is not an important decision. Surgery is.
Another analogy is how we treat children. A child can not request on his/her own a surgery. The doctor (legally) needs the signature of the parent (or official superior -- the legalities can get immensely complex but you get the point). Why? Because the child is simply mentally incapable to make such important decisions.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Depends on what basis the doctor performs the operation. He has to do so by a decision of a person with good judgement. In this case, not the patient, but a superior (e.g. psychiatrist?).
I'm glad that my influence betters you. That's all that really matters.
Full circle eh?
So for example, not permitting someone to dress as the opposite gender, right? To do so would be indulging them in their mental disorder after all, and we shouldn't do that... Right?
Quoting Emptyheady
If by "indulging the delusion" you mean installing sex-change booths on every corner and handing out pez-hormone dispensers to children, then I really don't know why you bothered to post in this thread in the first place; nobody here is disagreeing with that.
But given that you opened by describing transgendered people as deluded victim trophies of the left, cited raw statistics (a common tactic of the regressive left you seem to know so well) indicating that sexual reassignment surgery is associated with risks such as increased suicidal behavior, and proceeded to equate transsexualism itself with anorexia (beause they're both in the DSM!), mental retardation and suicide, perhaps why you can see why I'm confused as to your actual position.
Quoting Emptyheady
So essentially what you're saying is that sometimes transgenderism, a mental disorder, should be indulged?
Add me to the list
Umm Hanover, are you still taking that Prednisone? 8-)
I am, but it only has immune system suppressant properties and not the hallucinogenic properties needed to motivate my post.
I literally said regarding important decisions and exampled clothing as a not important decision...
Can you read?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
By treating a particular mental disorder like we treat all other mental disorders...
And by the way you misquoted me. I never said "the delusion" but that is fine, just don't moan if I accuse you of straw manning.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
You are referring to this post. Again, I never used the words "deluded" or "regressive left." I do not mind this straw man, but it strongly indicates that you read things between the lines that are not there and it shows how sloppy you are in this conversation. This explains why I have to milk out an obvious uncontroversial point.
Sexual reassignment surgery is not associated with increased suicidal behaviour (or at best there is some weak correlation) -- none of my links show that. It just shows that surgery does next to nothing regarding the attempts of suicides, which further backs my point to not indulge transgenders. Again, it reveals your shoddy reading.
Transgenders are deeply insecure confused. More reasons not to indulge them, because no healthy and good judgement can be based on deep confusion and insecurity. Sometimes it turns out that they were just gay and regret the surgical transition.
Transgederism is more severe than anorexia regarding fatal consequences. So everything I said regarding anorexia is even more true regarding transgenderism.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Mental disorders should never be indulged. I have been clear and consistent in that regard. If you disagree, it is just because you are "confused."
What is your idea of indulging?
I've looked up some data for the Netherlands where there's an increase of deaths compared to the regular population, mostly due to coronary diseases (slightly more suicides and AIDS). Suspected cause is increased stress due to non-acceptance of being openly transgender by their surroundings. So maybe sex change operations aren't working that well because everybody else is being a dick about it. Under that scenario, suicides should drop too if everybody was a bit more tolerant.
http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/36301
As your definition of 'mental disorder' is simply deviation from supposed norms, ie. behaviour that you personally find odd or repugnant, in which you support yourself by cherry picking medical diagnoses that can be twisted to that interpretation, I would suggest that you are the last person on Earth from whom anybody should be taking advice on this matter. You are, frankly, for those of us who suffer from genuine mental illnesses our worst nightmare, a dark spectre that reaches out from the horrors of Bedlam and exorcisms. How dare you pretend that this is somehow a contest of morals with you on the side of the angels, spitting out your 'shoulds' and 'should nots'? I could find a hundred references in your beloved diagnostic works declaring your behaviour and argument in this thread to be mental disorder of the worst kind if I so chose. Why, in your barbarous opinion, should we indulge your disorder?
Harry Hindu asked "Why do we find it okay to tell the religious that they believe in a delusion, but not okay to tell this to a transgender?".
You responded "Because they are a treasure of victim points for the Left. So we must rationalise and intellectualise a case...". So I guess you did actually describe transgender people as deluded by telling Harry that the only reason we don't label them as such is because of rationalization among leftists.
The fact that you "don't mind this strawman" (read: I agree with this position but i didn't actually say that" strongly indicates that I have accurately interpreted and represented your position in this thread.
Quoting Emptyheady
It's just that when you morally approve of allowing someone to dress as the opposite gender you're indulging their mental disorder in the same way that someone who says to an anorexic person "you are right, you are fat, stop eating" is indulging anorexia. Anorexia is the desire to be unhealthily thin (or the belief that they are too fat) , transgenderism is the desire to be the opposite gender (or the belief that they are the wrong gender), and so by your own comparison you're indulging the mental disorder. (BTW, Every time i say "right?" (even when you may have already stated you disagree) is because I'm trotting out the internally contradictory sub-points of your overall position.
Just to be clear, transgenderism/transsexualism is the desire to be the opposite gender. It's not the same as "getting a sex change operation" or even "wanting a sex change operation". SRS is a form of treatment for gender dysphoria/treanssexualism/transgenderism, not the disorder itself. "Indulging" transgenderism includes more than just condoning SRS case by case or at all as a possibly beneficial treatment, which you already seem to have condoned.
Quoting Emptyheady
You realize that we don't treat people with different mental disorders the same way right?
As in, how we treat an anorexic person is different than how we treat say, an autistic person. You know that right? Even people with the same disorder often benefit most from different kinds of "treatment" and being "treated" differently...
Quoting Emptyheady
You're right, I guess you were arguing that since sexual reassignment surgery is not a statistically effective treatment for their disorder, we should not indulge transgenders. Got it. Your first serious post in this thread was to say that we should not indulge transgenders because SRS does not reduce the risk of suicide among transgenders. Isn't that your own shoddy reasoning?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
*sighs*
No, this is the last time I say it: do not straw man. Your reading, reasoning and conversation habits are sloppy.
First, if you reply to something I said, quote it fully and directly, you didn’t and that conveniently missed the point. You are referring to this comment.
I quoted this from Harry Dindu in my comment: “I would like to know how consistent people are in this. Why do we find it okay to tell the religious that they believe in a delusion, but not okay to tell this to a transgender?”
The keyword that I was replying to is the word “consistent” that he used there, which you left out for whatever sloppy reason.
My (cheeky) reply is an explanation for this inconsistency that Harry Dindu pointed out. Whether transgender people actually suffer from delusions is not even the point (or relevant).
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Do you actually know what a straw man is? It is mispresenting someone’s view. You are mispresenting my view – I do not mind it because it is a meaningless point. It is like claiming that I hate olives. I love them, but I do not mind the straw man. Note that I still consider it a straw man.
To be clear, I do not think that transgender people necessarily suffer from delusions, because you can have mental disorders without suffering from delusions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quoting VagabondSpectre
What did I say regarding important decisions? You used the word “impactful”. I thought me made progress in this conversation.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
And you realise that I already pointed that out, right? We treat them as if they have a mental disorder, but take different actions regarding their specific disorder, diagnosed and judged by a professional. We never indulge them in their mental disorder.
(I do this by memory for the moment)
Yes chicks with dicks is a fetish. Most fetishes are often directed to males, rather than females. This is basic marketing, because the male fetish market is much larger. The evolutionary psychophysical explanation for this regard the differences of sexual strategies between the genders. Male sexual strategy puts the emphasis on quantity and female sexual strategy puts the emphasis on quality. Males often seek to have sex with as many fertile women as possible.
There was a scientific experiment where attractive actors asked strangers on campus to have casual sex with them. Attractive women almost always got the positive answer, whereas attractive men got none.
The male sexual drive for particular niches (i.e. fetishes) changes from time to time. They get quickly bored so-to-say. I also read a scientific paper which stated that women find familiarity attractive, while men seek novelty regarding physical appearances. Women try to play this by changing their appearances occasionally to keep their partners attracted. See the fashion industry regarding clothes, make-up, hair colour and compare that to the fashion of men which is less diverse.
I never understood fetishes but I think it is part of an evolutionary adaptation. Human Nature is truly complex.
I've got a backlog of reading on hand, but I think I'll make room for her book. This should be a very interesting read for partisans on either side in this thread.
The issue is what I perceive your statement "we should not indulge transgender people" to mean.
The way I have previously interpreted this is: we should not allow transgender people to indulge their desire to be the opposite gender; we should not allow them to transition. Your comparisons of transgenderism to anorexia and suicide are in part what gave me this impression. Telling an anorexic person to "not eat" (indulging their mental disorder) would be directly analogous to telling a transgender person to "transition".
But if all you ever meant by we should not indulge them; treat it as a mental disorder, is that: we should let people live how they choose (I'm extrapolating this from your lack of condemnation of cross-dressing) and when it comes to surgery/hormones we should assist them in medically transitioning if whichever relevant authority deems it an appropriate form of treatment, then I would say we have no remaining relevant disagreement.
The latter one, without nit-picking your phrasing.
I want to put some emphasis on what I said here:
I quoted your question: "So when doctors perform sex change operations on individuals who have, with outside assistance, decided to transition, they are comitting an evil act?"
I answered as followed:
"Depends on what basis the doctor performs the operation. He has to do so by a decision of a person with good judgement. In this case, not the patient, but a superior (e.g. psychiatrist?). "
To be clear, we should also be able to override some important decisions the person wishes to make. In practice this means that we should be able to reject surgery based on better judgement. This is basically what it means 'to not indulge'.
Unless a clinic is operating a surgery mill (which is possible, of course, even if unlikely) the transgender patient has four hurdles to leap before the process is complete. People don't just waltz into a surgeon's office and schedule some slicing and dicing.
1. Personality stability
Potentials don't need to be paragons of conventional life, but they need to have dealt with alcohol/drug addictions, for instance, and be well into recovery. The can't present with major mental illnesses and proceed forward. They need to present a cogent case for their desired transition.
2. Hormone therapy
Patients usually complete at least a year of hormone therapy (which continues for life) before surgery can be considered. For M ---> F transexuals, this means taking estrogen, F ---> M, testosterone. Over time significant physical changes occur; breasts develop, fat distribution changes, to some extent, (I don't know how much--probably varies from person to person) changes in sensuality. For F ---> M, hair starts to grow, they develop a beard, fat distribution changes, musculature may change noticeably (depending on age, fitness activity, etc.).
3. Wardrobe and grooming changes - Transgenders begin to publicly present as the sex opposite their chromosomal, birth, and anatomical sex. Learning to do this well takes time, and money.
4. Finally, if all has gone well, if the patient wishes and if the patient is a good candidate for surgery (in terms of overall health) surgical changes in organs are made. For M ---> F surgery means removal of the testicles, construction of a vaginal pouch and labia, re-arranging the urethra, and if possible, preserving the nerves serving the glans. For F ---> M, it means a hysterectomy, construction of a penis and scrotum (plastic testicles are available, sized in just pitiful to ox-balls), re-routing of the urethra, and preservation of clitoral nerves, if possible.
There are risks, of course, like infection following surgery is a possibility. Undesirable side effects of estrogen and testosterone therapy. Various difficulties in adjusting to new roles.
Often, transgenders have experienced a lot of personal turmoil related to their sexual identity issues. Quite a few will have become alcoholic or drug addicted before finally dealing with identity issues. They may have poor employment histories. They may have experienced a great deal of familial or peer hostility.
Transgender therapy may help a great deal, but it can't erase a long troubled history, (This is true for anybody who seeks psychotherapy.) So, we find that things don't always work out well.
Quoting Agustino
Do you mean "should be" not "is" or that you can't distinguish between the two concepts?
If the former, why?
I don't have an answer to that (and I doubt the answers others provided). It's like asking me why I believe there's other minds. It's self-evident to me. This world doesn't have to fit to the whimsical nature of man, rather man must fit to the world.
I would have raised this matter with the managers of this forum without registering myself, but there seems to be no way to do that. So I've done it this way. I think it's very unlikely that I'll be adding anything else. I have written about what it's like to be transgender, so perhaps you could look out that article (Being transgender and transgender being) before you impose your stupid and reprehensible opinions on any other transgender people?
In the mean time, behind the veil of anonymity that nearly all of you have bravely chosen to adopt, you can all feel very proud of yourselves for making someone's day.
You claim to have read the entire thread (which I don't believe), and you claim all of our opinions are horrible, but you haven't actually said anything or addressed anyone. Your comment reads as: maybe you should read my article before you prurient speculators force your stupid and reprehensible opinions on other people. Why do we need to read your article? Are you the central authority on transgenders?
Since you've not differentiated between any contributors to this thread, please tell me which aspects of my contributions were in anyway less than accurate or offensive.
Well, the original post is a response/reaction to Sophie's [s]article[/s] talk. Obviously you don't need to read it to address the general issue of gender identity, but her comment above is justified in context.
The original post brings her up but fails to actually link an article or explore it. You can say her post is perhaps justifiably directed at Interpersona, who reacted to "a talk" of hers without adequately addressing her ideas, but all I've really done in this thread is defend transgenderism from attempts at moral condemnation.
I don't need to read anyone's article to criticize the ideas Interpersona raised...
I hope she decides to stay long enough to explain to me how the thousands of words I've written in this thread in defense of transgenderism is really just prurient speculation and argumentative trollishness unleavened by basic facts or empathy.
I for one feel entirely unvictimized. A much better tune.
How dare you marginalize my lived experiences!?
Heh... All I really want is for the ad-hom laden contrarians of the world to at least try to put some substance into the mud they sling...
Is that really such a lofty expectation?
You want them to add some rocks to the mud, eh? I prefer flung projectiles coming at me to lack substance, personally. They don't hurt nearly as badly.
Bud Light brand loses billions in value due to simple acknowledgment to transgender person.
And it seems that “Budlighting” is the new “gaslighting” or something…
Target hit with anti-transgender “protest”
:up:
This thread is an embarrassment. Happily, we've moved on and had much more intelligent conversations as of late.