Josh F

My girlfriend's sister has two kids, twin boys. They're turning 12 soon and she asked everyone in the family to write them a letter. She created this kind of initiation ceremony, not religious, just based on her family. I think it is really clever and reflected a video I watched recently. The idea was that there is a value to initiation ceremonies, things like Bar Mitzvahs, outside of their religious context. And that through initiation, kids feel a sense of pride and accomplishment in their transition from childhood to adulthood. The idea, in this case, is that the family sends them letters with fond memories, advice, praise, etc. as they go to the next level of their education. I was raised Jewish (barely) and one of the few times I can remember my Dad giving me a heartfelt compliment was during my whatever-you-call-it ceremony at my bar mitzvah. I also remember as a kid turning 10 years old, I got a sit down and told that I had a list of new responsibilities and a list of new freedoms, amongst them was to ride my bike around the neighborhood unsupervised. Historically, the majority of cultures have ceremonies which initiate a kid into adulthood. What do you guys think? Any value to this?

The website might be a bit better starting point: https://www.ethereum.org The idea is a bitcoin style blockchain with a full touring operating language built into it, so the blockchain can gain access to cloud processing and storage for decentralized apps. Its a much simpler platform than bitcoin for projects like namecoin or color coin or even dropbox.

I think it self detonates. You can't steal without accepting that property rights are valid, so how can someone steal from the commons?

I'm not an advocate of this argument, but I think the more nuanced argument is based on history. They might argue that the idea of property rights correlated with the rise of agriculture, and that these agricultural societies produced the first modern states. More abstractly, private property, as a claim of ownership, requires violence to defend those asserted rights. If I claim a piece of property I am taking it out of the commons, and in order to maintain that exclusive claim I have to defend it against other claimants. Thus their argument that private property is violence.

$28,000 a year?

Right. That was a typo, instead of 'like' I meant 'light'. The Irony is more than just annoying, its a kind of proof that 'privilege' emerges within any group and isn't limited to white men.

I think he did a TED talk explaining it on youtube

For 'DRO' type applications, keep your eye on Etherium.

Yeah I've seen some of that stuff. My understanding is that LGBT is especially like on the 'T' as well.

My goal in this conversation is not to make anyone do anything, only to explain Queer Theory to anyone interested in understanding it. I'm not offended by anything anyone has said in this topic and in general I think these topics deserve a chance to be discussed without jumping down someone's throat throwing around accusations. After all this no one is closer to understanding how I feel. I don't feel like Kevin is normally an unempathetic or bigoted person and would continue to give him the benefit of the doubt. I think that once he actually engages and tries to understand this topic he'll stop calling transgender a disease, which doesn't even match its medical classification which is a "disorder." I already conceded that there is an argument to be made that transgender identity is delusional since it is an identity which does not appear to conform with physical reality. More importantly, I think given the chance I could articulate a compelling argument for why gender is based on cultural norms and how those cultural norms effect people who are transgendered. So yes, and thank you, normally RTR would be a great way to hash out those problems. However, I am apparently a manipulator and can't be trusted to engage. Meanwhile our conversations are going past each other. I mean literally, in the case of Kevin, he is speaking for me and arguing against his own misquotes. Its completely unproductive and hostile and I have zero patience for it. I'm very happy, however, to continue this conversation with anyone willing to discuss it. Also, there are many sources you can find online of transgendered people and scientists and doctors debating the validity of the DSM's classification as an identity disorder. There don't appear to be any scientists calling it a disease that I could find, but several who consider it an identity disorder and several who do not. I'm not speaking for anyone.

This is not a mythology, nor have you proven it to be one. I addressed your argument about it being a disease. I broke down all the definitions of disease and addressed each one. I even wikipedia'd the definition of disease so I could see if it measured up to your assessment. All ignored. I sincerely encourage you to read this topic again, because your assessment of our conversation is delusional. My rule for bigotry is not that you have to respond to me, but that you have to refine your presumptions in light of a better argument. You're categorizing human behavior as a disease, admit to not being qualified to make that call, offer no definition of disease, nor have you defended your argument against any definition of disease. And also, I did concede that transgender DOES qualify as a disease based exclusively on its most vague definition. My point was that this definition equally applies to Atheists, Anarchists, Homosexuals, etc. I also wish you'd take a tiny percentage of your own advice. You've argued I'm manipulative and my ideas are stupid and mythological, and if you believed that you would have stop engaging me a long time ago. There isn't an argument you've made I haven't refuted, but the opposite is not true. There are a pile of arguments and questions you've ignore. And this is my final post to you in this regard, since I don't think engaging someone's strawmans and delusions is productive, but I felt inclined to defend myself against your accusations and mischaracterizations.

I don't think you're being genuine, and that your entire strategy is to press me to admit to insulting you when you've already insulted my entire position and character in your first post. If you have a standard against insulting people, then you're being a hypocrite. If you insist on calling these ideas stupid, and consider the people we're talking about diseased, while remaining unwilling to engage any points on the topic you're bigoted by definition. You're someone who is intolerant of someone else's ideas. I had only assumed, from prior conversations, that you were genuinely interested in learning about the topic and genuinely empathetic. "Putting people in labels like "cisgender" or a homosexual woman in a man's body and all of these frankly stupid categorizations is convenient for people who want to manipulate you through language." "In fact, I find it really irritating and I think it gets in the way of me empathizing with people who have had to deal with these issues." This is kind of the point right. You sound like a bigot, but claim to have empathy. Yet, you've already admitted that your bigotry (your intolerance of these ideas) makes empathizing difficult for you. Why do you need me to call you a bigot, when you've admitted to being one? I mean if I can take anything away from this is that its better not to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not a bigot, and just take your word on the topic. You think transgender is a disease. You think people who attempt to normalize it are manipulators. You think that Queer Theory is stupid. You struggle to empathize with transgendered people. And you're unwilling to discuss a single point raised on the topic. Text book bigot.

I think I was extremely clear. I don't think your intentions are to be bigoted and thats why I am having this conversation. But lets get into it. You've called my perspective stupid and accused me of being a manipulator. Do you think I am stupid or I am trying to manipulate you?

No. Explaining to someone who doesn't understand that "nigger" might be offensive isn't the same thing as accusing them of bigotry. I am explaining why describing transgendered as a disease is bigoted. If you continue repeating that transgendered is a type of disease without countering those points then I'd say that fits the exact definition of bigoted. And so thats what queer theory is about: challenging cultural norms. Cultural norms are not objective truths. I don't know how to frame an argument that traditional male/female gender roles are right, truthful, objective, better, inherently healthier, etc. I don't know what is objective about one gender wearing makeup and another gender lifting weights. Why challenge cultural norms? Because cultural norms are what produce bigotries, and bigotries result in shame and violence.

I don't know why you think you're being accused of bigotry. I'm not sure where you're expressing the empathy you feel, as you haven't asked questions or made an attempt here to gain a better understanding. The topic of the thread is why terms like cisgender and transgender exist, or in a broader sense what queer theory means. The entire point is to normalize gender roles, the argument being that classifying them as tragic conditions, diseases, abnormal, etc. is what causes the majority of the bigotry. You also accused people who use terms like cisgender as manipulating someone through language. You call the terms "frankly stupid" and you feel like people who use them are "making you the enemy." This is the argument for queer theory, terms like normal (or disease) are ways of manipulating someone through language. These vague terms have been used in very real and violent ways to make enemies out of abnormal people. The bigotry, in addition to the difficulties of coming to grips with your gender, comes from being different. 'Different' is the origin of the word Queer and the concept of Queer Theory. The theory that "norms" are cultural and dangerous. And really, comparing trans and cis gender to terms like diseased or tragedy... which is more accurate and which is more broad? Which comes with piles of implications and baggage? Which comes with a history of bigotry?

Well now we're getting into it, excellent points and thank you. I agree, in general, with all your points here with maybe a slight rewording. 1. Your gender identity is subjective, 2. There is no reason to be hostile or bigoted towards someone for their gender. To point 3, this applies to more than gender, as no one ever has to justify any choice they make which does not violate the NAP. The origins of a gender identity are complex. Amongst them are biological factors, including your sex (male, female, hermaphrodite or intersexed), your brain chemistry, your hormones, birth defects, etc. Additionally environmental factors, such as traumatic brain injuries, botched circumcisions, sexual or physical abuse. And lastly, cultural factors, like how gender rolls are defined, which vary throughout cultures and time. These observable (scientific) phenomenon can all contribute towards the determination of one's gender: including the one you submitted Paragon Male. To your last point, many supporters of queer theory might, for example, dismiss you as being a privileged heterosexual man. I disagree with this practice and think it could use serious consideration. I can understand how Queer Theory has been coopted by political ideologues and non-philosphical rhetoric, not unlike the Tea Party for example. There are many people, however, who do not share these radicalized perspectives. I've recently moved and for whatever reason a majority of my new friends so far have been gay. Its been enlightening studying this subject and discussing these issues with them honestly, because these particular people are not from some lefty American University and haven't been politicized/brainwashed into the whole Social Justice Warrior paradigm. In fact, you would have loved this, two gay friends from S America and I were in an argument with an American "queer" woman (experimentally bisexual). Very much your typical Social Justice Warrior LGBT Feminist, still in college. And it was great to see these two gay guys disagreeing with her on almost every single point she made about the idea of privilege and special laws "protecting" people.

Talk about reaping what you sow.

I was once walking into work and right outside I saw this woman kissing her little dressed up doggy on the lips and talking to it like a human being. My stomach churned. Meanwhile I am pretty affectionate and loving of animals, especially my own, but the idea that animals come before the humans you love? Blech!

The description is fine, but the second part about the type of people you don't have patience for doesn't have anything to do with Gender since thats not your identity. Are you implying you want a male sexual partner with a similar idea of masculinity as you described, or this is a requirement for friendship? There are certainly people who say they're in the wrong sexed body, which is transgendered. I was explaining that in gender terms it isn't dichotomous, there are other gender categories, bleed over, degrees, etc. For example, a cross dresser might adopt both gender rolls at different times. There are androgynous people who tend not to adopt any gender roles. This is part of the spectrum of gender identity that comprises transgender, included is transsexual's who have used modern science to change their bodies. Now, the question of health. This is very important. The history of identifying people as having a disease or unhealthy mind because they don't conform to social norms is extremely violent and disturbing. Homosexuality, for example, was considered a disease up until the 1970s. In 1973, the DSM removed homosexuality as a disease. I think classifying it as a disease places it somewhere between Gambling Addiction and Schizophrenia, and thats so broad as to be irrelevant except to say it is abnormal and dangerous. By irrelevant, I mean the category is not based on observations about their biology, but just their statistic rarity. Anarchist and Atheists would match the definition of abnormal identity as well. To answer your last point, wondering how it helps to normalize transgendered people it is simple. They face a large amount of discrimination, dehumanization, physical violence, and abuse. Their gender does not make them inherently dangerous. This abuse has consequences, as you know, in their adult functionality. Currently, they're more prone to lives of violence, prostitution, drug addiction, etc., than almost any other group. Also, MMX I want to add this thought. I think it would be great to include masculine gender ideas into the Queer Theory model, because not all ideas of masculinity are the same. Paragon masculinity is a welcomed addition in my view (based on your first paragraph describing it). And this speaks to Kevin's point earlier about concepts like cis-privilege. I hate the idea of describing privilege like they do in Social Justice type settings, where its treated like handicapping in golf: where if I get the ball in the little hole 5 swings after Tiger Woods I'm considered to have beat Tiger Woods because he has a handicap. (You can tell I dont play much golf)

The sad reality of the world is that the places with the worst weather have the best people/governments, and the places with the nice tropical beaches tend to be corrupt as shit.

The idea being expressed in Queer Theory is that there is no such thing as a "normal" brain or identity, only a "popular" or "common" identity. Saying it is a disease to have a certain type of brain would be pretty offensive applied to anyone else (except addicts, they seem to love thinking they have a disease). But being offensive doesn't make it true or false, so how can we determine if that is true? Firstly, the term disease is extremely broad. We can say it certainly isn't a byproduct of some external germ like having a flu so the most straight forward definition is out. The other definition, where it gets broad enough to define gambling as a disease, is the next place. It is said to be a disease if it causes pain, distress, anxiety, to yourself or others. Wiki says "In humans, "disease" is often used more broadly to refer to any condition that causes pain,dysfunction, distress, social problems, or death to the person afflicted, or similar problems for those in contact with the person." Then yes, by that definition it is a disease. And so is anarchism, defooing, and telling the truth as they can all create social problems or distress for the person doing it or those in contact with the person. So lets just say that any logic like this used to diminish the argument for gender theory equally applies to any and all ideas in contrast with "normal" society. The last definition is the most broad, "In this broader sense, it sometimes includes injuries, disabilities, disorders, syndromes, infections, isolated symptoms, deviant behaviors, and atypical variations of structure and function." So again, in that model anarchist, homosexuals, jews, they're all a disease. They're either deviant or atypical. Transgender means a gender which does not conform to the persons biological sex. Cisgendered means it does conform. The reason for those terms is to undermine the "implications" you mentioned, which are based on an assumption that cisgendered is normal and transgendered is abnormal. This is the entire point of Queer Theory, that there is no such standard called "normal identity." They also don't make it dichotomous, it isn't transgendered or cisgendered, but a wide array of genders from pangendered to third gender, etc. In several other cultures, they have completely different gender norms. There is one offshoot islamic culture, I'll find the name if you're interested, which presumes there are 5 genders. Gender is a subjective thing, and it may or may not be motivated by biological or environmental factors variably. So lets do a thought experiment for a second. Imagine you don't live in the West, but instead you live in Thailand. In Thailand being transgendered does not come with any label of "identity issues" or "disease" and transgendered people are more common. Similarly, in ancient greek society there was a lot more homosexuality. These behaviors and identities are reinforced through cultural norms, not biological realities. Transgendered people exist everywhere, throughout history. (Just a little addon, I think a term like diseased might not be as appropriate. If it is about identity conforming to objective reality, the argument might be that being transgendered is delusional, in that the identity doesn't conform to the objective reality of their sex, assuming they're born male or female.)

Again, since you seem comfortable repeating points again and again: transgender is not a "medical" reality. Thats an argument you made up. And yes, if you started to wear a dress and put on makeup you would be transgender, absolutely. Thats what it means. I very clearly reject 1 and 2. Transgender is not a "medical" reality, nor does anyone need their feelings confirmed through a brainscan. The later point being quite unphilosophical, since no one NEED do anything to prove anything about themselves to someone else. Being born physically with both sexes is called a hermaphordite or intersexed (since the prior might sound offensive to some). Did you at all understand or even read anything else I wrote? I feel like it clearly refuted all your points articulately, and yet you just keep repeating them and not addressing the challenges. This is not how philosophy works. No comment on the white guy "acting black" metaphor, or any other point. Just repeat and repeat... thats tautology not philosophy. And yes, obviously it is subjective, one can not have an objective identity.

It is empirical. They exist and they can be observed. They are not a "medical" reality, but they are quite real and observable unlike a dream. You're continuing repeatedly to conflate biology with behavior. Let me break down to actual argument in gender theory so you can understand it better, instead of this strawman you keep spamming. The argument is that gender and sex are separate. Sex is biological, gender is not. Gender describes a person's behavioral characteristics within a paradigm of masculine/feminine. Sec is about the biological characteristics of a person within a paradigm of male/female. Gender is social and cultural, sex is biological. How a culture defines masculine or feminine varies widely. Some cultures even place gender into other paradigms. Queer theory wishes to challenge our preconceptions about gender roles, not undermine the scientific reality of X and Y chromosomes. So lets make an example. You're born as a white person, biologically you're white. Can you "act black" by listening to hiphop or dressing and speaking a certain way? Does "acting black" mean something completely different in Kenya than it does in Brooklyn? Does "acting black" mean you ARE black? Does someone "acting black" need to have their skin color tested so they can "confirm their feelings?"

This is super simple, A is wrong. Being transgender is about identity, even if it has biological or environmental influences. B is also wrong because not only can a brain scan not give you that information, but that why would someone "need" the brainscan? I was abused as a child, apparently that can show up in brainscans, do I NEED a brainscan to confirm my feelings? shit couldnt resist

Do you think there is value in upholding cultural norms? Do you think there is value in dispelling cultural norms? I hate the use of the term privilege anything. Thats clearly apart of the Social Justice Warrior's rhetorical tool bag. I can't disagree with your argument that that specific term and its use is designed to dismiss and ostracize people, but the term cisgendered is interesting. I was originally hostile towards it, I guess I felt like it placed me into some kind of box and inherently from that box I am incapable of understanding or having an opinion on whats going on in those other boxes. But lets take the goal and the strategy and hold it up to the goals and strategies here. Society has normalized violence through euphemism. Through ending the euphemism and calling things how they are, we hope to enlighten people to the realities of the experience. Taxes are theft. Spanking is abuse. Government is violence. Similarly, queer theorists hope to end the normalizing euphemisms around sexuality, with the goal of reducing bigotry and discrimination. Its not "transgendered and normal" its "transgendered and cisgendered." What other word is there for someone whose gender is in alignment with their sexuality? What does it hurt? Isn't it a quite valid conceptual categorization? Like imagine the opposite of anarchist was just called normal. Surely you'd want to create a word like "statist." There is so much that could unite the Queer Theory/Gay Movement with Libertarian Anarchism. In general, they promote self knowledge, therapy, peaceful parenting, and they work to reduce violence, ignorance, bigotry, etc. They're battles are often against the state (the gay rights movement began with transgendered, gay and lesbian people fighting cops who were raiding their bar in New York called the Stonewall Inn). In their own terms, they talk about things like RTR in families, and peaceful parenting so that children can feel safe "coming out of the closet" to their parents. They also have a strong history of deFOO if the parental relationship is bad, and as a community are extremely helpful to one another (on a level this website isn't even close to yet). The SJW's, like white college students in the 70s who claimed to be "active anti-racists" and joined the Black Panthers, are just middle class intellectuals co-opting a movement. Its akin to Sarah Palin and the Tea Party. We can probably agree all day that SJW's are annoying and wrong. I just don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water.