MMX2010

When MMX2010 wears a dress, that's NOT transgender. When some individuals in this thread wear a dress, that IS transgender. I don't say that to be crass, but to assert that there is neither: (A) a consistently observed single-behavior, nor (B) a consistently observed cluster of behaviors which are present in transgender individuals, but absent in non-transgender individuals. Hence, transgender (as a phenomenon) is never directly observable. What is observable are people who believe themselves to be transgender. No. I'm arguing that it's philosophically inconsistent to simultaneously argue, "Transgender is a medical reality." and "No transgender individual needs to confirm their transgenderism with a medical diagnosis." That's all. Anyone can untangle that philosophical contradiction by accepting "one" or "the other" - but not both simultaneously. Once you assert which of these you accept, I can outline the philosophical implications of choosing that argument. (And I can also speculate why it's important for pro-transgender individuals to maintain belief in those two contradictory positions.) -------------------------- It's like this. Step One: Point out philosophical inconsistencies within a social movement. Step Two: Invite people to rationally and calmly discuss those philosophical inconsistencies. Step Three: The larger percentage of people who CAN NOT handle such a discussion without losing their temper and/or advancing blatant double-standards, the lower the number I assign to the "Philosophical Consistency" score.

In the "Introduction to Philosophy" series, Stefan spends about fifteen minutes discussing the statement, "I had a dream about a sparrow last night." He argues that such a statement can never be TRUE, because it cannot be verified with empirical evidence. If you state that "Transgender is about identity", then you're equating transgender to "I had a dream about a sparrow last night." You're comparing "being abused as a child" (NOT a medical reality) to "transgender" (which some people argue is a medical reality). That comparison is invalid. The facts of your participation in this thread are as follows: (1) Your first post in this thread strongly implied that no-less-than-THREE FDR staff members missed my "abusive behavior" towards transgender and transgender supporters. (2) My very next post, addressed to Rainbow Jamz, explained what I believe is a very large philosophical contradiction in the pro-transgender perspective. (3) Your post to me, immediately afterwards, ignored my post to Rainbow Jamz and asked me about my "motive". Meanwhile, I already answered questions about my "motive", and my "motive" is irrelevant to the discussion of transgender. (4) Ever since then, I've been trying to re-direct you to my post to Rainbow Jamz. And every time I've done so, you've ignored it. First, I asked you whether anything in that post was non-factual. (You ignored that.) Second, I asked you whether you think there's a philosophical contradiction within the pro-transgender position. (You ignored that, too.) So it's not-at-all factual for you to say, "I'm not avoiding anything." And it's arguable that your unwillingness to address the presence (or absence) of a philosophical disconnect in the pro-transgender perspective is WHY you don't understand "how" I discern philosophical inconsistencies in anti-racism, anti-misogynist, anti-homophobic, and anti-transphobic arguments.

I don't have any experience with your situation, so I cannot help you. I will only say that I'm sorry you're in this situation, and that I wish you courage.

(1) Because the topic is NOT "Does anyone have knowledge about how MMX2010 formulates conclusions about racism, sexism, homosexuality, and transgender?", it's "Does anyone have knowledge of transgender?" (2) Because the question you're avoiding, "Does a large philosophical contradiction exist while simultaneously arguing: (A) Transgender is a medical reality and (B) No transgender individual needs to have his/her transgender feelings confirmed by a brain scan?" is much more relevant to the topic. Would you like to answer my question now - or is it somehow "good" for you to ignore questions, but "bad" for me to ignore questions?

I don't know why you're curious about the calibrations of the ratings scale, but aren't curious at all about my post describing the philosophical contradiction between simultaneously arguing: (1) "Transgender is a medical reality." and (2) "No transgender individual needs to have his/her transgender feelings confirmed by a brain scan." Do you think there's a large philosophical contradiction between those two positions?

I never represented my scale as scientific. Quoting myself directly, "Their complaints [referring to the pro-Black, anti-racism movement] are reasonable and scientifically-supported, but their solutions have been hit-or-miss." (Not a declaration that my scale is scientific.) Quoting myself again, "Their complaints [referring to the pro-gay, anti-homophobic movement] are mostly reasonable, and mostly scientifically-supported. I, personally, have zero problems with gay marriage - but I'm absolutely not sold on gay parenting." (Not a declaration that my scale is scientific.)

Before I answer this question, I'll ask you a question: Did you find anything in my post which begins, non-factual? ---------------------------

I've already answered that question. Page Three, approximately two-thirds down. ========================= I was born in 1976 and graduated high school in 1994. I was third in my class of over 600 people, and attended public school in a middle-class, highly-liberal state. In my lifetime, FOUR major social movements have ascended, all of which followed the following structure: "We are an oppressed minority. Society-as-a-whole, (not just-us), would be better if we weren't oppressed. Be careful, though, because our oppressors profit greatly from our oppression - so you shouldn't expect them to just agree with us. After they resist our pleas over a sufficient period of time, you can just ignore and dismiss them." Those four social movements are, IN ORDER: (1) pro-Black, anti-racism, (2) pro-women, non-misogynistic, (3) pro-gay/lesbian, anti-homophobic, (4) pro-transgender, anti-transphobic. Each of these movements can be evaluated (on a 1=bad, 10=good scale) with regard to two aspects: Philosophical Integrity and Solutions Integrity. ----------------------- (1) The pro-Black, anti-racism movement scores 8 on the Philosophical Integrity scale, and a 6 on the Solutions Integrity scale. Their complaints are reasonable and scientifically-supported, but their solutions have been hit-or-miss. (One wonders whether the government-backed nature of their solutions causes the problems.) (2) The pro-women, anti-misogyny scale scores 2 on the Philosophical Integrity scale, and a 1 on the Solutions Integrity scale. Feminism as a philosophy is almost completely wrong, to the point where you can replace "women" with "men" and achieve a much more accurate assessment. (Thus, when feminists say "Women's bodies are collectivized!", you should assume that "Men's bodies are collectivized.") And its solutions are, not-surprisingly, damaging to everyone. (3) The pro-gay/lesbian movement scores a 6 on the Philosophical Integrity scale, and a 5 on the Solutions Integrity scale. Their complaints are mostly reasonable, and mostly scientifically-supported. I, personally, have zero problems with gay marriage - but I'm absolutely not sold on gay parenting. I would much prefer a "trial experimental period" of fifty years, wherein the US is divided into "states that allow gay parenting" and "states that don't". But I'm only being offered, "If you don't accept gay parenting, everywhere, you're a homophobe!" (4) The pro-transgender, anti-transphobia movement gets a ??? on the Philosophical Integrity scale, and a ??? on the Solutions Integrity scale. You're simply too new to the party to determine your grade. NOW, the absolute most important thing to realize is that the "social movement" structures I described can produce the mostly-good movement called "pro-Black / anti-racism" OR the utterly destructive, philosophically-bankrupt movement called "pro-women / anti-misogyny". Consequently, I'm not impressed with complaints of discrimination and oppression, but instead with scientific-evidence acquired under maximum skepticism. (Scientific-evidence acquired under minimum skepticism is practically useless.)

I can tie in the South Park episode without extensively mentioning its plot elements. iHuman is one of many posters in this thread who've declared that transgender is a medical reality because of Brain Scans. To declare that transgender is a medical reality is to declare that it's exactly like elevated blood pressure and low testosterone. If I wake up tomorrow and declare, "I feel like I have elevated blood pressure and low testosterone...", the ONLY way to confirm my feelings is to go to the doctor. If a doctor declares that I have elevated blood pressure, then I have elevated blood pressure. If a doctor declares that my T-levels are normal, then my T-levels are normal. In this video, Rob the transgender, never mentioned "brain scans" nor "doctor's visit". In page one of this thread, you can do "search -> find" for the word "brain". And it comes up four times, but never in the context of, "I went to my doctor, who did a brain scan and confirmed that I'm transgender." (Instead, it came up in medical studies of transgender individuals.) In page two of this thread, you can do "search -> find" for the word "brain". And if comes up fifty times, but never in the context of, "I went to my doctor, who did a brain scan and confirmed that I'm transgender." In page three of this thread, the word "brain" comes up over 100 times! But, again, never in the context of, "I went to my doctor, who did a brain scan and confirmed that I'm transgender." In page four of this thread, the word "brain" comes up 17 times. But, again, never in the context of, "I went to my doctor, who did a brain scan and confirmed that I'm transgender." -------------------- So the glaring inconsistency is this: On the one hand, transgender individuals and transgender-supporters loudly declare that transgender is a medical reality. But on the other hand, transgender individuals NEVER say, "I didn't want to declare myself transgender, but once I went to my doctor and heard his opinion on my brain scan, I knew I was transgender." Also, on the other hand, I suspect that they'll be extremely hostile to anyone who says, "I refuse to believe your declaration that you're transgender until you provide me with a doctor's note confirming it." (In the South Park episode, neither "Erica" nor "Wendell" used a doctor's note to declare themselves transgender. They just declared that they were, and used social pressure to get everyone else to believe them.)

The most recent episode of South Park - (Season 18, Episode 3) - "Cissy" - discussed transgenderism. www.comedycentral.com (Click on link to Full Episodes).

I have a different reaction, ETU. Either: (1) Both male teenagers and female teenagers ought to be considered immature because they're not "developed enough" to consent to sex. (2) Both male teenagers and female teenagers ought to be considered mature because they're "developed enough" to consent to sex. In the first scenario, both male adults and female adults would be considered predatory. But in the second scenario, both male teenagers and female teenagers would be considered "lucky" to be banging "hot" members of the opposite sex. Right now, I don't like the "not sufficiently developed" argument, because the brain only fully develops at age 25 - which would mean that 25 should be the minimum legal age for any individual to consent to sex. However, if you object that "development doesn't mean brain development; it means something else" - then the most obvious "something else" that would mean is "physical development". In which case, anyone who has gone through puberty is "developed enough" to consent to sex. And this leads to the bone-chilling conclusion that an eleven year old male/female with "hair down there" (sorry to be so crass) ought to be legally able to consent to sex. Overall, I don't know what the answer is. But I do know that our current answers ain't based on anything logical or scientifically-supported.

Thanks for this post, Josh. Cleared up a lot of annoyance for me.

If your mother has always frightened you, then your father had a duty to protect you from your mother's frightening aspects. Your mother also had a duty to protect you from what you described here: "Basically, my dad is an imbecile whose idea of quality time when I was little, was to constantly invade my space, bother me, and basically be the equivalent of a little kid poking an animal with a stick."

"The real sexists and racists benefits most whenever conversations about sexism and racism get shut down." - FDR 2810

Stef recently told a female caller that it's wrong for her to seek out men based on her unprocessed childhood disappointments. So I know he feels (and I agree with him) that it's wrong for us to choose women that way. We can't place women in the leadership / empathy role just because our mothers didn't love us enough.

This is still my favorite Stefan podcast. It was one of the first five (or maybe even three) podcasts of his I've ever listened to. And it (probably) relates to your mother's answer.

I don't know whether you think of yourself as a tough person, but I think anyone who kicks an addiction habit is tough as nails. And it makes me want to be tougher in my own life. Have you heard this podcast?

If this is truly the first time you're discussing the most cynical aspects of the Manosphere, then you can neither: (1) understand the research which informs those conclusions, nor (2) understand the negative emotions each man experiences when accepting those conclusions. As such, you can't forecast what a man will make of his life once he embraces these conclusions, which means you can't argue that "a man is setting himself up for suffering if he projects a worldview based on bad information". You can feel such a thing, and you can assume such a thing. But you can't effectively argue such a thing. ----------------------- Rollo, as usual, has a poignant answer for everything. http://therationalmale.com/2011/09/12/the-myth-of-the-lonely-old-man/ ("Is loneliness a disease that necessitates a cure? If men could be made to believe so, think of the potential profit to be made from, and the potential for manipulation of, men. The real test for a man is how he lives with himself, alone. Precious few men ever truly allow themselves to be alone and learn real independence and self-reliance. The vast majority of guys (see Betas), particularly in western culture, tend to transition from mother to wife with little or no intermission between. For the most part they subscribe to the feminine imperative, becoming serial monogamists going from LTR to LTR until they ‘settle’ without ever having learned and matured into how to interact as an adult. The fear of loneliness is entirely too exaggerated in modern western romanticism. The popularized fear-mythology of becoming the “lonely old man who never loved” is the new ‘old maid’ myth made popular in an era when a woman’s worth was dependent upon her marital status and (at least now) equally as false a premise.")

Exactly. The main idea behind his original post is, "This is my first day here and already I am a disturbed by some lack of integrity and respect especially regarding Christianity."

Is this your first time discussing the effect of women's physiology on their thoughts, dreams, hopes, expectations, desires, and actions? What is your primary purpose for engaging in this conversation?

It does, if you read deeply into it and compare his conclusions to those of other Manosphere writers. Rollo uses the term "feminine imperative" very frequently, which means "the myriad of ways society tells everyone - men and women - that the major goals of a relationship are what the woman wants". And his article here, on empathy, explains why giancoli and I strongly believe that the "Angel-A, beautiful scene" is just a male fantasy. http://therationalmale.com/2013/11/13/empathy/ (The quote that sticks out, " Perhaps it’s due to a deeply enrgamatic hard-wiring of the importance of hypergamy into the feminine’s psychological firmware, but women cannot accept that any man, and in particular a Man worth considering as a suitable hypergamic pairing, might ever be incapacitated. The feminine subconscious refuses to acknowledge even the possibility of this. Perpetuating the species and ensuring the nurturing her offspring maybe part of her pysche’s hard-code, but ensuring the survival and provisioning of her mate is not. This isn’t to say that women can’t learn (by necessity) to assist in her mate’s wellbeing, it’s just not what evolution has programmed her for – it requires effort on her part. I propose this because women’s solipsistic nature (predicated on hypergamy) necessarily excludes them from empathizing with the male experience – and this extends to men’s legitimate pain. The idea that a man, the man her hypergamy betted its genetic inheritance on for protection and provisioning, could be so incapacitated that she would have to provide him with protection and provisioning is so counter-valent to the feminine imperative that the feminine psyche evolved psychological defenses (“men are just big babies when it comes to pain”) against even considering the possibility of it. Thus, due to species-beneficial hypergamy, women fundamentally lack the capacity to empathize with the male experience, and male pain.") No empathy, no ability to nurture. Period.

Oh yeah. I could see where that scene was leading to, so I closed the video and imagined myself stabbing the version of myself that (still) longs for a beautiful woman to lead me into realizing my potential. "Kill the beta, kill the beta, kill the beta..." Are you familiar with any Manosphere literature, especially Rollo Tomassi at the rational male website?

I agree with that, and find it annoying. I've asked people to give me examples wherein large numbers of people followed science and disaster happened, and they've replied "phrenology" and "discrimination against homosexuals". (But those two things are example of smart people, sometimes scientists, arriving at their conclusions without experimentation - which isn't science.)

I'm 38; my brother is four years younger than me, and we would often play Nintendo games "together". (One plays, the other watches, and we switch playing whenever the other one gets frustrated.) Whenever we would die on Ninja Gaiden, we would turn the death music into a series of "hah's". But we made that last three notes really bass-y. Something like: hah-hah-hah-hah, hah-hah-hah-hah-HAH. (other person, very bass-y) hah-hah-hah. Looking up the Ninja Gaiden death music made me very happy that this YouTube video exists.

My rebuttal argument is as follows: (1) If it's a Hollywood-produced movie, it's going to place all of the blame on the men, and none on the women. (2) If PUA-type interactions work, it means that PUA's have an accurate psychological assessment of women. If PUA's have an accurate psychological assessment of women, then there are few (if any) women with whom real love or intimacy is possible. And because modern women have (arguably, and probably correctly) both freedom and access to important information at levels that are greater than those of any women in history, then women's inability to form real love and intimate connections simply must be their fault. (If not, then it means that women don't have the capability of turning freedom into virtue - which means they arguably ought not have any freedom.)