MMX2010

Right. It would've been more emotionally vulnerable to say, "I felt confused, flabbergasted, and highly annoyed that Bipedal Primate was unaware that 95% of relationships were initiated by men asking women out."

Nobody's discomfort proves anything; not even yours. Saying that you experienced extensive discomfort about your gender provides zero evidence that "Gender is an involuntarily assigned, heavily enforced classification system." But that's just the thing; you keep referring to "a ruleset" - defined as a gigantic list-of-rules, but you never actually list the rules. In your earlier list, of seven items, not-a-single-item is a RULE! (1) "Being required conform to the classification's dress code." (There are no laws which say, "Thou must wear these clothes, if thou art male." Some schools have school-uniforms, but that's not nearly universally true in the U.S.) (2) "Being required to conform to the classification's code for mannerisms and behavior." (It would be lovely if you could list which "mannerisms and behaviors" you mean, how such "requirements" are enforced, how you know that they're "requirements" as opposed to, say, "suggestions", and, most importantly, how you know that such "mannerisms and behaviors" ARE NOT a product of biological sex, rather than gender.) (3) "Being required to go to a school with exclusively other members of your coercively-assigned gender (in some cases, including mine)" (How can this be a coercively-assigned "rule" when the majority of schools in my country don't follow it?) (4) "Being required to go by a name of the coercively-assigned gender." (This never happens. What happens is that you're required to go by a name of your objectively-observed biological-sex. If you have a penis, which is objectively observed, you're required to go by the name of those who have a penis. EXCEPT, you're not really "required" to do this, in any sense of the word, because your parents are free to give you an androgynous name like "Alex" or "Morgan".) (5) "Being required to use toilets, changing rooms and other facilities of the coercively-assigned gender." (This never happens. What happens is that you're required to use changing-rooms with those who share your objectively-observed biological-sex. If you have a penis, which is objectively-observable, then you're required to share toilets and changing-facilities with those who also have penises.) (6) "Being required to be seen as a member of the coercively-assigned gender" (The same objections from Items 4 and 5 apply here. I'll also add an anecdote: "Liberalismus' very carefully uses a ruler and concludes that MMX2010's height is 5'11" MMX2010 replies, "He's oppressing me by measuring my height!" Society says, "No, MMX2010; you're not being oppressed, because height is an objectively-observed phenomenon." The anecdote just gives you my impression of your claims of being oppressed, because other people notice your objectively-observed biological sex.) (7) "Facing legal obstacles to accessing medical treatment for gender dysphoria (e.g. hormone therapy if uncomfortable with the effects of hormones of the coercively-assigned gender)" (What you call "legal-obstacles", everyone else calls "Are you SURE?!?" Moreover, people face more "legal obstacles" when they want to donate a kidney to an absolute stranger than when they seek hormonally-induced sex-changes.) My stake is truth, plain and simple. Stefan says, all the time, "The only place anyone can truly connect is reality." (My addition to that quote is, "The majority of people choose to connect in UN-reality, a mythical place where their feelings-alone determine what is "true" - where "true" is circularly-defined as "that which I feel is true, not that which is philosophically-true nor scientifically-true". Once people claim that their feelings-alone are evidence of deeper "truths", they inevitably try to bully and impose those "truths" on others. This is because reality is the only form of truth which doesn't need bullying to impose itself on everyone; it merely imposes itself on everyone who philosophically and scientifically seeks it.") (I will also add that, "If it feels very strongly true to you, but you can't provide accurate philosophical nor scientific support for it, then it's bigotry / religion / bullying / violent.) I've always felt that "Natal Sex" is a poison-the-well term designed to restrict "biological sex" to "that which you're born into, which has absolutely no influence on how you develop later in life". However, two universally-present political phenomena have been discovered: (1) Once women are allowed to vote in any society, the government within that society will become larger and larger. (2) If a woman thinks prostitution should be legalized, she is highly likely to be between the ages of 18-35 and NOT in a monogamous relationship, but if a woman thinks prostitution should be outlawed, she is highly likely to (a) be over 35, (b) be in a long-term monogamous relationship, or © both. The question arises: "Why do those two political phenomena exist?" The answer is: "Because women are born with a egg-producing cells, which heavily influences their future political conclusions." (In other words, "Biological sex - an objectively-observed phenomena which, by definition, cannot be "coercively-imposed" on anyone - is really, really powerful. The depths of its influence are becoming more and more understood by scientists every year, but transgendered and trans-friendly people increasingly distance themselves from this scientific information. And this is the surest sign that what they believe is closer to "gender religion" than to "gender truth".)

Thanks so much, Joel, for both reaching that conclusion and sharing it with us. I experienced very strong emotional agreement with it.

I've listened to Stef's podcasts for about 8 months, but I also recently turned 38. I like your statement a lot, even though it feels like a punch I the stomach, because I'm 38 and must therefore accept responsibility for healing the damage that my parents caused.

I don't think you're emotionally-connected to what happened during our exchange. First you said, "At birth it is declared that you are gender A or B. You are given no input on this classification, i.e. it is involuntary/coercive." (This statement is meant to accuse your doctor, your parents, and everyone who didn't stop them of the Immoral Action called "involuntarily imposing a classification system on the most helpless being of all, an infant".) But then I said, "That's not true, though. At birth, you are declared sex M or F, based on your objectively-observed physiology. Since physiology is objectively-observed, it can't possibly be coercively assigned." (This statement provides scientifically-verified exculpatory evidence. In other words, it proves beyond any doubt that the people you've accused of that Immoral Action are NOT GUILTY. Next you replied, "Whatever physiology is physically present is irrelevant to the fact that a classification is involuntarily imposed that will be used for many years into the future as the basis for aggression ranging anywhere from mild social rejection to murder* if the rigid code of permissible self-expression that accompanies it is considered to be violated." To me, that statement just means that you're not really willing to deeply examine who's guilty; you're just going to declare people are guilty and you just want us all to agree with you. But to just declare people guilty is, in itself, "involuntarily-imposing a classification system upon people". I don't like the word "transgender" because: (1) the people who most strongly use the word, a.k.a. transgendered-people, have conclusions that fly in the face of scientific truth, (2) when the correct scientific-truth is pointed out to them, they don't change their minds one iota, (3) the definition-itself begs the question of whether "transgender" is a biological-truth (like heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality) or a cultural-fiction (like religious-belief, and belief-in-the-awesomeness-of-your-sports-team), but (3a) only trans-non-friendly and trans-skeptical people with to deeply explore whether "transgender" is a cultural-fiction. Lastly, (4) being transgender does nothing to challenge any gender-falsehoods. A person who is born as a man and then decides to become transgender is STILL paying homage to gender-falsehoods, such as "Women are naturally more empathetic than men."

That's not true, though. At birth, you are declared sex M or F, based on your objectively-observed physiology. Since physiology is objectively-observed, it can't possibly be coercively assigned. How does receiving this new information alter your list?

What specific aspects of gender are coercively-assigned, and how do you know they're both specific aspects of gender and that they're coercively-assigned?

I've never called into the show, but am currently listening to Stefan's Introduction to Philosophy podcasts. In them, he describes the goal of philosophy as "returning the mind to an ideal state (called virtue, clarity, or healing), which was produced for two reasons: (1) the mind is prone to error, and (2) the solutions required to restore the mind to an ideal state are NOT obvious". (If they were "obvious", then you'd be "stupid" for experiencing whatever confusion is bothering you; you aren't stupid.) So definitely be prepared to talk about your childhood. (Brook Warren's list of relationship-questions is excellent.) But also be prepared to experience your own deep resistance against talking about your childhood. And, more importantly, be prepared to experience either anxiety, hope, or anxiety-then-hope as you're exposed to a counter-intuitive solution. More than anything, DO NOT censor whatever feelings you experience, especially the negative ones, because they're the most important. Be angry, sad, confused, lost, overwhelmed, or whatever - and express those emotions clearly and simply. Hope that helped.

I also echo everyone's sadness for what you went through. But more importantly, if this is the first message you've ever sent to your mother regarding your childhood abuse, this will feel (to her) like either "lashing out", "suffering an emotional breakdown", and/or "falling victim to some unknown negative influence that tore you away from her". As such, you should expect her to pursue you, rather than acknowledge your request for distance (as EndTheUsurpation) indicated.

I loved this show. Am quoting this word-for-word from a fan-post on Alan Sepinwall's hitfix.com message board: -------------------- "Cole, do you like Doritos?""Nah, man. I don't believe in Doritos. Doritos are just some bullshit faux pleasure mankind invented to convince ourselves that we're special. We used our 'God-given' gift of ingenuity to fabricate the taste of naturally occurring flavors with chemical compounds and fucking starches, man. And that's what we are, really. We're not original, unique organisms. We're 44 flavors of fuck-all masquerading as something genuine. The human race is made up of slight variants of the same goddamn bland corn chip, each one covered in a different amount of orangish-red cheese dust that we call a soul. I believe in lawn chairs for furniture, getting drunk by noon, and cutting my own ponytail. That's what I believe in. But Doritos? Nah, man. I've had my fill of lies."

Thanks very much for posting this.

This is perfect; literally perfect. Edited to ask: has she heard of Stef?

The hardest thing that Stefan's podcasts have taught me about both my own childhood-neglect at the hands of my parents and my own adult-neglect at the hands of society-as-a-whole is that neither of those is personal. My parents would've neglected me whether I was their first-born son or first-born daughter, whether I was top-of-the-class, middle-of-the-class, bottom-of-the-class, or high-school dropout, whether I dated all the pretty girls or no girls whatsoever. My father would've remained narcissistically self-pitying to the point where he would've always blamed my mother for everything bad in the universe, which would've inevitably fueled my neglect at their hands. And society? Those assholes would've concluded that "They don't need to hear this...." no matter how much variance was in the details of my upbringing, and no matter how I told my story. So I don't know the degree to which you either: (1) take your parents' abuse personally - (i.e. - blaming yourself for not being "good enough" to earn their love), or (2) take society's rejection personally - (i.e. - assuming that you would have many intimate, healthy, and friendly connections with more-and-more people if you hadn't been abused as a child). But in my case, I was very high in both categories before I listened to Stefan. And now I'm very low in both categories. And I've never been happier.

How did your friend turn out post-op?

I will offer a counter-argument and an answer. The counter-argument attempts to refute the "eggs are rarer than sperm, and therefore worth more" statement. I don't believe this, because sperm-by-itself has little power or worth, and egg-by-itself has little power or worth. The perceived relative power and worth of egg over sperm is exclusively because sperm and egg must meet in the womb, which women own and control. (Hence, the argument goes that if ever an artificial womb could be developed, the perceived value of womanhood would instantly and dramatically plummet. This would also be ironic in that artificial-womb-technology would be the first example of any technology which dramatically reduced the perceived value of womanhood; the rest have always raised the perceived value of womanhood.) The answer stems from Charles Darwin, discoverer of evolutionary biology, who coined the term "sexual selection". "Sexual selection" is defined as "the traits which exist in male organisms solely because females of that species find those traits sexually attractive". This definition has some highly crucial components: (1) There's no alternative, equality-based definition which reads: "the traits which exist in female organisms solely because males of that species find those traits sexually attractive", and this is because no-such-traits exist! In "sexual selection", the traits all run in one direction, because the power runs in one direction. (2) The definition itself was produced during the Victorian Era in England, smack in the middle of perceived female powerlessness, so it was outright rejected by the male scientists of the time-period. (3) The modern scientist most responsible for the resurrection and re-examination of "sexual selection" is Geoffrey Miller who, within the first twenty pages of his most important scientific book, , said in his best White-Knight voice, (something to the effect of), "I also require that the explanations and implications of this theory be emotionally satisfying. After all, these are out ancestors we're talking about: our mothers, fathers, grandmothers, and grandfathers." This requirement made me throw the book across the room because: (a) no open-minded scientist gets to impose "emotional satisfaction requirements" upon any scientific investigation, and (b) his own damn theory strongly implies that, because the power all runs in one direction from men to women, he's strongly tempted to cater to women's emotional needs with scientifically-illegal demands for "emotional satisfaction". (4) By far, the most important component is that "Sexual selection is viewed as a special type of natural selection." - but natural selection is viewed, for the most part, as positive. You have the traits you have because your environment selected for them, and when those traits become maladaptive because the environment has changed, you're supposed to hate the environmental-change and not yourself, or God, or society, or whatever. The traits men acquire because of sexual selection, though, have no guarantee of being good for the species-as-a-whole, nor good for men-as-a-whole. In fact, there's a large collection of traits acquired under the definition "runaway sexual selection" which are NOT good for the males who possess them, and NOT good for the species as a whole, but are ONLY good for the women who enjoy them. ---------------------- Overall, both "sexual selection" and "runaway sexual selection" are, by far, the most important scientific-terms that no one in modern America discusses with an open-mind. They are also the largest sledgehammers against all forms of feminism.

I've only been listening to these podcasts for seven months, so I definitely remember the fear you're dealing with now. I can only say that you don't know how bad your family and relationships were until you ultimately realize how bad your family and relationships were. Right now, you get the correct sense that those relationships are unhealthy, but you don't realize how unhealthy they really were. And without that realization, there's always a small temptation to just quit this self-knowledge thing and return to family and old relationships, hoping for the best.

Let me see if I can boil this down extremely small. (1) Gender is not merely a social construct: it's a blend of biological truths (sex) and socially-constructed lies (definitions designed to control everyone's behavior, and to shame those who don't wish to be controlled in that manner). (2) If I (somewhat-arrogantly) proclaim myself as the minimum standard of how strongly a person must understand sex before they can comment on transgender, then I've never met a transgendered person (or a trans-friendly person) who studies sex as much as I have. For example, one of my friends said, "Women in every society are taught to fear men." - a statement which implies that women's constant fear of rape and exploitation are primarily socially-derived. However, women in every society have always been roughly 40% smaller and weaker than men-in-that-society - which implies that women's constant fear of rape and exploitation are primarily naturally-derived. So when you say, "Transgendered people want to identify more with the other sex.", I think, "Oh really? They want to either deny their relative 40% frailty and eschew society's gender-wide protection? OR they want to acquire a relative 40% frailty and all of the rights and privileges associated with it?" Yet, I anticipate your response to be, "No, in both cases. The acquisition or rejection of a relative 40% frailty has little, if anything, to do with transgender." Which is totally fine, if your response is honest. But your reply there forces me to counter-argue, "Okay, then. If relative 40% frailty is such an important component of sex, and if transgender has nothing to do with relative 40% frailty, then transgender is, in itself, a random social construct that's designed to control other people's behavior." (And this is true, because I can first reference yet-another-interesting-phenomenon-that-science-has-uncovered-about-sex, only to have you reject that finding as applicable to transgender.) (3) My major assertion is that transgender would go away once biological sex becomes better understood, because transgendered people are trying to align themselves with significantly flawed definitions of gender. These flaws will vanish once society becomes more acquainted with the definitions of biological-sex, and the implications of those definitions. (Therefore, being trans-friendly is just preventing people from acquiring a better understanding of biological-sex, a position which does NOT threaten the most powerful interests in society.)

My problems with the definition of transgender are: (1) It assumes that society's definitions of male and female are valid. (I disagree with this, and think society's definitions of male/female are so full of wrong conclusions that society is gender-confused, not the transgendered-person.) (2) It assumes that a transgendered-person's conclusions about being transgendered are inviolate: that no one can deny, question, or put down these conclusions. (I think that a transgendered-person's feelings of gender-confusion are inviolate. But I think a transgendered-person's conclusion that he/she is transgender is debatable, if not controversial.) (3) It assumes that my opinion of sex/gender (which is derived from reading a fair amount of scientific books on sex/gender) is equally valid as a transgendered-person's opinion of sex/gender (which is NOT derived from reading any scientific books on sex/gender). (I disagree, and think my opinion should be weighed more heavily, because it's more scientifically-derived.) (4) It assumes that the solution to the problem is allowing all transgendered people to "freely express themselves", whether through hormonal therapy, sex-change operations, or through language-expression. (I disagree with this, and assert that the solution is a society-wide scientific-examination of gender-stereotypes, rejecting the invalid ones. Once these invalid stereotypes are rejected, I'm confident that transgendered-people will no longer feel transgendered.) The strongest objection I have to transgendered people is that they don't scientifically-study sex. ----------------------- Edited to add: I think transgender developed as follows. Step One: Society defined "traditional gender roles", and then tried to force everyone to believe in them. The negative consequences for this are numerous, but the only thing I care about is that "traditional gender roles" aren't strongly supported by scientific evidence. As such, they can only be violently-enforced. Step Two: Once enough people realized that they were betrayed by society-as-a-whole, they shouted, "There is no truth about sex/gender! And anyone who declares that such a truth exists is only trying to exploit and control you, just like the lying religious people did. Therefore, only I get to define what I am. And you can either support me, or never associate with me!" I'm proposing Step Three: Realizing that science can easily determine what is true/false about both sexes, and aligning our conceptions of male/female to that scientific-knowledge. (Most, if not all, transgendered people and trans-friendly people, however, openly reject Step Three - usually to the point of hostility.)

You are right; jacbot is wrong.

Delusional, as in, "Even though the definition of transgendered requires the term biological sex, and even though "biological sex" is so complicated that only a constant, voluntary exposure to scientific-information about biological sex can help clarify what "biological sex" actually is, we-the-transgendered and we-the-transfriendly want our conclusions taken seriously when we deliberately avoid studying biological sex." So, to me, the delusion is only partially found in the term "transgender" and is mostly found in the attitude that "I don't need to scientifically study biological sex in order to define transgender". Your interpretation of my position is incorrect. Your first statement is right, "Gender is a set of behavioral tendencies stereotypically associated with a particular sex." But as scientists actively debunk more and more of these stereotypical-associations, it becomes obvious that society is gender-confused. Myth: Women are more empathetic than men. Truth: Men and women are equally empathetic. Myth: Women are more focused on raising children than women. Truth: Men and women are equally focused on raising children, and are equally capable of nurturing children of all ages. Myth: Women have severely lowered sex drives in comparison to men. Truth: Men and women have equal sex drives. Myth: Men are more violent towards children. Truth: Women are more violent towards children. --------- The more "mythical" society's conception of gender is, the less sense it makes to say, "I am gender-confused, so I must mutilate my body to conform to my society's definitions of gender."

Lately, I've been rehearsing my own child-abuse interventions. And I've noticed that in both before FDR and in the early days of my FDR exposure, my responses have always been angry. Since I begin by channeling anger, and limit my emotional connection to my anger, then my interventions are always hostile, confrontational, impatient, and demanding-of-100%-surrender. Recently, though, Stefan has said things like, "Once you realize how bad people are at philosophy, it becomes no-longer-offensive that people are bad at philosophy." Subsequently, I've been imaging much less angry, and much more sympathetic-peaceful interventions. One that I like (but haven't tried yet) goes something like, "(happy tone, non-sarcasm), I know we've never spoken before, but I bet that if I asked you, 'What's the most important day in your life so far?', you'd probably answer, 'The day that she/he (the child who's currently crying/angry) was born!' Now I know it's hard to remember that when she/he is crying like this, but, if you'd like, I can remember that for you for about five seconds, until you re-remember it. Would that be okay with you?" FDR2721 - You Can't Fix Stupid (first caller) goes very deeply into the negative consequences of being really, really smart as a child and having to manage the emotional-stupidity of your parents. (It's also where Stefan most firmly stated, "Once you realize how bad people are at philosophy, it becomes no-longer-offensive that people are bad at philosophy." -------------------- Also, it goes without saying, "Disclaimer: I've not tried these tactics myself." I just hope they're interesting and helpful.

I'm differentiating between "a biologically-induced need" and "a socially-induced need" because that's how homosexuals (the L's, G's, and B's) in the LGBT community campaigned for their own social-acceptance. Back when people wrongfully believed that homosexuality was a "choice" - (a.k.a. "a socially-induced need"), horrible things like "homosexuality-curing Bible camps", "homosexuality-curing boot camps", and "informal beatings to drive the homosexuality out of you" were common. But such maneuvers are only tragic and immoral once you realize that homosexuality is a "biologically-induced need" - a.k.a. "not a choice". Okay, now we're getting somewhere. If, "transgender and cisgender are just more specific terms to describe someone's gender identification in relation to their sex", and because "sex is a highly complicated biological phenomenon, whose deeper implications can only be incompletely-grasped by those who study scientific papers on sex for years and years", then transgender and cisgender are ill-defined concepts whenever they're used by people who DO NOT study sex in a scientific manner. Hence, people who deliberately limit their definitions to either, "Your sex is just based on your genitals: penis = male, vagina = female.", or "Your sex is just based on your reproductive cells: sperm = male, egg = female.", are obtuse. Worst of all, trans-friendly people who maintain such limited definitions show no interest in expanding their definitions by studying sex through scientific papers. Thus, I can ask such a person, "Who is more empathetic: men or women?". And they'll immediately answer, "Women!". And I'll casually remark: "No scientific papers have ever established that women are, indeed, more empathetic than men. And the only scientific paper I know of asserted that men and women are equally empathetic." The above exchange is crucial because, "I'm a woman, therefore I'm empathetic. You're a man, therefore I have to teach you empathy." becomes part of "someone's gender identification" that you're referring to in your statement, "Transgender and cisgender are just more specific terms to describe someone's gender identification in relation to their sex." If the "gender identification" is a lie, because it contains socially-induced, unexamined myths, but if powerful members in society derive (undeserved) self-confidence and self-efficacy by believing those socially-induced, unexamined myths, then "trans-friendliness" becomes "We'd rather you mutilate your body to suit our need for self-confidence and self-efficacy, than lose our self-confidence and self-efficacy by scientifically examining sex." (Thanks, by the way, for your push-back. I couldn't have arrived at what was bothering me without it.)

Cool. By the time you get to the end, you'll understand the important differences between "I feel...." and "I think / conclude that...." Once you know the difference, you'll be able to approach these conversations with much more emotional honesty. From there, however they react will provide you closure.

All of these occur to me. (1) The conversation you're trying to have is the absolute hardest one you've ever had, and I don't think it can be done without the help of a therapist. (2) You also need to have a very strong knowledge of Real-Time Relationships in order to have the conversation you want. https://freedomainradio.com/free/ (3) If you're still living with your parents, it's probably impossible to have that conversation, because they can always attack you by kicking you out of the house. (4) I, personally, would replace your goal with "determining whether I feel close to, or disgusted by, my parents when I attempt to discuss (in the most honest way possible) what is most important to me". (This way, you're not focusing on their reaction, nor on trying to control / manage their responses.)

Have you finished all of RTR? I feel like the last 15% of it is so important that it's hard to understand RTR without it. (I'm not disputing your conclusion that your parents aren't interested, by the way.)