Alice Amell

My battlenet ID is Peach#1961

We Are The Fallen - Sleep Well, My Angel

Made me cry. It reminds me of a call the other day when Stef was saying the caller doesn't know how to express his feelings because he never learned how (or rather learned not to) because he was punished when he tried. He was silenced. And now someone is helping him learn... it's so amazing.

How deep does it go?

Sorry for taking so long to reply. If you mean to say that UPB is an argument for objective ethics I don't see how that follows. Doesn't it assumes that morality is objective to begin with? Or does it explain why morality has to be objective? I should go rewatch the UPB video again once I have time since I still don't completely understand it

I agree that it would be subjective if we did not use universality. But that doesn't mean universality is valid. Is there a way to show that it is or that morality is objective and therefore would have to use universality?

I was actually just talking to my friend about this and we came to a road block about the NAP. As WasatchMan said, I don't see ethics as being demonstrable. It is a purely logical argument. Gravity, for example, can be tested (see if rocks fall down or up). General relativity can be tested (put atomic clock in space). The NAP can't be physically demonstrated. The problem my friend and I encountered was that of whether universality applied. He came up with the following syllogism: 1. All dogs are red. 2. Muffin is a dog 3. Muffin is red It is internally consistent, but the assumption given as 1. All dogs are red, is false. Similarly, 1. Universality applies to morality 2. Initiation of force cannot be universalized 3. Initiation of force is immoral Why does universality apply to morality?

Sorry for replying so late, this thread seems to have mostly died. 1) Yes, if there is no proof of something, you can doubt. 2) I can't say for certain that a brain scan will prove it in all cases, but there is evidence as far as I can tell given from those studies earlier. As pointed out by Tundra, I don't know how number of neurons or brain density can be altered by bias, but I don't know how they are measured to begin with either. 3) I don't think you can say transgender isn't amoral because a transgender person may or may not have done something moral/immoral. Being a transgender person definitely isn't prescriptive of any moral or immoral behavior, and I do see it as a voluntary transaction. A transgender person may take hormones or have surgery in a mutually beneficial transaction with doctors. Whether or not it is biological is irrelevant in terms of morality. 4) Religion doesn't have a genetic/biological component, the "oneness" feeling does and then religion capitalizes on that to propagate lies and get donations. And even if religion specifically was biological, that doesn't mean everything that is biological is therefore socially constructed and false. 5) I don't know the prevalence of transgender people around the world but I am interested to know. 6) Speaking from personal experience, and in response to a previous post of yours, I don't think people are indoctrinated into becoming transgender. I used to role play as women from a young age and it wasn't until I was a teenager that I discovered people could transition. Even after learning about it, I did nothing about it for six years. And I still had/have the feeling.

I'd also recommend if possible some sort of private school. I remember one podcast Stef had a talk with a caller that had a similar problem, although she was already a teacher. Stef did say at one point that if a really great public school teacher exists, his or her students will use that as a reason why public school is good. It is giving them more evidence that the status quo is acceptable. However, on the other hand, they had a great teacher. Just a tiny consideration. I personally have had really great teachers and am still in contact with some of them. I think in some ways they showed me how awful some of the other teachers are because their classes were fun and enjoyable AND I learned a lot more than from the normal sleep-inducing, boring slime I was fed.

I don't see what that study would imply other than people can be fooled. Doctors trust their patients data in order to make a diagnosis. That's why medical histories are important and so on. A study like the one you purpose WAS conducted (though not about transgender). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment To summarize it: he sent "psuedopatients" to go pretend they had schizophrenia and were admitted to an institution. Then they acted normal, but the doctors, since labeling them, saw their behavior as being schizophrenic. All of them were forced to admit they had schizophrenia and agree to take drugs in order to be released. The researcher used it to say that labeling is based and causes biased behaviors and so on, and that seems to be true. However, they were only labeled because they lied and pretended to be mentally ill. Someone could pretend to be homosexual - a man could have sex with other men and say he's homosexual, and there's no real way to disprove him. Similarly, a man could lie about being transgender and get hormones and take them. Does that mean homosexuality can't be philosophically true, as you put it? And what does that mean? It wouldn't really matter, if it's just a voluntary interaction, no? Thank you Yes, behavior can change the brain so I don't think differences in brains is conclusive proof that it exists but it is then evidence of similar behavior between them. Could it not then be used to differentiate between those trying to fake it and those who aren't? However, if you are trying to get hormones, they aren't there to diagnose you, they are there to meet your needs through voluntary interaction. I don't see that as a problem at all. If you wanted to go take the test, and can pay for it, then that could be provided also. I don't think being "culturally trained" has much to do with it. Whether or not a doctor believes that from birth a person can have a condition that causes a feeling of in-congruence which prompts them to seek hormones, it's still a voluntary interaction. What do you mean by, "ONLY investigating transgender people?" they did compare them to non-trans people. And how else do you study trans people? By not studying them at all? I don't think they were bound to find something with the brain, though I've heard if you try to find a similar gene in a group of people (who could be arbitrarily selected), there's so many genes that you are bound to find one (though I don't know if this claim is true... it was said by my former sociology professor - and that class was full of marxism and propaganda). Not necessarily. Just because the body and brain are connected and influence each other does not mean that something can't originate in one without originating in the other. If for example I was born with 6 fingers, I wouldn't say that originated in both the brain and the body. And if I'm mistaken and it were, I'm not sure what that would really imply or change other than theories of possible causes. Unlike feminists though, trans people are discriminated against, so the belief in this case is justified. Which is definitely a factor, but also a factor is the fact that pre-transition, trans people don't feel like they are who they should be, or their body is the opposite of what they want, which can have a negative impact. I'm not sure whether the cause will be known, since there are so many factors as there are with a lot of things. As far as I know there's no known cause for being gay.Those studies which I've now read through the abstracts, at least, definitely show brain differences in transsexuals even before any hormone treatment in some of the studies. And regardless of its cause, it's still all voluntary so there's no moral issue at least. Though I don't always feel this way, whether or not being gay or being trans is a choice I feel is almost irrelevant since there's nothing wrong with it anyway. It's almost as if having a biological cause justifies it to others, when it shouldn't need justification because there's no real problem (morally, anyway...I suppose "problem" is subjective otherwise though). On a side note I wish the gender stereotypes would go away altogether. Gender shouldn't even exist as far as I know, since it's based on cultural definitions and stereotypes. People should be able to act however they want. I know I said that before but I just wanted to reiterate since it's been a while.

Yes, thank you very much. That's very interesting that you do feel the bond during car fixing. Like me when my dad teaches me about stocks. But otherwise there is an emotional wall, not as extreme as yours but still something. I think part of my frustration arises because he won't see reason. But there's so much more that you're right I can't put into words I shall just trust my feelings on it. I've known him my whole life and can't summarize it neatly or tie a bow on it which I am tempted to do. My closest friend doesn't have all the same conclusions as me, but he does listen to reason and follows a methodology and is willing to talk about it. And I feel so bad for the guy in the video.. I think that show is awful for putting people in that situation

Thank you for the insight. I shall try to figure out whether or not I do seek isolation. I think if my parents were just people I had met somewhere, I wouldn't really like them. It's not all bad, but with my friend it's so much better. The positives outweigh the negatives by far however, at least for now..because I'm still a dependent. Once I'm not anymore, I'll re-evaluate. And LOL that's a funny image now that you mention it. I'm really sorry you have to deal with a father like that. Thank you for sharing your experience.Will you be able to move to Vegas soon to escape that awful environment? I definitely understand what you mean about having no qualms given that situation, and it is a very good example of what I mean by compartmentalized relationship. To clarify, since you said "bond" in quotes I assume you don't actually feel any closer to him or any real bond when you fix cars? If that's the case: going off what you said, if it's completely compartmentalized, like yours, then there can be no bond. In my situation I may have somewhat of a bond but I think because there's always that barrier between us, it keeps us from really bonding deeply. And maybe the reason is because philosophy matters so much to me and so to "bond" with my dad I must put aside a large part of my identity in order to avoid conflict.

It is quite depressing the amount that is stolen from people. However, I think you can still respect yourself for being able to work and maintain a job and earn a living and perhaps even more so in this terrible environment because it is that much harder. It is an exploitative relationship, as you said, but because the gun is pointed at you, you aren't responsible for what the state uses the money for. I don't know if that was a concern of yours at all, but you aren't supporting the state in any way by working. I also doubt the state will go away much faster if you go galt. It is up to you of course how much time you want to spend on work and how much on other pursuits. On becoming a parasite, so to speak, I'm not entirely sure. I know Stef said about state-sponsored college scholarships, he would absolutely take every one he could. It isn't truly parasitical, because the state has taken so much more from us than he would be taking back from it. It has taken our childhoods through state education and promises to steal from us our entire lives and then to steal from our children as well. He isn't stealing from others by accepting money from the state, but gaining restitution. However, if you live your entire life off the money of the state, that's a bit different. I can't say if it's necessarily wrong, given that the state has a gun pointed at everyone and controls the environment to such a degree that free trade is very limited. In the current situation, our moral capacities are reduced. We all benefit from the state, whether through roads or subsidized meat, but that doesn't mean we support it. We don't really have a choice. So in my opinion living off state money isn't really ideal, but I wouldn't condemn it as evil necessarily either. These are just some thoughts I had. I don't know what to do, to be honest, other than to make the best out of a shitty situation and try to spread rationality and nonviolence to hopefully get rid of this situation in the future. I think you should respect yourself for realizing the immorality of the state. Most people haven't come that far. For even being able to ask this question, you've shown a lot of intelligence and virtue.

Thank you Tundra for those sources. I'll need to spend time reading them.

Yeah that definitely makes sense xD thanks. I am confused about that. Getting past childhood lessons is really tough. My bad, I didn't explain it very well. I was basically saying things like "I don't care about my relationship with my parents" or "I don't want to have a relationship with them" because of the arguments I had with them. She thinks I'm using that as an excuse I guess to isolate myself. Or suggesting that I look past differences. I don't want to get into specific details so I just used euphemisms. One thing I will say is I was slightly indifferent toward grades and was procrastinating and that's the "unmotivated" bit. Maybe I'm using the word wrong but I meant to have a relationship but only in certain areas. Like I avoid all talk of philosophy, religion, and politics because that ends badly (in my opinion because they won't see reason, but I'm sure they say the same of me..at least my sister would, my dad just thinks god is the answer to everything and is undeniable). However if I section of the relationship in that way is it really possible for it to still be meaningful and to have a bond. My therapist thinks it is but I'm not sure, although even if I can't that doesn't mean I need to throw it away (esp. with my parents).

Thank you to everyone who responded, I really appreciate it. Yes, I believe you're correct. My parents have experienced some dysfunction. I know my dad was hit, and my mom had been depressed for many years until a couple years after my birth. I don't feel very emotionally connected to them and don't feel comfortable opening up to them about things. My moms always avoided conflict, and would leave the room if my dad and I argued over minimum wage or something like that. Maybe the whole "don't talk about politics, religion, and sex" is the right approach, at least for some relationships. I do have a close friend I can talk to about anything. The reason I'm speaking to a therapist is...well there are a lot of reasons. Included are: I'm in college so it's free (or rather, paid for in tuition). I feel a bit unmotivated and am struggling with relationships like with my parents Yes the second part does seem 100% accurate to me. They may be judgments of my character but I'm not sure they are wrong. And yeah, when I made the thread I was a bit hesitant to title it as I did because rationally I know it isn't immoral to have a voluntary relationship with someone even if they are a statist. I'm not sure I grasp what you said either, can you give an example? Like if as a child we get upset about something instead of wondering why we just internalize "being upset is bad" and then feel guilty about it? Thank you for your thoughts. If I haven't had a recent argument with my dad for example then I don't feel dread around him. I'm more neutral toward him. I don't think I'll ever be able to be very emotionally close to my parents, but I can't say for certain. Overall if the "mines" are avoided it isn't a negative experience. I don't know why it matters so much to me that they see reason in these areas, maybe that isn't important. Isolation is appealing to me on some level. I've always been shy, and I still fear meeting new people and being in unfamiliar situations. I don't know if she is talking about herself. It's possible. She seems to be saying everyone is entitled to their own view and I shouldn't give up on a relationship because of something like that. I can understand how it's necessary for her to have that opinion because if she criticized the beliefs of her patients then she may not have any. But she still recognizes it's my choice and I didn't view her comment as accusatory but rather concern that I'm abandoning a relationship needlessly.

My therapist has told me I shouldn't so easily dismiss relationships just because of disagreements. She says I'm trying to isolate myself. My dad is religious and completely irrational. He buys into all democratic propaganda nonsense and will just parrot phrases and make make emotional arguments to justify it. He believes in an afterlife, that he experiences god everyday and that religious claims can't be applied to the scientific method. He even went so far as to say "children choose their parents" which I found particularly disturbing. That said, he is otherwise very calm and non-violent. He is nice. I was never hit as a child. I was only given time-outs. Recently we were talking about the stock market and he started teaching me some things. It's the first time in probably weeks if not a couple months that I've been really excited about something. I was interested and engaged and I felt like we were bonding. I'm thinking maybe my therapist is right... that even though we disagree in some areas we can still have a good relationship in other areas. It's still a bit troublesome, even more so with my sister who's a complete feminist/socialist and yet still offers emotional support. I appreciate any advice or experience someone has with this type of issue. Thank you for taking the time to read my post.

http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/1748 In podcast 1748, Stef talks to a woman who says something similar but she talks about it in terms of gender studies. How baby boys are put in blue and girls in pink, which could influence the results. I tried looking up rates of transgenderism but it was hard to find reliable data across different cultures. There also may be issue in how people define transgender and how prevalent the idea is in a particular culture - until recently I think it was mostly unheard of to most people, and if that's the case in some cultures or if there is nowhere to get treatment, it could be hard to measure. I won't quote your other post to save space but in response to that, I do agree that brain differences aren't evidence of biological causes. Behavior shapes the brain. Although, isn't schizophrenia in the brain and genetic? Regardless, it isn't conclusive proof as far as I understand it. Your question as to whether there is a study where scientists can separate transgender from those pretending to be transgender.. I don't think that has happened. Couldn't you say the same about being able to tell someone is homosexual? Not being able to identify it doesn't mean there isn't a biological or environmental (and non-social) cause. I don't think it is offensive at all to be curious; I think that is a good thing. That sexchangeregret website scares me somewhat. I read through one of the entries so it isn't a representative sample by any means, but it seems the person's main regret was that they did not pass and others did not accept them for who they are, rather than their feeling was invalid to start with. I also agree with most of what Liberalismus said. I don't think anyone transitions for pragmatic reasons. Feminists as an example play the victim and oppression card at any chance but they strongly identify as women (the female feminists, anyway). They don't want to be men in order to gain some status (whether perceived or not). Furthermore I don't think anyone (or at least it is highly unlikely) would gain any status at all for deviating from their assigned gender. Most transgender people face discrimination unless they completely pass, and it could take a long time (and lots and lots of money) to do so.

I read through that and one thing that stood out to me was the Canadian case they are referring to is the David Reimer case I mentioned earlier in the thread. The researcher John Money did some pretty questionable things. Reimer reported he was forced to practice sex positions with his brother and they were photographed nude as children. It is a very tragic but interesting case study in that they were genetic twins and one was raised as a girl from 17 months but then rejected that identity later on. There are instances though of identical twins where they are both brought up as the same gender but one becomes transgender. I don't know what that says about a possible cause, but sexuality isn't the same in all identical twins either.

1) I disagree that this is the case. Being transgender doesn't necessitate believing women are more empathetic for example. And even if people that use the word are wrong or stubborn (as in point 2) does not mean the feeling of being the wrong sex is invalid. 3) I would very much like to know whether it is biological or not, but would your facebook friend's post that shows difference in brains not be counted as evidence that is is indeed biological? I don't know if it's possible and to what degree culture and society will shape the brain's development and may account for these differences, however. 4) So what? I agree that challenging gender-falsehoods is not necessary for being transgender. Many do as I said wish to be in that socially acceptable box of gender. Others however do challenge gender falsehoods and do not care to be placed in a box and will do whatever they want. 1) It is not "required" per se, but it is almost universally enforced. Parents buy their children clothing. I was born with a penis therefore I have no choice but to wear dress shirts and pants on formal occasions and my sister had no choice but to wear skirts and dresses. It is socially enforced at older ages. If I had gone to school in a dress in high school I would be ridiculed. 2) Behaviors would include not showing weakness/being emotional for men and boys. If you do then you're "acting like a girl." This also includes wearing certain clothes. Wearing clothes isn't biological. It also changes from culture to culture, and it is socially enforced. 3) I agree it isn't often enforced anymore, but it still is. 4) So wait, are you saying I am free to go by any name I want to because my parents choose it for me? I don't know how you can suggest the name is associated with sex at all. How is John innately biologically male and Jane is female? It is not. Names are gendered and socially enforced. 5) Bathroom use is also based on gender. If you are biologically male but are a transsexual and pass as female, no one will question your use of the female facilities. You won't be allowed in the male bathroom anymore, though. I'd like to add that a lot of places are moving toward gender-neutral bathrooms and I think ending gender segregation in bathrooms is good in that it would help end this conflict that all transpeople face. 6) People do notice the biological sex but use all those gender stereotypes you hate so much and liberalismus is pointing out that we are all judged by this gender. although this is not only for transpeople, all people are judged unfairly on gender stereotypes. 7) In the past (and possibly in some places still) people are required to go through months of therapy in order to get a recommendation to give to a doctor to be able to get hormones. I know that isn't the case everywhere and there are doctors and institutions that are willing to help streamline the process. "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 don't see how that follows at all. If I have a feeling but have no scientific proof then I am a bully? Violent? Religious? A bigot? Do you think that childhood trauma is the reason for all transgendered people? It may be the case that some parents experiment on their kids with gender and the kids may act the opposite gender but many transpeople I've spoken to have been rejected by their parents, like someone coming out as gay, rather than conforming to their parents wishes. Well, because the brain has the feeling. The body doesn't really vote on the issue and want to change the brain. It's the brain that has the feeling and makes the decision. I don't know if it is possible to change the brain to be "male" or "female" to achieve congruence. And given that people have the feeling the body is wrong, they would likely do as they want and change their body to feel better. It is part of who they are and I suspect most wouldn't want to give that up. If someone does want to and if it is possible to change that then they could do that too. Fathers were sent to die because historically the mothers had to spend their lives birthing and raising children for the survival of the species. It had to be that way and was socially enforced because only females could give birth to babies so it was necessary to protect women and children because men weren't as necessary for the survival of the species. This has continued to be socially enforced forever, This is only biological in that only women can bear children. And just because all cultures do it does not mean it is biological. Is it a biological imperative to abuse children or murder people? I'm not sure anyone said cismen and non-trans-friendly people have an irrational hatred and that's why gender stereotypes exist. The gender stereotypes create the hatred. There are gender stereotypes negative to women and positive to men. I.e. men are more reasonable, rational, logical, better at math, they are taken more seriously, respected more, women are less competent at difficult or technical stuff, taken less seriously, respected less, bad at driving. I don't think they exist to elevate women but to act as a social enforcement for traditional gender roles (men: protector/provider, women: raising children) I agree with DaVinci here. As MMX said, reality doesn't have to be imposed. Wearing a dress isn't biological. It is socially enforced, and based on gender. I don't know what other evidence you need to say that gender is a social construct. MMX, you said yourself gender is based on a mix of sex and lies. Unless you are now retracting that statement, how is it not a social construct if its existence is dependent upon lies/stereotypes or non-biological concepts. I don't see how any of those statements are relevant tbh. What "scientific knowledge" are any "pro-transgender forces" presenting? And what mistakes do they have and are not correcting? Have you presented these mistakes to them? I'm not even sure who "they" are. Of course they attack the character of those who deny their identity. I don't know what scientific knowledge is dismissed at all or how it is specific to transgender people and why it is necessary for them to study intensely for years to even dare be called transgender. To say no one is curious how the feeling arises is just false. Most LGBT people I know understand gender is a social construct but accept that people can make their own choices and some people choose to live within a box of socially accepted behavior. Many LGBT also oppose the boxes because of the abuse they cause. I think you are mischaracterizing trans people as fully accepting the gender stereotypes as truth and thinking "I am female so I am empathetic" etc. and I disagree with that characterization. Wanting to be socially acceptable (and thus live in a box) is not unique to transpeople. I'd suspect more LGBT are actually opposed to gender stereotypes than anyone else.

A really tragic example of this (although he was not hermaphroditic) is David Reimer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer A short synopsis of it: He was given sexual reassignment surgery after his penis was destroyed during circumcision. He was raised as a girl but didn't identify as female. He ended up transitioning to male again and in the end took his own life at age 38.

I don't have much experience with this type of situation myself but I would just tell him. What is the alternative? I wouldn't go back to your mother, and I'd encourage your brother also to leave her especially if she's abusive

I'm not pretending anything. I'd appreciate if you stop making rude assumptions about me. Value is subjective. If you've any actual criticisms I'll gladly take them but simply declaring that what I've said has no value isn't an argument.

"Gender...describe characteristics that men and women share with their own gender." Uh..what? Gender is not having a penis or vagina. You are talking about sex. Gender and sex are different. Gender describes stereotypical behavior typically associated with sex. And I have a problem because gender has no basis in reality, it is a prescriptive definition for behavior and is used solely for describing people in these limited terms. It has no other purpose. Yes the problem is people and if people were nice they wouldn't shame based on gender, but if that were the case gender would have no meaning and cease to exist, no? As MMX said, gender is based on lies. I don't, for example, oppose words like homosexual, gay, lesbian, because they do have meaning and although they can be used as shaming words, don't have to be. 1) I agree. That said, gender does not exist and is meaningless. If sex+lies=gender, then implanting truths only leaves sex. But you fail to answer some of my questions so I'll repeat them. Are you saying people cannot identify with socially constructed definitions of gender? Or cannot want to change themselves physically? Yes, a lot will change themselves to "pass" as the other sex; are you opposed to them wanting to be socially acceptable in that way? 2) I still don't understand how you get angry at people for using a word how it's both defined and commonly used. I can sort of relate because I got upset a few times when people would the word anarchy to mean chaos but in the dictionary that's one of its definitions. I can try to change peoples use of the word but I don't get angry anymore for people using it how its defined. And I don't call them delusional. For your example, no one provided evidence to show that women indeed fear men or to what degree in different societies. The reasons why they do fear men could be many and just because a biological fact exists that may be the reason doesn't mean it is or anything else isn't. Perhaps it is because men commit more violent crimes, or what you or your friend said. Likely a combination of many factors. But we'd need evidence to show whether size and strength correlate with fear, or prevalence of violence or whatever to really make such a claim. To your question of whether transgendered people want to acquire or rid themselves of 40% frailty and either gain or lose privileges associated with gender, I can't answer for anyone but myself. I know that after puberty, hormones will not change bone structure in any way. However, they will change muscle/fat ratio in the body and control the distribution of fat. So if by frailty you mean purely size then no one can do that, but they may want to nonetheless. It no doubt varies between individuals. As I said and you failed to answer in the questions above, people do want to fit into socially constructed boxes. Not all transgender. Some reject this entirely, so I won't lump all transgender together. But some do. They want social acceptance. Is that wrong? They wish to fit into the already established box of "male" or "female." I wouldn't say "transgender" is itself a box as you claim. 3) I think I understand what you mean now. Correct me if I'm wrong. You see transgendered people as being gender-confused because they have traits that others deem unacceptable in them but acceptable in the other gender/sex. And if they mostly identify with traits of the other gender, they will then undergo treatment and change themselves to "pass" as the other gender in order to express themselves without fear of negative social consequences. But once society as a whole accepts that gender is BS, then these individuals can express themselves and exhibit whatever traits they want, while being male or female, without being shamed. If the above is correct, then I'd respond with the following: If such a world existed, could someone not get hormone therapy and/or surgery? Could someone not want to change their body? Even in a world without limiting gender definitions, I would submit someone could still want to make those changes. The difference would be the individual may not feel as pressured to fit into a box to be accepted by most people. Many say they feel trapped in the wrong body, not that they feel socially rejected because of feminine/masculine behavior. And I don't think transitioning is to escape social ridicule at all. Being transgender will harbor much more ridicule than before. Many are targets of violence simply for being transgender.

You didn't mention how that relates to being delusional, but I'll address what you did say. 1) I'm assuming you are referring to gender..you keep talking about gender and then sex, so I can't tell which one you are referring to. Gender doesn't exist and it's just a concept. I agree with you that the descriptions of male and female gender which people usually put onto those of male and female sex respectively are expectations of behavior and not the way one should act or may otherwise naturally act. Personally I see these definitions as just a way of controlling behavior and shaming people who don't fit into the prescribed boxes. But those are the definitions society is using, and the word transgender is just using those definitions to describe a deviance from it. 2) If someone is biologically male but identifies with the female gender (and vice versa), they fit the definition of transgender. If the definition of gender are changed as you want, then transgender will also change in definition. But as it stands now, this definition fits their situation. 3) I'm not sure how a definition can assume it's better than you, I think you are talking about people rather than a definition. Also, you are assuming no transgender person has any understanding of sex or gender. And what IS your opinion, then, that you keep talking about being so much more scientifically supported? Are you proposing a definition of gender based on science? I was under the impression sex is scientific while gender is not. If it's biological it would be sex, and gender is just labels for behavior that are associated with sex but may not be based on anything scientific. I dislike the existence of gender because as I said I feel that it limits peoples behavior by getting others to shame them, but I still recognize how it's defined currently. 4) Are you saying people cannot identify with socially constructed definitions of gender? Or cannot want to change themselves physically? Yes, a lot will change themselves to "pass" as the other sex; are you opposed to them wanting to be socially acceptable in that way? I agree with you that transgendered people won't feel "transgender" if stereotypes are rejected (which as far as I understand it, means gender would have no meaning), but because if gender has no meaning then the word transgender would have no meaning. There are many different types of transgender people, as transgender is sort of an umbrella term, but many want to change themselves physically to be more like the other sex. That isn't related to gender stereotypes, but a desire to change physically. They may call themselves transgender or transsexual and you can define it however you want but do you think no one will want to change physically if the definitions of gender go away? As for how you think transgender develops: Step one: I agree. Step two: I can only speak for myself, but obviously there is a truth in sex, but I see no truth in gender because gender is simply a construct. I'm not sure how anyone can reject sex altogether because humans are a sexually dimorphic species and sex determines genitalia development. Any transsexual implicitly recognizes this and acknowledges the existence of sex because they wish to change in order to be more like the other sex (and anyone on hormones). I haven't heard personally anyone say sex doesn't exist, but I would say myself that gender does not. We could discuss what gender actually is and how it is different than sex if you think it does exist and should be defined a certain way. Step three: You talk about studying sex and based on that, defining gender. I'm not sure how they are related. If you have any specifics about defining male and female gender based on sex, I'd like to hear it. Or if you meant defining sex based on that, well I thought you had a problem with the definitions of gender, not sex. I apologize if I'm misunderstanding your points, but hopefully we will reach an understanding. I do find this really interesting.