MMX2010 Posted October 15, 2014 Author Posted October 15, 2014 Because part of being a Paragon Male is having concern for what others are doing, I know it's not a good description for me. I also would not likely get along with, or want any paragon males in any significant part my life. That's interesting. Why wouldn't you want any Paragon Males to be a significant part of your life?
Carl Green Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 Quote MMX2010 (I'd quote you MMX2010 but I can't seem to quote or even copy and paste to this page on this laptop.) I'm not sure why but it's not exactly a complete repulsion or anything. I just don't find beliefs that "other people should be doing x" are appealing. I like to surround myself with people that only worry about how I'm doing, not what I'm doing. Just a personal preference.
MMX2010 Posted October 16, 2014 Author Posted October 16, 2014 Quote MMX2010 (I'd quote you MMX2010 but I can't seem to quote or even copy and paste to this page on this laptop.) I'm not sure why but it's not exactly a complete repulsion or anything. I just don't find beliefs that "other people should be doing x" are appealing. I like to surround myself with people that only worry about how I'm doing, not what I'm doing. Just a personal preference. Okay, that's really interesting. Thanks.
Carl Green Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 According to Josh, it's not about clarity, but about normalizing transgender, like it's as trivial as the kind of music you like. You even equate it to just another dog breed implying it's similarly trivial. I don't hate a "term". And even if I did, so what? What do you care if I hate a term? I have no idea what you mean by "misguided". As I said in the chat, I meant "hating" in a jovial sense. Hoepefully I'll remember in the future to make it more clear. But this is why I've been participating less and less on the boards as time goes by. What I hate is that if I say that transgender is a tragedy, then it makes me out to be a complete asshole, and that the way people talk about it isn't honest. I hate that people are as afraid as they are to talk candidly about it. I hate that people are encouraged to take offense at conversations like this one. What do you mean by tragedy there? Maybe if you're clear on it when you're communicating with someone that identifies as transgender they might not consider you an asshole, but I can see why they would if you mean tragedy in a sense they see as negative. You said you'd understand if it were about manipulation, and if the purpose is to frame transgender as trivial, and it turns out that it's not trivial at all, despite it being obviously non trivial, then yea, that's manipulative. So, logically, you should have a problem with it as I do. What am I missing here, Kevin? It's not obviosly non trivial for me. ...obviously. What are you losing when someone identifies as transgender? What is someone identifying as transgender (or anything) "getting over on you"?
Psychophant Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 Now, the term "Cisgender" is rather troublesome. Previous to its creation when one would observe a male or female you would associate their body with their internal gender. To date, this is accurate with over 99.7% of the population, and is universally understood in dialogue. So to make 0.3% of the population feel special they came with a special term to describe the "rule" and not the "exception". If you accept these term you also have to refer to neurotypical social skills instead of social skills, cuz otherwise it would be inconsistent to make a normative statement about a particular skill set. From the extreme introvert sugar coated with Asperger´s Syndrom.
Josh F Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 I disagree, and I can prove it with an example. After pondering my own gender for quite some time, I've finally discovered what my gender is - Paragon Male. A Paragon Male is a man who believes that his gender is best expressed by becoming a paragon of masculinity. He believes that all men should strive for physical fitness, emotional control, scientific and mathematical prowess, financial independence, philosophical virtue, and should assume the leadership role in all heterosexual relationships. A Paragon Male doesn't have much patience for non-physically fit men, because non-physically fit men lack discipline, which is essential to being Paragon. Nor does a Paragon Male have much patience for physically-fit men who fail to assume the leadership role in heterosexual relationships, because such a man is easily controlled by her whims and needs - and therefore isn't Paragon. How do you respond to my gender identity? 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? Are there transgender people who believe they are born in a male or female body but identify as a third gender? Not that I've ever heard. When people are talking about transgender, they are referring to being in the opposite sexed body. They are saying clearly that they have a female brain in a male body (or vice versa), in binary terms. Because of a rare genetic condition, their brain produces the sex hormones of the opposite sex. Transgender people have reported to me that it's incredibly painful psychologically to be put through that torture, and require years of hormone treatments and even sexual reassignment surgeries. Clearly sexual reassignment surgeries and hormone treatments do not exist in nature. I wonder how much help it is to suggest that this is as healthy as being "cisgender". I somehow doubt this helps anyone. It's subjectivism applied to health. 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)
Kevin Beal Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 I resent that I'm portrayed as contributing to bigotry for saying that the following is a tragedy and a disease: A person who received one sex's sex hormones during the formation of their sex organs and then the other sex's sex hormones during the formation of the part of their brain responsible for sexual identity. This often accompanied by a lifelong agonizing sense that the sex of their body is wrong. So agonizing in fact as to lead them to sexual reassignment and hormone treatments lasting years and costing them a great deal of money. That in addition to actual bigotry, they have to deal with great deal of confusion, sustained body discomfort and mental anguish. If you don't like the words "tragedy" or "disease", then call it whatever you want. It's not like the distinction changes what I'm saying. And it's me that is fixated on words? I don't think so. This pedantry is really irritating. Am I absolutely insane or do you seriously not understand the point I'm making? I don't hate or fear transgender people. I feel sorry for them for what must be incredibly difficult. And the only thing I'm allowed to be sorry for is the bigotry. If I'm sorry for the situation itself, I'm like this enormous asshole. My empathy is really just bigotry. It's crazy making trying to talk about this stuff with people! It's like I'm saying, I really hate it when people do X, and then that's exactly what I get in response to that! Aargh
fractional slacker Posted October 17, 2014 Posted October 17, 2014 One thought experiment. It's not a proof, but I think has some value to showcasing the truth value to the labels of cisgender and transgender.Take a modern person who is experiencing a transgender situation, awakening, crisis, or whatever it is called. Now imagine they were the only inhabitant on an island and had to struggle to meet basic needs: shelter, food, security. How much time and energy would they put into their gender identification? Is transgenderism an internal, organic, and natural process or a reaction to external pressures and social conditions and influences?
Carl Green Posted October 17, 2014 Posted October 17, 2014 I don't hate or fear transgender people. I feel sorry for them for what must be incredibly difficult. The reason why their lives are difficult is because of other people right? It's not like they're physically handicapped and their difficulties are due to their own situation. If a person that has a female body but identifies mentally as a male, or vice versa, is in a society that just doesn't care how someone identifies sexually because really, it's none of their business as far as I'm concerned, than there wouldn't be any tragedy to begin with. There would just be a bunch of people getting along. I'm not saying it's not a tragedy. Just trying to clarify what I see as the possible cause for it. Ya know?
Kevin Beal Posted October 17, 2014 Posted October 17, 2014 The reason why their lives are difficult is because of other people right? No. At least not the only reason. I don't think you are retaining any of what I'm saying. And actually, I think this is a pretty big lack of empathy on your part, if you don't mind me saying. That the problem is simply other people's judgments? No! Have you ever talked to a transgender person who felt the intense desire to go through the surgery? Or felt so pained that they wanted to cut off their own genitals? How confusing must all of that be, regardless of what any other person thinks? But let's not talk about any of that! (And you haven't despite repeated prompting to do so)
Kevin Beal Posted October 17, 2014 Posted October 17, 2014 What do you mean by tragedy there? Maybe if you're clear on it when you're communicating with someone that identifies as transgender they might not consider you an asshole, but I can see why they would if you mean tragedy in a sense they see as negative. Does this mean that you think I'm an asshole? (Yes or no) If you just say that you're an anarchist, I could see how some ignorant people might think you were a "contrarian", but I wouldn't find it worth bringing up because I don't agree and I know it's just ignorance. But you felt this was a necessary point to bring up, suggesting that you agree in some sense that I'm an asshole.
_LiveFree_ Posted October 17, 2014 Posted October 17, 2014 So I assert: (1) The body itself is neither male nor female, only the sex cells (sperm and egg) are either male or female. (2) There is no such thing as a "male brain", "female brain", "male body", or "female body". (3) Therefore, there is no such thing as "a male brain trapped inside of a female body"; hence, there's no such thing as an objectively existing transgendered person. (There are, however, many people who have the subjective feeling that they're transgendered, which I assert is the same thing as "having the subjective feeling that you're one-with-god" or "having the subjective feeling that certain races are inferior to others".)MMX, Is this still your position? (Forgive me as it is a bit difficult keeping up with the discussion in this thread)Also, Kevin, yes there are 3rd gender Trans. You've probably never heard of them because it's very rare. ------My perception of the majority of this thread is that there is a ton of ignorance on the topic. And this is being masked in word play, bad philosophy, and unprocessed childhood trauma. This isn't surprising as the scientific community has just begun to really explore these things. http://www.shb-info.org/sexbrain.htmlGood reading
Kevin Beal Posted October 17, 2014 Posted October 17, 2014 Also, Kevin, yes there are 3rd gender Trans. You've probably never heard of them because it's very rare. Well, what is it? Google seems to only show results for transgender itself being a 3rd gender, but this doesn't make any sense to me since it implies both sexes, not a new sex (trans = transition). If you mean "gender" in the queer theory sense, then that was not what I meant. When I was talking about a 3rd gender, I misspoke. I was hinting at the binary nature of sexual identity, suggesting that transgender implies this binary and in talking about transgender, we are really talking about sex, and not gender (in the queer theory sense of the word). So to appeal to all the new genders people have created labels for is beside the point of what is happening for transgender people. I made this point to bring people's attention to the conclusion of the article you linked. I read the whole article. There were parts that were above my head talking about brain structures, but as far as I can tell, save for some incorrect terminology, my account of transexualism is correct: The human fetal brain develops in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone and in the female direction through the absence of this hormone. During the intrauterine period, gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender), cognition, aggression and other behaviors are programmed in the brain in a sexually differentiated way. Sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place in the first two months of pregnancy, whereas sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy. This means that in the event of an ambiguous sex at birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the degree of masculinization of the brain. Our observations on reversed sex differences in the brains of patients with transsexualism (Harry Benjamin Syndrome) support the idea that HBS is based on an opposite sexual differentiation of i) sexual organs during the first couple of months of pregnancy and ii) the brain in the second half of pregnancy. There is no proof that the social environment after birth has an effect on the development of gender identity, while the possible effects on sexual differentiation of the brain by endocrine disrupters in the environment and in medicines given to the pregnant mother should be investigated. The differences observed in the INAH3 in relation to gender identity and this structure's possible connection with the BSTc suggest that these two nuclei and the two earlier described nuclei that were found to be related to gender identity, i.e. the SDN-POA (= intermediate nucleus = INAH1 and 2) and SCN, are all part of a complex network involved in various aspects of gender identity. Neurobiological research on gender identity in humans is only just gathering momentum, but the evidence shows that humans have a vast array of brain differences related to gender. There is a need for further multidisciplinary research on the putative influence of testosterone in development, e.g. in individuals with complete androgen-insensitivity syndrome. The stories used as reference in the article about transexuals are, to me, tragic. So, if you are including me in the number of the ignorant, then ignorant about what, exactly?
Carl Green Posted October 17, 2014 Posted October 17, 2014 Does this mean that you think I'm an asshole? (Yes or no) Absolutely not. Just to be crystal clear. I'm discontinuing my involvement with this thread. It's clear to me that this is not the best medium for me to discuss this topic. Either I'm conveying my thoughts completely wrong or I'm not understanding anyone elses correctly. I'd be happy to discuss this topic over skype or g+ if we could also get someone who actually is transgender.
_LiveFree_ Posted October 17, 2014 Posted October 17, 2014 Well, what is it? Google seems to only show results for transgender itself being a 3rd gender, but this doesn't make any sense to me since it implies both sexes, not a new sex (trans = transition). If you mean "gender" in the queer theory sense, then that was not what I meant. When I was talking about a 3rd gender, I misspoke. I was hinting at the binary nature of sexual identity, suggesting that transgender implies this binary and in talking about transgender, we are really talking about sex, and not gender (in the queer theory sense of the word). So to appeal to all the new genders people have created labels for is beside the point of what is happening for transgender people. I made this point to bring people's attention to the conclusion of the article you linked. I read the whole article. There were parts that were above my head talking about brain structures, but as far as I can tell, save for some incorrect terminology, my account of transexualism is correct: The stories used as reference in the article about transexuals are, to me, tragic. So, if you are including me in the number of the ignorant, then ignorant about what, exactly? As my post said, it was my perception, not a fact. I will go back and reread your posts. Preliminarily, "transgender" is not the same as "male" or "female". It is not a gender. It is an umbrella term that encompasses all people who do not identify as fully male or fully female. There are many gender classifications that fall under transgender. To say that transgender is a gender is like saying Ben and Jerry's is an ice cream flavor. I'll admit that I'm still trying to figure my way around all of these terms as they are somewhat new to me and can be confusing. The term "transgender" is not a good term to describe this state, and as you pointed out it does imply a binary condition. Male <----trans---->female. The problem is that this binary understanding is societal. Transgender implies no action. If a person is born with male parts but has the brain structure of a woman, whether she realizes it or not, and whether or not she ever undergoes transition, this person is considered transgender. Now if this person starts behaving as a woman and/or decides to go through transition, then she becomes a transvestite. Her gender was always female, but her sex transitioned from male to female. There are some transgender individuals who are pangender who may or may not choose to alter their genitals. Gender does not equal sex. Sexual identity is about who you are attracted to. It is not gender identity or the type of genitals you have. Sexual identity is sexual orientation. There are more than three (gay, straight, bi) types of sexual orientation. Gender identity is what you perceive yourself to be. Sex is what your body turned out as. I apologize if this is covering old ground. I just wanted to get in a quick reply before I go spend a bit of time rereading this thread. Thanks, Kev [edit: correction in terms: Transgender and transexual are basically the same thing. I mistook transexual for transvestite, which I have now fixed in this post.]
st434u Posted October 17, 2014 Posted October 17, 2014 I also believe that "gender" is identical to "spiritual being" in that there's no objective evidence to support the existence of "gender". But it's even more annoying, because I despise people who haven't studied evolutionary biology, and yet comment on "gender issues": they're trying to use anti-knowledge (gender-related studies) to overpower knowledge (biologically-related studies of sex).I know, right? I mean it's ok if they don't know or never though about it, but they're always so aggressive. I've been called "evolutionist" as a derogatory attribute many times, and it's never been by religious fundamentalists. It's always been by feminists and other LGBT "progressives".
_LiveFree_ Posted October 17, 2014 Posted October 17, 2014 I know, right? I mean it's ok if they don't know or never though about it, but they're always so aggressive. I've been called "evolutionist" as a derogatory attribute many times, and it's never been by religious fundamentalists. It's always been by feminists and other LGBT "progressives". Because it's ok to be collectivist when you're ridiculing collectivists. I disagree, and I can prove it with an example. After pondering my own gender for quite some time, I've finally discovered what my gender is - Paragon Male. A Paragon Male is a man who believes that his gender is best expressed by becoming a paragon of masculinity. He believes that all men should strive for physical fitness, emotional control, scientific and mathematical prowess, financial independence, philosophical virtue, and should assume the leadership role in all heterosexual relationships. A Paragon Male doesn't have much patience for non-physically fit men, because non-physically fit men lack discipline, which is essential to being Paragon. Nor does a Paragon Male have much patience for physically-fit men who fail to assume the leadership role in heterosexual relationships, because such a man is easily controlled by her whims and needs - and therefore isn't Paragon. How do you respond to my gender identity? this has nothing to do with gender identity.
Josh F Posted October 17, 2014 Posted October 17, 2014 I resent that I'm portrayed as contributing to bigotry for saying that the following is a tragedy and a disease: A person who received one sex's sex hormones during the formation of their sex organs and then the other sex's sex hormones during the formation of the part of their brain responsible for sexual identity. This often accompanied by a lifelong agonizing sense that the sex of their body is wrong. So agonizing in fact as to lead them to sexual reassignment and hormone treatments lasting years and costing them a great deal of money. That in addition to actual bigotry, they have to deal with great deal of confusion, sustained body discomfort and mental anguish. If you don't like the words "tragedy" or "disease", then call it whatever you want. It's not like the distinction changes what I'm saying. And it's me that is fixated on words? I don't think so. This pedantry is really irritating. Am I absolutely insane or do you seriously not understand the point I'm making? I don't hate or fear transgender people. I feel sorry for them for what must be incredibly difficult. And the only thing I'm allowed to be sorry for is the bigotry. If I'm sorry for the situation itself, I'm like this enormous asshole. My empathy is really just bigotry. It's crazy making trying to talk about this stuff with people! It's like I'm saying, I really hate it when people do X, and then that's exactly what I get in response to that! Aargh 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?
_LiveFree_ Posted October 17, 2014 Posted October 17, 2014 I resent that I'm portrayed as contributing to bigotry for saying that the following is a tragedy and a disease: A person who received one sex's sex hormones during the formation of their sex organs and then the other sex's sex hormones during the formation of the part of their brain responsible for sexual identity. This often accompanied by a lifelong agonizing sense that the sex of their body is wrong. So agonizing in fact as to lead them to sexual reassignment and hormone treatments lasting years and costing them a great deal of money. That in addition to actual bigotry, they have to deal with great deal of confusion, sustained body discomfort and mental anguish. If you don't like the words "tragedy" or "disease", then call it whatever you want. It's not like the distinction changes what I'm saying. And it's me that is fixated on words? I don't think so. This pedantry is really irritating. Am I absolutely insane or do you seriously not understand the point I'm making? I don't hate or fear transgender people. I feel sorry for them for what must be incredibly difficult. And the only thing I'm allowed to be sorry for is the bigotry. If I'm sorry for the situation itself, I'm like this enormous asshole. My empathy is really just bigotry. It's crazy making trying to talk about this stuff with people! It's like I'm saying, I really hate it when people do X, and then that's exactly what I get in response to that! Aargh Ok, Kev, I reread your posts. I think you have a pretty good understanding. I also think you have sympathy for transgender people and what they have to experience in their life. Calling it a tragedy is, in my opinion, just a bit too far. A tragedy is when a transgender person doesn't receive the help they need and decides to suicide. The suicide is tragedy. If Stephen Hawking suicided, that be a tragedy. Him being confined to a wheel chair? Well, that is his challenge in life and it sucks. But he's done remarkable things even with his disability. There is no surgery to make him normal again. Transgender people (and it's "transgender" not "transgendered". you wouldn't say "homosexualled") face a challenge in life that is no doubt a struggle. Hell, 400 years ago if you survived birth, life just sucked balls anyway. Is that a tragedy? I think you're overdoing it and that's why it comes across as offensive.
Kevin Beal Posted October 17, 2014 Posted October 17, 2014 I don't know why you think you're being accused of bigotry. [...] 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? This is what I meant by being accused of bigotry. Does this not strike you as inconsistent?
Josh F Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 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.
Kevin Beal Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 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'm genuinely confused. You say that you aren't accusing me of bigotry but then say that I'm saying bigoted things. I know that it's not politically correct to say that transexuality is tragic and a disease. I said as much several times. So, in your analogy, I'm saying "nigger" and knowing it's offensive, so that would mean that you are calling me a bigot no matter how you spin it, right? I mean, if you are calling me a bigot but refuse to own up to calling me a bigot, then that's pretty shitty, isn't it? At least give me "yes, I'm saying you're being bigoted". I don't understand how I'm promoting cultural norms or how that leads to bigotry, but one thing at a time, I suppose...
Josh F Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 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?
MMX2010 Posted October 18, 2014 Author Posted October 18, 2014 this has nothing to do with gender identity. It does for two reasons: (1) Paragon Male doesn't appear in any discussion of this list of gender terms, so I'm not being represented. (2) People who insist that Paragon Males are just Cis-males are deliberately mis-representing my gender identity, even though gender identity is subjective - and therefore you cannot define or restrict someone else's gender identity for them. http://kerryg.hubpages.com/hub/What-is-Your-Gender-Identity this has nothing to do with gender identity.
Kevin Beal Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 I think I was extremely clear. But that's not for you to decide. That's for the people you are communicating an idea to to decide. And I remain confused despite your conviction that it was clear, for the reasons I stated. Am I being unclear about my confusion?
Josh F Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 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.
Kevin Beal Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 [...] 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. I suspect these things, yes. That's the entire point of me bringing it up. And you're unwilling to discuss a single point raised on the topic. Text book bigot. Thank you! I guess you kind of sort of finally called me a bigot. Honestly, that is refreshing. And no, this is not the truth. This is actually the exact opposite of the truth. I insist on talking about a single point that you have yet to actually address. Your original post was a response to mine, meaning it's supposed to be an actual response to the content of what I'm saying. I make a case as to why I think transexualism is tragic and maybe even a genetic disease, and you don't really respond to that. You responded to my choice of words. ("You can't say 'disease' you bigot!"). You said that homosexuality used to be considered a disease and that you can't imagine how anything gender related could be a disease, but all that really amounts to is an argument from incredulity (i.e. "I don't understand how something could be true, therefore it's not true"). A bigot, as you rightfully point out, is a person who insists on believing something despite the available evidence (i.e. willfully ignorant). I provide a case to back up my claim and it's like it had never even been written. Projection maybe? I keep trying to get you to address the point about it being a disease, how I actually came to this conclusion, and you either imply that I'm bigoted or turn into a cloud of subjectivity, telling me that needing corrective surgery is as healthy as not needing corrective surgery. Maybe you think that's an actual response, but it's really really not. I would genuinely like to hear a response to that at some point, but if you think I'm being dishonest and that I'm a bigot, then I don't see what point there would be for you to continue. It would just be masochism continuing to deal with a liar and transphobe like me. And to be clear, this is your rule that we have to respond to the content of people's arguments or else that makes you a bigot. I'm simply holding up a mirror for you. I don't think you can see it. On my side, this was all very conscious, because I don't want to pretend like something was addressed when it actually wasn't. I think you're overdoing it and that's why it comes across as offensive. I honestly could care less if I'm offending people's mythologies. If I'm wrong then that's one thing. (And thank you for the corrections!) The last thing I want to be is wrong and offensive at the same time.
_LiveFree_ Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 I honestly could care less if I'm offending people's mythologies. If I'm wrong then that's one thing. (And thank you for the corrections!) The last thing I want to be is wrong and offensive at the same time. I'm not clear on what you consider a mythology. It does for two reasons: (1) Paragon Male doesn't appear in any discussion of this list of gender terms, so I'm not being represented. (2) People who insist that Paragon Males are just Cis-males are deliberately mis-representing my gender identity, even though gender identity is subjective - and therefore you cannot define or restrict someone else's gender identity for them. http://kerryg.hubpages.com/hub/What-is-Your-Gender-Identity this has nothing to do with gender identity. you're trolling.
Josh F Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 I suspect these things, yes. That's the entire point of me bringing it up. Thank you! I guess you kind of sort of finally called me a bigot. Honestly, that is refreshing. And no, this is not the truth. This is actually the exact opposite of the truth. I insist on talking about a single point that you have yet to actually address. Your original post was a response to mine, meaning it's supposed to be an actual response to the content of what I'm saying. I make a case as to why I think transexualism is tragic and maybe even a genetic disease, and you don't really respond to that. You responded to my choice of words. ("You can't say 'disease' you bigot!"). You said that homosexuality used to be considered a disease and that you can't imagine how anything gender related could be a disease, but all that really amounts to is an argument from incredulity (i.e. "I don't understand how something could be true, therefore it's not true"). A bigot, as you rightfully point out, is a person who insists on believing something despite the available evidence (i.e. willfully ignorant). I provide a case to back up my claim and it's like it had never even been written. Projection maybe? I keep trying to get you to address the point about it being a disease, how I actually came to this conclusion, and you either imply that I'm bigoted or turn into a cloud of subjectivity, telling me that needing corrective surgery is as healthy as not needing corrective surgery. Maybe you think that's an actual response, but it's really really not. I would genuinely like to hear a response to that at some point, but if you think I'm being dishonest and that I'm a bigot, then I don't see what point there would be for you to continue. It would just be masochism continuing to deal with a liar and transphobe like me. And to be clear, this is your rule that we have to respond to the content of people's arguments or else that makes you a bigot. I'm simply holding up a mirror for you. I don't think you can see it. On my side, this was all very conscious, because I don't want to pretend like something was addressed when it actually wasn't. I honestly could care less if I'm offending people's mythologies. If I'm wrong then that's one thing. (And thank you for the corrections!) The last thing I want to be is wrong and offensive at the same time. 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.
MMX2010 Posted October 18, 2014 Author Posted October 18, 2014 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. *ahem* Josh, I've enjoyed your posts to me on this subject, but you're forgetting something that Nathan Diehl refuses to acknowledge - that a person's feelings about their own gender, as well as a person's feelings about someone else's gender, are SUBJECTIVE. Stefan has given us a wonderfully effective tool to discuss any subjective feelings: Real Time Relationships. But you're not RTR-ing effectively when questioning Kevin Beal's word-choice, because you're not discussing how you feel about his word choice. Instead, you're trying to "make him understand" how his word choice "might be offensive" to someone else - (interestingly, those "someone else's" aren't present in this thread right now; they're instead implied to be "people who Kevin Beal might meet, and might offend, so he'd better learn certain things now, so he doesn't"). Nathan Diehl isn't RTR-ing at all. He's just pronouncing certain viewpoints to be "trolling", and exhibiting no curiosity towards anyone who disagrees with him - except to tell them how offensive they are. You'll note how he tells Kevin Beal, "I think you're overdoing it, and it comes across as offensive. - but he fails to add the caveat that such "overdoings" and "offense" are perceived by Nathan Diehl, and only Nathan Diehl and have, until shown otherwise, nothing to do with how any other transgendered individual (or pro-transgender individual) feels about Kevin Beal's argument.
Josh F Posted October 19, 2014 Posted October 19, 2014 *ahem* Josh, I've enjoyed your posts to me on this subject, but you're forgetting something that Nathan Diehl refuses to acknowledge - that a person's feelings about their own gender, as well as a person's feelings about someone else's gender, are SUBJECTIVE. Stefan has given us a wonderfully effective tool to discuss any subjective feelings: Real Time Relationships. But you're not RTR-ing effectively when questioning Kevin Beal's word-choice, because you're not discussing how you feel about his word choice. Instead, you're trying to "make him understand" how his word choice "might be offensive" to someone else - (interestingly, those "someone else's" aren't present in this thread right now; they're instead implied to be "people who Kevin Beal might meet, and might offend, so he'd better learn certain things now, so he doesn't"). Nathan Diehl isn't RTR-ing at all. He's just pronouncing certain viewpoints to be "trolling", and exhibiting no curiosity towards anyone who disagrees with him - except to tell them how offensive they are. You'll note how he tells Kevin Beal, "I think you're overdoing it, and it comes across as offensive. - but he fails to add the caveat that such "overdoings" and "offense" are perceived by Nathan Diehl, and only Nathan Diehl and have, until shown otherwise, nothing to do with how any other transgendered individual (or pro-transgender individual) feels about Kevin Beal's argument. 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.
_LiveFree_ Posted October 19, 2014 Posted October 19, 2014 *ahem* Josh, I've enjoyed your posts to me on this subject, but you're forgetting something that Nathan Diehl refuses to acknowledge - that a person's feelings about their own gender, as well as a person's feelings about someone else's gender, are SUBJECTIVE. Stefan has given us a wonderfully effective tool to discuss any subjective feelings: Real Time Relationships. But you're not RTR-ing effectively when questioning Kevin Beal's word-choice, because you're not discussing how you feel about his word choice. Instead, you're trying to "make him understand" how his word choice "might be offensive" to someone else - (interestingly, those "someone else's" aren't present in this thread right now; they're instead implied to be "people who Kevin Beal might meet, and might offend, so he'd better learn certain things now, so he doesn't"). Nathan Diehl isn't RTR-ing at all. He's just pronouncing certain viewpoints to be "trolling", and exhibiting no curiosity towards anyone who disagrees with him - except to tell them how offensive they are. You'll note how he tells Kevin Beal, "I think you're overdoing it, and it comes across as offensive. - but he fails to add the caveat that such "overdoings" and "offense" are perceived by Nathan Diehl, and only Nathan Diehl and have, until shown otherwise, nothing to do with how any other transgendered individual (or pro-transgender individual) feels about Kevin Beal's argument. MMX, you do not understand RTR if you think it can be done on a message board. And not only that, but even if I were on the phone with you or in person I wouldn't feel comfortable RTRing with you. Quite frankly I find you to be full of crap. You've shown zero vulnerability or willingness to question your own conclusions. I have had curiosity towards you. I asked you questions in another thread, which you refused to answer until i had to ask you multiple times to do so. Then you ignored my other questions.
MMX2010 Posted October 19, 2014 Author Posted October 19, 2014 My goal in this conversation is not to make anyone do anything, only to explain Queer Theory to anyone interested in understanding it. Your goal is impossible. At best, you can only explain your feelings about Queer Theory to anyone interested. Since Queer Theory is subjective - (to the point where some very cynical people, such as Captain Capitalism, believe that it's 100% made up) - you don't have the authority to explain Queer Theory to anyone. If Queer Theory were objective - (like the Theory of Evolution) - then you'd be able to explain those objective aspects of it to anyone. MMX, you do not understand RTR if you think it can be done on a message board. And not only that, but even if I were on the phone with you or in person I wouldn't feel comfortable RTRing with you. Quite frankly I find you to be full of crap. You've shown zero vulnerability or willingness to question your own conclusions. I have had curiosity towards you. I asked you questions in another thread, which you refused to answer until i had to ask you multiple times to do so. Then you ignored my other questions. "Quite frankly, I find you to be full of crap." is a accusation without evidence. It's also impossible for anyone to be "full of crap" when discussing SUBJECTIVE ideas. Furthermore, you're arguing that "MMX isn't curious, because he only answered ONE of my questions!" But Nathan Diehl, you've never answered ANY of my questions, so you're detonating yourself by accusing me of being non-curious along those grounds.
_LiveFree_ Posted October 19, 2014 Posted October 19, 2014 At best, you can only explain your feelings about Queer Theory to anyone interested. Since Queer Theory is subjective - (to the point where some very cynical people, such as Captain Capitalism, believe that it's 100% made up) - you don't have the authority to explain Queer Theory to anyone. If Queer Theory were objective - (like the Theory of Evolution) - then you'd be able to explain those objective aspects of it to anyone. "Quite frankly, I find you to be full of crap." is a accusation without evidence. It's also impossible for anyone to be "full of crap" when discussing SUBJECTIVE ideas. Furthermore, you're arguing that "MMX isn't curious, because he only answered ONE of my questions!" But Nathan Diehl, you've never answered ANY of my questions, so you're detonating yourself by accusing me of being non-curious along those grounds. This is what I'm talking about. You are not questioning yourself. You do not ask why I think you're full of crap. To you, you're right, and everyone needs to see that you're right. This is boring. Moving on.
Recommended Posts