Does anybody have knowledge of transgenderism?

[GrungeGuy]

I do want to add that I don't put these thoughts forward as any sort of conclusions or certainty on my part. It is interesting to note the studies that Lucas presented and the results seem to be in line with what you would expect if there was a thing called a gender identity that was innate and may or may not match "the sex that is found between one's legs", though that isn't the only possible explanation. It seems pretty important to determine whether we are talking about an innate gender identity, or something more like a powerful sub-personality (a protector in IFS terms, a defense mechanism, a condition of worth, etc. depending on what theory of psychopathology you would use). I appreciate having the opportunity to give voice to these thoughts here and to see if they make any sense to anyone else.

[MMX2010]

It seems pretty important to determine whether we are talking about an innate gender identity, or something more like a powerful sub-personality (a protector in IFS terms, a defense mechanism, a condition of worth, etc. depending on what theory of psychopathology you would use).

 

How does IFS typically handle powerful sub-personalities, like protectors? 

[GrungeGuy]

Hi MMX,

 

I would prefer not to explain IFS right now, but if you are interested, I would recommend these resources:

 

http://www.selfleadership.org/

 

Self Therapy by Jay Early http://www.amazon.com/Self-Therapy-Step-By-Step-Wholeness-Cutting-Edge-Psychotherapy/dp/0984392777

[Frosty]

Sorry a delay posting this I've had to think some of these things through a bit more. I listened to an interesting debate between a feminist and Janet Bloomfield the woman responsible for the #WomenAgainstFeminism hashtag who runs the JudgyBitch blog, they debated on the AmazingAtheists youtube channel and Janet brought up the concept of Trans people not representing a new kind of gender but we should just consider it more of illness like we would any other abnormal bodily function. I'm not quite sure what to make of that, when I look past the shock value that initially has I think it makes sense. The more I think about it the more the new age "gender" which is moving away from the "binary" gender of male or female is kinda unhelpful.

 

It's also horribly confusing because gender is supposed to represent social norms in this context for example if you wear a dress or trousers, or makeup or not, however other parts of feminism are trying to destroy gender norms which if you think about it really just leaves you with sex as the only distinguishing trait. Outside of exceedingly rare mixed gender cases (certainly much rarer than trans genders which itself is rare) we basically do have a gender binary. I'm all for moving away from a society which has gender norms as i think that's just peer pressure to conform to expectations which itself is bad and so I can't really in good conscience support that, but at the same time the idea of non binary gender stops making any sense. So I'm starting to sway towards not really considering things like trans as essentially a new gender, I think you're the biological gender you measurably are and that likely the brain is suffering from an abnormal state, probably due to imbalance of hormones during fetal development or something similar.

 

Still I have no preference with how people deal with these issues be that changing their body, or altering their mind, but I think that should be kept separate from socially inherited behaviour in society for males and females to act certain ways.

 

In an early post you wrote:

 

"However I'm talking about the framing that is used by trans people, I almost always read that they're born with the wrong body and that the mentality, the brain part is the part that's 'right' - if that even really means anything, which I'm not convicned it does, how is one thing inherently right and the other thing inherently wrong? It would be more correct to say they feel mismatched."

 

My assumption is that some transgender individuals often say they were born with the wrong body because it is easier for the lay person to understand. There's likely to be a wide range alternative words and phrases that could also describe the experience of being transgender. In other words, would it be accurate for a trans* person to say "I feel an incongruence between my mind (or brain) and body"? Probably.

 

It's possible I'm just reading too much into it and that, as you say, it's just a convenient way of describing the feeling to others to which the feeling is foreign and cannot be experienced directly. It's really more that this framing is also used in conjuction with common correcting the issue by changing the body, again that could just be coincidence, as has already been discussed, transitioning is shown to be the best route to happiness, maybe the only one for a lot of trans people, and at the very least that's just a matter of practicality.

 

 

There are actually a lot of stories of trans people who get married, have children and then only come out to their partner later. I think what this reveals is the enormous lack of intimacy and openness that was in the relationship to begin with, although such lack of intimacy could be understandable for those in a culture with a heavy stigma against trans people who have to hide it for survival. In some of these cases the relationship stays intact (there was sufficient intimacy between the two consciousnesses that the relationship could survive one person's physical changes and changes in external identity, and the coming out may be regarded as a movement towards more intimacy), whereas in many there is a break-up. For those in that situation either option could be the more appropriate, though ideally the situation would never occur to begin with, if sufficient intimacy and honesty had been established prior to marriage.

 

I'm mostly heterosexual but panromantic, so although physical appearance is important to me for sexual attraction, I can have a "life partner" arrangement with someone of any physical appearance so long as the psychological intimacy is there. 

 

 

That's a really good point. In my post I was making it out as though there was a very strong divide between the brain and the rest of the body (though I was doing this in the context of the false dichotomy of completely changing the brain or completely changing the body), whereas in actuality the brain and body are constantly in communication and influencing each other via the endocrine and nervous systems. 

 

In my case, the psychological effects of taking estrogen and suppressing testosterone were actually some of the most beneficial effects I experienced from the treatment. For background: My entire life between the onset of puberty at ~12 and starting HRT at 17 was completely non-functional (I was a Western hikikomori and spent 5 years out of school). Within months of starting HRT, even though I was still presenting male at the time, my life began an upwards trajectory that continues to this day. Philosophy also explains part of the upward trajectory, however I had been involved in it for multiple years prior to starting HRT without reaping much benefit.

 

Under the influence of testosterone, I can't even say that I was depressed all of the time: I was completely emotionally numb. Not once during those years of male puberty did I smile, cry, feel sadness or even laugh. I also had to deal with the distress of my body and face becoming covered in hair and my voice deepening (complete horror for a teenage girl). Moreover, the mode of sexuality testosterone stimulates wasn't compatible with me. I was an active and outgoing kid until the onset of male puberty (in a suboptimal family environment but getting by), and became unable to leave the house for months at a time.

 

Though I don't think being trans and the testosterone were the exclusive reasons for the dysfunction in my life during that period. The parental response when my social withdrawal started certainly played a role in its severity. This is an area in which I am pursuing further self-knowledge. It does seem to be the case that depression and underachievement are very common in trans people prior to transition and tend to improve afterwards, though some trans people seem to be able to meet social, educational and career commitments without trouble pre-transition, so an area to explore would be what differentiates the two.

 

I'd just like to disclaimer the above (given that we live in a society which has coined the phrase "testosterone poisoning" yet not "estrogen poisoning") that I don't think testosterone is worse than estrogen overall. My point is not that testosterone is bad - it is that testosterone was incompatible with me, reduced my ability to function, and that it did that because, as a woman, I have evolved to thrive on estrogen, just as men have evolved to thrive on testosterone. There is a lot of evidence that anyone can find on Google showing that when cis men have reduced testosterone levels they experience depression and lack of motivation, and there is a lot of evidence showing that when cis women have reduced estrogen levels they also experience depression (see: the menopause). The same is the case in trans people when their levels of sex hormones aren't within the healthy ranges of their identified sex.

 

Being on estrogen, I have the ability to connect to my emotions, both positive and negative. I can process my life situation, and have the basic drive/motivation necessary in order to work with it.

 

Getting back to your question, I guess it depends to what extent we see emotions (to the extent to which they are influenced by hormones) as being part of a person's identity. Certainly, I am the same consciousness I was at 15 and have the same memories and mostly the same personality, but my way of engaging with my emotional life is very different now than it was then, and this was largely influenced by the medical suppression of testosterone and administration of estrogen bringing me to standard female levels. 

 

To answer your question about the partner of 20 years who starts HRT: Well, why are they starting hormones? If I have been intimate with the inner life of my partner, I might understand the problems that their current hormone levels are causing them. They will remain more or less the same person inside as they are taking HRT, the way in which they experience their emotions will just experience changes. If these changes are positive for my partner, and I am with them throughout the gradual process of them taking place, is there any loss in intimacy between my consciousness and my partner's consciousness? I don't think so.

 

Thank you! I really appreciate and find interesting the points you are raising very interesting.

 

 

 

​It seems fine. After all, the brain can only develop in the presence of stimuli that is sensed by the body.

 

I think you're right about the issue of how trans people are seen in society, in some places there's still strong stigma around it which is a shame, hopefully society becoming more enlightened is just a matter of time as the older generation with very ignorant views slowly die off and the younger generation grow up more open minded and enlightened.

 

However I think that withholding this from a serious romantic partner is a big deal especially if you do it for a long time, to cover up something not only extremely important to yourself, but something potentially extremely important to your partner is not virtuous at all.

 

I'm grateful for your insight and the detail you put into your post, I'm open minded but ultimately fairly ignorant when it comes to this topic so learning some real world perspective is very helpful.

 

I suppose the question of love is somewhat of a tricky one, It's tough not to get caught up defining yourself into a corner with words, for example if you fall in love with someones identity is it fair to say if that identity changes you're no longer in love with them? Is that more or less important when the persons identity changes due to physical or mental attributes? I guess in a free society with freedom of association you have your own standards.

 

An interesting debate I got in to was with someone over the UK reform of the gay marriage laws, part of keeping marriages the same sex was not allowing people who are married to legally have their sex changed (not the operation, but the legal acknowledgement of their sex). When the new laws were suggested they also suggested changes to the marriage laws allowing future sex changes to occur in marriages but existing marriages the person wanting to change sex had to have written consent from the other partner. The SJWs spoke out about this about how it allowed people to control the sex of their partner, when in fact it was just protecting the rights of the married couple since part of the marraige contract inferred that your partner stays the same sex.

 

I guess in an ideal society you'd specifically choose what kind of marriage contract you want, and what sort of rights you give up and then you could pick if you agreed to stay the same sex or not, that would have to be entirely voluntary of course.

[JamesP]

 

MMX: I am not posting here to be the target of your abuse. If this forum had a user blocking feature, I would have employed it against you. A small percentage of what you're saying are interesting points that I would enjoy discussing, but because you're being extremely disrespectful, this will be the absolute last I acknowledge you. Considering that you're talking about a topic which does not really concern your life at all and yet concerns the lives of others enormously, more sensitivity would be my recommendation.

 

Part of the guidelines of this board are that you don't make accusations of people without evidence. I haven't seen MMX2010 be abusive towards you. I've seen him be quite skeptical, which is not abusive in and of itself.

 

I've also seen MMX2010 ask you directly for evidence, which you responded to by airily re-dismissing him by quoting yourself.

 

I am requesting that you provide this evidence or withdraw your claim that he was abusive. If you will do neither, I would request you not post here.

 

You made it public. So let's have it.

[Lucas]

One thing that I am thinking about is that a lot of psychotherapy has as a part of both it's understanding of psychopathology and healing the issue of integration. Psychopathology is thought to occur as a result of a splitting-off from our awareness and our self-concept significant parts of our experience (thoughts, feelings, preferences, memories, etc.). This splitting-off occurs as part of a survival strategy - we sense that the expression of this aspect of our experience may threaten the bond with our caregivers, which we as dependent children cannot afford, so we adapt by internalizing the message that expressing it is not OK and we may even push it completely out of our awareness. As a result, many therapeutic modalities attempt to provide curiosity, empathy, compassion, acceptance, etc. in order to create a relationship in which the client can re-connect with split-off parts of their experience so that these experiences can be integrated, so that they can have more information from which to understand themselves and make decisions, and so that they can be relieved of the unpleasant symptoms associated with maintaining this split in their connection with their spontaneous experience (e.g. overwhelming anxiety, tension, depression, dissociation, etc.). One of the many ways that we can split-off from our experience is to become disconnected from our bodies, to one degree or another, and so many therapists will make re-connection with and integration of one's bodily experience a part of the therapy.

 

What I am wondering about then, if I believe that bodily awareness and integration of the information that one gets from their body is an important part of psychological healing and well being, which I do, how does this come into play in work with a person (whether they be transgender or have BIID) who has a self-concept that is incongruent with their bodily existence? Given that we don't know the etiology of TG and BIID, and gender identity is being understood as somebody's "inner sense of self", and that it is simply asserted that this "inner sense" is innate, this is where my thinking goes. Now, I wouldn't tell a person "You just think you are TG because you are split-off from parts of your experience" but I also wouldn't be able to honestly say that it makes sense to me that they have an innate gender identity (or BIID equivalent) that is incongruent with their body. How would we know that an innate gender identity "that may or may not match the sex that is found between one's legs" exists? and, has this been demonstrated?

 

 

I do want to add that I don't put these thoughts forward as any sort of conclusions or certainty on my part. It is interesting to note the studies that Lucas presented and the results seem to be in line with what you would expect if there was a thing called a gender identity that was innate and may or may not match "the sex that is found between one's legs", though that isn't the only possible explanation. It seems pretty important to determine whether we are talking about an innate gender identity, or something more like a powerful sub-personality (a protector in IFS terms, a defense mechanism, a condition of worth, etc. depending on what theory of psychopathology you would use). I appreciate having the opportunity to give voice to these thoughts here and to see if they make any sense to anyone else.

 

Hello GrungeGuy,

 

To be honest, I'm not actually sure how to respond to your post. I'm also not sure if what I say will adequately answer your questions.

 

Through the perspective of IFS, your claim that "psychopathology is thought to occur as a result of a splitting-off from our awareness and our self-concept significant parts of our experience (thoughts, feelings, preferences, memories, etc.)" is accurate. However, I do not believe that this way of conceptualizing is particularly wide-spread belief in the field of psychology. Although, admittedly, some common themes of IFS can be found within other models. For example, Freud’s “id, ego, superego,” Jung’s “complexes,” Assagioli’s “sub-personalities” and now “schemata” in cognitive-behavioral approaches all seem to capture to something about this idea of multiplicity. It is sometimes evident in our daily language when we say things similar to “a part of me wants to, a part of me doesn’t.”

 

But I am not quite sure what IFS therapy would look like with a transgender client. However, it is likely that attempts to change someones gender identity does more harm than good (ALGBTIC, 2009; Riley, 2012).

 

You asked: "How would we know that an innate gender identity 'that may or may not match the sex that is found between one's legs' exists?" It seems to me to be the case that the very nature of 'identity' is not something that we prove to exist in the same way we can prove an Apple to exist. Because by definition, identity refers to one's own experience (or internal sense of self) I'm not sure what type of evidence you might find acceptable. Here is a rough draft of how we know gender identity and dysphoria to develop in children:

 

 

 

I would also note that until children begin to master the capacity for operational thought (roughly between the ages of 5 – 7) they will tend to conflate sex and gender with surface expressions of gender role. And prior to operational thought, a child might think that merely wearing the clothes associated with boys will make one a boy, while the clothes or hairstyles associated with girls will make one a girl.

[Lucas]

Part of the guidelines of this board are that you don't make accusations of people without evidence. I haven't seen MMX2010 be abusive towards you. I've seen him be quite skeptical, which is not abusive in and of itself.I've also seen MMX2010 ask you directly for evidence, which you responded to by airily re-dismissing him by quoting yourself.I am requesting that you provide this evidence or withdraw your claim that he was abusive. If you will do neither, I would request you not post here.You made it public. So let's have it.

Hello JamesP,I have some concerns. I hope you don't mind or find it out of place that I am choosing to respond. Both you and MMX have pointed out that this is "public," so I am choosing to respond as part of the public.Generally, I define abuse in terms of the violations of the NAP. So in terms of physical abuse, or for a preference for the existence of the state - it is easy to see how these might be instances of abuse. My question is what defines "abuse" on the board?In addition, the guidelines also encourage posters to exercise freedom of association: "Remember, if you insult someone's intelligence or integrity, but continue to debate with him, you are escalating for no reason whatsoever. If you truly believe that someone is dumb, or dishonest, it makes no sense to debate him." Given this guideline, it is not clear to me that Liberalismus should have continued responding to MMX's request.However, here are some of the instances that I believe Liberalismus may be referring to:Note that for reasons of space, and not wanting to spam the forum, I have omitted some text that seemed irrelevant

I thought this video was very informative, but ultimately infuriating.One of Laci Green's first statements manages to combine bad science and bad philosophy. She says (something like), "Your doctor looked at you and assigned you your gender based on your genitals." I think this statement philosophically translates to, "Your doctor looked at you and assigned you the subjective experience named your gender, based on your genitals."This statement is "bad science" because what really happened was, "Your doctor looked at you and assigned you your biological sex, based on whether you would produce sperm or egg cells as an adult." And the statement is "bad philosophy" because it removes "biological sex" - which is an objective term, and replaces it with "gender" - which is a subjective term.So, to me, being transgender is being delusional.

(Emphasis added)Liberalismus identifies as transgender. Would it not follow that MMX is calling Liberalismus (someone who identifies as transgender) delusional?In another post:

...The strongest objection I have to transgendered people is that they don't scientifically-study sex....

The above quote is an unsupported accusatory global claim. He states that transgender people do not scientifically study sex. He did not add a qualifier (e.g., "the transgender people I have met and had conversations with do not seem to have scientifically studied sex."). Instead he makes a unqualified, and unsupported, claim that is inclusive of every transgender person.In another post Liberalismus identifies as a woman:

My experience as a young trans woman is quite the opposite: upon discovery of my gender identity, there was a very strongly negative reaction from my parents, with my mother claiming to be "mourning the loss of her son", acting deeply upset and employing the biggest weapons in the bad parent's toolbox (threatening to make homeless, isolating from rest of family, etc.) in response to my exhibiting any individuality that deviated from her narcissistic image as to what "her son" was, and denying my capacity to even have an internal experience.

Even though it is clear that pronouns can be a sensitive issue for transgender individuals, MMX referred to Liberalismus as a male (in a response to EndTheUsurpation):

...Liberalismus said earlier: "From being around other children, the lessons I learnt were that: Girls were allowed to be more sensitive, expressive and open about their emotions." But is he (and are you) familiar with a sociological study mentioned (I think) by Lloyd DeMause in "The Origins of War in Child Abuse"? ...

I apologize for the double post, I had intended on combining the previous two.If MMX really believes that Liberalismus is delusional, why is he insisting that she continue to engage in a conversation with him? If Liberalismus realizes that MMX is indirectly asserting that she is delusional and directly referring to her as a "he," as is the case (as evidenced by the quotes above), why would she continue a dialogue with him?

[MMX2010]

 

I have some concerns. Generally, I define abuse in terms of the violations of the NAP.

 

 

 

I don't think it's either right or fair that Liberalismus was asked a question, but Lucas takes it upon himself to answer it.  (Except he doesn't really answer it, he only says, "this may be what Liberalismus is responding to....") 

 

I, also, don't think it's right or fair that Lucas claims (or strongly asserts) that I violated the NAP, but never explains why. 

 

I, also, don't think it's right or fair that Lucas claims (or strongly suggests) that either "calling someone delusional" or "strongly implying that someone is delusional" is automatically abuse.  It's not abuse when a strong case can be made that the person is, indeed, delusional. More importantly, my reference to being delusional refers to a very specific statement that Laci Green made.  Calling Laci Green delusional because her statement is wrong is not abusive.  Calling someone else delusional because they believe what Laci Green said is not abusive. 

[GrungeGuy]

 

 

But I am not quite sure what IFS therapy would look like with a transgender client. However, it is likely that attempts to change someones gender identity does more harm than good (ALGBTIC, 2009; Riley, 2012).

 

Hi Lucas,

 

I want to take some more time to consider what you are saying about identity and identity development. In regards to IFS and many other modalities that I am interested in, attempts to change gender identity or any other part of somebody's experience are not considered helpful. As far as my understanding of IFS and many of the humanistic approaches goes, the goals are: to approach people's experiences with curiosity, empathy, acceptance, compassion and authenticity in order to help the client learn to approach themselves in these ways and to help the client gain further insight into their experiences so that they can be more conscious of them and less overwhelmed and over-powered by them, so that they can be empowered by a greater understanding of themselves and a wider array of choices in pursuing their goals, and as the client begins to approach themselves in this new, more accepting, curious, compassionate and empathic way, self-directed and significant personality change begins to occur as a result... It seems to me that the primary differences between the therapies are that they use slightly different metaphors and techniques to describe largely the same psychological processes and to encourage clients to practice relating to themselves in new ways characterized by the aforementioned attitudes. Whether we are talking about the experience of gender identity or any other experience, this is my understanding of how these therapies would approach such an experience, and not with the goal of changing them.

[Lucas]

Hi Lucas,

 

I want to take some more time to consider what you are saying about identity and identity development. In regards to IFS and many other modalities that I am interested in, attempts to change gender identity or any other part of somebody's experience are not considered helpful. As far as my understanding of IFS and many of the humanistic approaches goes, the goals are: to approach people's experiences with curiosity, empathy, acceptance, compassion and authenticity in order to help the client learn to approach themselves in these ways and to help the client gain further insight into their experiences so that they can be more conscious of them and less overwhelmed and over-powered by them, so that they can be empowered by a greater understanding of themselves and a wider array of choices in pursuing their goals, and as the client begins to approach themselves in this new, more accepting, curious, compassionate and empathic way, self-directed and significant personality change begins to occur as a result... It seems to me that the primary differences between the therapies are that they use slightly different metaphors and techniques to describe largely the same psychological processes and to encourage clients to practice relating to themselves in new ways characterized by the aforementioned attitudes. Whether we are talking about the experience of gender identity or any other experience, this is my understanding of how these therapies would approach such an experience, and not with the goal of changing them.

 

This has been my observation as well, that it seems to be the case "that the primary differences between the therapies are that they use slightly different metaphors and techniques to describe largely the same psychological processes and to encourage clients to practice relating to themselves in new ways characterized by the aforementioned attitudes."

[Eternal Growth]

Part of the guidelines of this board are that you don't make accusations of people without evidence. I haven't seen MMX2010 be abusive towards you. I've seen him be quite skeptical, which is not abusive in and of itself.

 

I've also seen MMX2010 ask you directly for evidence, which you responded to by airily re-dismissing him by quoting yourself.

 

I am requesting that you provide this evidence or withdraw your claim that he was abusive. If you will do neither, I would request you not post here.

 

You made it public. So let's have it.

 

 

Evidence:

[*]Calling trans people "delusional".

[*]Multiple instances of intentionally using the wrong pronoun to refer to me. This alone constitutes "abusive", given that 1. it is rejecting the core identity of the target. 2. it is participation in the marginalisation of a vulnerable group in society. 3. the intention is to exert dominance, remove the target's presence in the conversation and ridicule that they would have an identity. 4. this was done by a person claiming knowledge about these issues exceeding that of most trans people, and so is far removed from the possibility of being able to claim ignorance.

[*]Continued use of "transgendered", an incorrect and mildly offensive term for trans people (similar to, say, a white person using "negros" in a discussion about the black people), even after this was pointed out to him.

[*]Talking negatively not only about "transgendered" people, but also repeatedly about "trans-friendly" people - as though not only are trans people bad, but anyone who doesn't automatically reject all of them is too. This is full-scale alienation of trans people by MMX. 

[*]Describing "transgender" as "a random social construct that's designed to control other people's behaviour" - not pointing out any ways in which trans people attempt to control other people's behaviour. It is infact the demonisation of trans people that is intended to control trans people's behaviour and make them repressed and non-self-expressive. Moreover, "random social construct" is an insult with no substance: many things are random social constructs, and yet don't really matter. And in any case, the accusation is wrong because biological evidence for the phenomena of transgenderism exists.

[*]MMX says "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" - as though simply by existing trans people are flying in the face of "scientific truth".

[*]MMX says "only trans-non-friendly and trans-skeptical people with to deeply explore whether "transgender" is a cultural-fiction.  " - to understand just how reading a word like "trans-non-friendly" feels as a trans person, imagine being gay or black and reading "gay-non-friendly" or "black-non-friendly". People explicitly stating themselves as nonfriendly towards you in a conversation isn't nice.

[*]MMX says "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."" - a completely unsubstantiated claim which by the very definitions of the words being used can only be wrong. A trans person is by definition somebody who is violating gender norms and expectations. The average trans person does more in one day of living their life questioning gender falsehoods than the average non-trans person might in a lifetime.

[*]Repeated usage of phrases such as "born as a man", the use of language implying a refusal to empathise with or even acknowledge the internal experiences and inner lives of trans people. It is like saying that gay men are "born as straight men".

[*]"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." " - this was on page one of this thread, and already has MMX talking in a very antagonistic tone towards me which continues throughout that post. Beyond the "not even yours" comment, the very topic of this thread is transgender people. The discomfort that they feel in response to social expectations especially as children that they conform to gender rules that adults around them have chosen is very relevant, and the discomfort would not be there if the involuntary heavily enforced classification system were not.

[*]"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"." - denying the right of a person to go by a name they have chosen or would be comfortable with.

[*]"(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.)" - there is extreme social pressure, especially upon those who appear male, to adhere to a certain dresscode as a result of that being-seen-as-male. Legitimate concerns about actual negative social consequences experienced by those who stray from gender norms are being dismissed by MMX because there is no "thou must" law, as though laws are the only ways in which children can be treated badly. 

[*]"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." - support for the state's introduction of violence into the mutually voluntary interactions between trans people and medical professionals. 

[*]"Once people claim that their feelings-alone are evidence of deeper "truths", they inevitably try to bully and impose those "truths" on others." - an accusation that trans people bully and impose truths on others that was not substatiated. Given that I am providing evidence for my claim of MMX being "abusive" towards myself and trans people, I would actually want to see the evidence for MMX's claim that trans people "bully".

[*]Lots and lots of conflation of "biological sex is objectively observed" with the enforcement of socially-expected gender roles through social ostracism (which isn't a violation of the NAP, but very often for gender nonconformity is done by caregiver adults to children, which we would recognise as immoral) and in a couple of instances state violence being justified. 

[*]Nor, especially, should people who disagree with transgendered people be attacked with the same words like "bigoted" and "transphobic". - What even does MMX mean by "disagree with transgendered people"? "Disagree" implies the acceptance of a certain set of ideas. The only idea that trans people have universally accepted is that they're allowed to exist despite not conforming to societal expectations of a perfect gender binary. MMX is creating a form of original sin for trans people, where simply existing as a trans person is grounds for other people to "disagree" with you. Disagreeing with what - my existence? Would somebody say "I disagree with black people"? Unless they were referring to a specific idea believed by "black people", which would be logically fallacious anyway because such a numerous group would not all believe the same ideas, the only thing that "disagreeing with black people" can mean is that they are flawed for existing and should kindly just disappear in some unspecified way.

[*]"Transgender-itself would be biological (a.k.a. "not a social construct") if it emerges at roughly the same percentages in each culture, regardless of the amount of pro-transgender and anti-transgender forces against it." - Has MMX ever tried to exist in society with a personality characteristic (like, for example, being trans) where there are extremely vocal forces against that characteristic? His audacity in stating that such negative forces, which in parts of the world include murder for trans people, would have zero effect on the visibility of that characteristic in the culture, shows zero acknowledgement of the basic desire that trans people might have to hide from predatory and dangerous individuals, who would in many cases be reduced to doing that through concealing their gender identity. 

[*]"But, to be fair, there are also parallels between "feeling that you're not your gender", and between "feeling that your race is superior", "feeling that your gender is superior", "feeling that a specific God is real"" - leaving aside that "feeling that you're not your gender" is not an accurate use of language / description in reference to trans people, a matter of defining one's own identity is being portrayed as being in the same category as blanket/incorrect statements about objective reality. Saying "blue is my favourite colour" is not in the same category as saying "an omniscient omnipotent being exists in the sky who is blue". Stating that they are is to deny the ability of trans people to have an identity. 

[*]"So, I ask you, has any study of transgendered-people followed this procedure: (1) collect 100 people who are blended as follows: transgendered-people declaring themselves transgender, non-transgendered-people pretending to be transgender, and transgendered-people pretending to be non-transgendered.  (2) challenge scientists to separate the transgendered people from the non-transgendered people. If no such study exists, (and I suspect it doesn't), then literally every scientific study of transgendered-people has been performed by a scientist who: (1) was told to accept / believe that a person is transgender, in (2) an environment wherein everyone is loudly yelled at to be tolerant of transgendered people." - Many recognised medical conditions for which treatment is prescribed and that treatment works do not (yet) have a perfect physical test to determine their presence. This is setting an unrealistically high standard for the acceptance of trans people, although even in the realm of physical tests there are the studies showing the brain differences between trans and cis individuals, meaning it may actually be possible. Are we in an environment where "everyone is loudly yelled at to be tolerant of transgendered people"? This is portraying aggression coming from trans people without any evidence being given. Moreover, "tolerant" is a word that really doesn't mean much - in a reasonable society all of those who don't violate the NAP should be able to expect to live with "tolerance" by other people. If I as a trans peson am not to be tolerated, what is to happen to me?

[*]"Thus, if religious/spiritual people cannot prove that their Gods/spiritual feelings are natural despite comprising over 75% of the human race, then neither can transgender people prove that their transgendered-feelings are natural." - Religious people are making a claim about objective, external, testable reality that is false. Trans people are making a claim about their internal exprience, feelings and emotions, over which they have sovereighty and so are entirely justified in doing so. The portrayal of these as being the same is to have the effect of denying the right of trans people to have an experience and feelings, or to express them. 

[*]"Statements that would qualify as "an individual making a claim about one's internal sense of self" are, "For the longest time, I've felt confused about my gender.  Please don't assume that you owe me any sympathy because of this.  Please don't assume that you're at all a bad person if you don't offer me any sympathy.  Heck, feel free to be weirded out, confused, or annoyed by my feeling - if that's what you feel; that's what you feel."" - MMX is setting the standard that a trans person isn't allowed to make a claim about their internal sense of self unless they provide a disclaimer that the person listening should "feel free to be weirded out, confused, or annoyed by my feeling". Where else would this be said to any other person who was making a claim about their internal sense of self?

[*]"But if transgender is a biological-reality, rather than a socially-constructed myth, then transgendered people who would never sign up for hormone therapy because they don't think it'll work, or because they think it's "wrong for them" should: (a) be involuntarily placed on hormone therapy, and (b) report identical-satisfaction with it, as do transgendered people who voluntarily accept hormone therapy. Now, if you say it's unethical to force transgendered people to undergo hormone therapy, I'd agree with you.  However, because the study you cited focused only on those who both voluntarily-accepted the treatment and expected it to work, it is flawed-scientifically." - he states (correctly) himself that a study where trans people are held down at gunpoint and injected with medication they don't want would be unethical, but then says that without making such violations of the NAP, any study is "flawed-scientifically". MMX has set the standard that without forcibly medicating trans people against their will, any studies performed about trans people are scientifically flawed. Against which other group would such a standard be set?

[*]"Because of the above explanations, and because transgendered-people have never exposed themselves to extreme scientific skepticism, the statement "I'm a transgendered person" doesn't currently acquire the status of philosophically true.  It's, at best, a sincere belief. " - This is petty bullying.

[*]"Hence, FROM BIRTH female-caregivers discriminate against the fussy behavior of male infants.  And Liberalismus noted this as a (what seemed to me) highly-influential reason that he became transgendered." - misgendering + misrepresentation of my story for dogmatic purposes + saying I "became transgendered", incorrectly implying I hadn't been previously.

[*]"Homosexuality and transgender are completely different.  They're, in fact, so different that they're mostly dissimilar. "MMX2010 is a homosexual." involves observing his actions with other people.  Because I'm not a homosexual, it's impossible for me to pretend to be homosexual for an extended period of time. "MMX2010 is a transgendered person" involves exactly zero interactions with other people." - Being homosexual doesn't require any interactions with anyone: some homosexuals are virgins. Moreover, being trans can and usually does involve interactions with other people, because trans people express their identity in the company of others, seek out community, interact with therapists and medical personnel, etc. This is using extremely flawed grounds to attempt to alienate T from LGB (in a community which is now very accepting of gay people), when in fact LGB spaces have historically and continue to serve as safe spaces for T individuals because both groups face similar issues, both being around having identities and living their lives in ways that don't conform to standard societal gender expectations. 

[*]"My guess? The more a trans-person believes that his/her life-misery is due to "discrimination against trans people", the less-capable the trans-person is of achieving success pre-transition." - More antagonism. Even the best "my guess" is irrelevant to intellectual discourse, and the intention here was very clearly to simply to demean trans people.

[*]"If a trans-person is "in the closet", then they're declaring to themselves and others that "being transgendered" isn't really that important to them.  Nor is acquiring any validation or respect-from-others based on being transgendered. Instead, they're declaring that "being transgendered" is much less important on their hierarchy of needs than, say, getting a good job, going to college, making their friends and family feel comfortable, and fitting in to normal society." - MMX is doing an enormous amount in these few sentences, and it is all abusive towards trans individuals. Rather than questioning why a trans individual must hide that element of their identity in order to get a good job, go to college, make their friends and family feel comfortable and fit into normal society (which, as it turns out, many actually do succeed at doing in societies where they aren't automatically excluded by prejudiced others), he opts to attempt to use the adaptation behaviour of trans people in response to the dangers they could experience AGAINST the trans people themselves!

[*]"People who have studied sex use the following terms:  "natural selection", "sexual selection", "runaway sexual selection", "r-selection", "K-selection", "r-selective environment", and "K-selective environment".  No transgendered person in this thread has used any of those terms in this thread." - Here, MMX not only reveals his scientific illiteracy (the r/K selection theory was not only never used by scientists to explain human behaviour, it is regarded as superseded by better theories even for the populations for which it was once regarded relevant), but is specifically targetting trans people in the thread, of which I am one of two, as having not studied sex because I haven't used any of his lexicon of words that range from irrelevant to the topic to pseuoscientific.

[*]"BEAR IN MIND, please, that I've drawn no conclusions about transgendered-people.  I've strongly-felt suspicions based on speculations and hunches - but I don't use those suspicions, speculations, and hunches to look down on transgendered people." - replace "transgendered-people" with any other group you might care about in order to connect to what a disclaimer like this sounds like, It is petty, it is bullying, is a school playground style of debating and nobody could read your posts and come to the conclusion that you do not look down on trans people. Dismissing legitimate and contained backlash to your very clear antagonism towards trans people as "bleak irony" is to say that throughout this thread you've just been having a laugh and don't actually believe anything, and that making people emotionally charged through implying they have no right to exist is amusing for you. 

 

 

I will not post here any longer. I love the ideas and methodologies I have found through FDR, but I do not feel comfortable participating in a community where a staff member is extremely quick to threaten "I would request you do not post here" to the victim in situation where I (as one of two trans people posting, with much vulnerability in parts, in a thread about transgenderism) have been targetted by an individual who has not stated any connection to, reason to be so interested in, or instance of being negatively affected by any member of the very small and mostly keep-to-oneself group that is the trans community (outside of being called transphobic for quite literally being transphobic), who has through his actions shown a very strong emotional involvement in the topic despite providing no substantive reason why and yet in order to absolve himself of the consequences of his posting has added that he actually has "no conclusions" about trans people and is just talking on "hunches" and "suspicions", and doesn't actually "look down on transgendered people", with consistent antagonism, alienation and bullying. 

[Alice Amell]

The Rosenhan experiment was extremely important, because it illustrated that clinicians lack an unbiased assessment of schizophrenia.  Without this unbiased assessment, ALL of their clinical diagnoses of either schizophrenia or you're-not-schizophrenic are cast into doubt.  And once this doubt is established, any individual (even, and especially if they don't have any expertise in psychology) can just "disbelieve" what the psychologists say about any individual WITHOUT being deemed "stupid" or "immoral". 

 

And it's the same with transgendered-individuals.  Because clinicians haven't subjected themselves to any form of, "Can you use the brain-scans which you've so ardently promoted as scientifically-relevant to differentiate between real-transgendered and phony-transgendered people?" test, clinicians haven't established to the maximum possible extent the scientific-relevance of their brain-scanning technique.  Hence, any individual (even and especially those with no scientific intelligence) can just "disbelieve" what the clinicians say WITHOUT being dubbed "stupid" or "trans-phobic".  (In fact, to assume that such a person IS "stupid" or "trans-phobic" is just name-calling to censor that person's opinion, simply because it doesn't provide you with the validation you seek.  And this is immoral, according to On Truth.) 

 

-------------------------

 

 

 

 

I think you're confusing your own "noble" sense of your own transgendered-feelings and transgendered-identity with other people's "not at all noble" sense of their own transgendered-feelings and transgendered-identity. 

 

Identity is composed of "ANYTHING that provides you with validation and self-worth", and most people become angry / violent whenever other people threaten their validation and self-worth. 

 

When a Christian asks you, "What's your favorite Biblical verse?", that's usually an anxiety-provoking question because: (1) Christians garner a lot of validation and self-worth through their Christian beliefs, and (2) you know he's asking you this question to determine the degree to which you'll support his Christian beliefs.  But whenever a stranger asks, "What's your favorite movie?", that's usually not-at-all an anxiety-provoking question because most people simply don't garner much validation or self-worth through their favorite movies. 

 

I've never detected any hint of, "You're transphobic if you disagree with me about transgender!" in your posts, so I've concluded that transgender is not-that-important to your identity.  (Not saying it's unimportant, but it's not THAT important.)  However, when you analyze Lucas's, Liberalismus's, and (to a lesser extent) Tundra's behavior in this thread, you can see that they're using anger, false accusations, and/or downvoting against me in this thread.  (Lucas went so far as to accuse me of "violating the Non-Aggression Principle, without explaining why.  And Liberalismus accused me of "abusing her" in my posts, without explaining why.) 

 

Even though four is a very small sample size, you're being "out-voted" three-to-one with regard to the question, "Should we use anger, false accusations, and/or downvoting to censor / control those who disagree with transgender?"  Which leads me to believe that you're confusing your own "noble attachment" to your own transgendered-feelings and identity with other people's "lack of noble attachment".

 

It also suggests that transgender is, for the most part, NOT an "a-moral, voluntary interaction between transgendered individual and clinician".  It is, instead, "either a highly moral OR highly immoral action which happens when transgendered people FIRST attempt to acquire scientific-legitimacy for their transgendered condition and THEN attempt to control/censor the opinions of everyone, based on their perceived acquisition of scientific legitimacy". 

 

I dunno if you've read my earlier links to what scientists know about religion, but I posted them to provide a point-of-comparison to transgender. 

 

Scientists know that you can electrify specific areas of the brain to produce religious-feelings in NON-religious people.  Such religious-feelings include, "a sense of being one with the universe", and "a sense that there's a higher power".  (This is the Natural / Biological / Genetic factor associated with religion.)  However, because religion offers a myriad of explanations, and because these explanations contradict one another, and because these explanations lack objective scientific-support, religion is almost exclusively social.  (If you want to use made-up-numbers, religion is about 3% Natural / Biological / Genetic and about 97% Non-Natural / Non-Biological / Non-Genetic / Social.) 

 

Focusing on transgender, have any scientists been able to electrify a NON-transgendered person's brain to produce an, "OMG, I'm totally a woman trapped in a man's body!" sensation?  (To my knowledge, they have not.) 

 

Now, I understand that there are many ways to produce scientific evidence that "There's a strong genetic component to transgender." - but scientists discovered the strong genetic component of religion through producing religious-feelings in non-religious people.  And that specific type of strong evidence isn't present with regard to transgender. 

 

Did you also notice that, EVEN THOUGH there's a "strong genetic component" to religious-experience, it's still true that religious-experience is almost exclusively Non-Natural, Non-Biological, Non-Genetic, and Social?  If this is true for religious experience, then it's true for all things which have any form of "genetic component", of which transgender is certainly included. 

 

--------------------------------

 

Secondly, Lucas's definition of Gender Identity reads: "In essence, the brain and mind work to establish an inner sense of self as male, female, or other, based on body, on thoughts and feelings, and absorption of messages from the external world, a sense of self that may or not match the sex that is found between one’s legs.” (Ehrensaft, D., 2012, p. 339)."

 

That's a great definition, but the inclusion of "absorption of messages from the external world" raises questions. 

 

(1) Does "whether your culture promotes transgender or violently opposes transgender" COUNT as "a message from the external world, which can be absorbed"?  (I think it does.) 

 

(2) If it does, have scientists compared the existence of transgender in cultures-that-acknowledge-transgender and cultures-which-violently-oppose transgender?  (To my knowledge, scientists have not done this.) 

 

Homosexuality is a highly natural human condition that equally exists in cultures that acknowledge homosexuality (modern America) compared to cultures which violently oppose homosexuality (Islamic cultures).  In fact, because homosexuality equally exists in both types of cultures, it is said to be highly natural.  (Now, there's an enormous difference between the degree to which homosexuality is openly practiced in both cultures, but that isn't the same thing as the degree to which homosexuality exists in both cultures.) 

 

------------------------------

 

Overall, when you combine all of this research, transgender appears LESS natural / genetic than both religion and homosexuality. 

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.

[MysterionMuffles]

[_LiveFree_]

Part of the guidelines of this board are that you don't make accusations of people without evidence. I haven't seen MMX2010 be abusive towards you. I've seen him be quite skeptical, which is not abusive in and of itself.

 

I've also seen MMX2010 ask you directly for evidence, which you responded to by airily re-dismissing him by quoting yourself.

 

I am requesting that you provide this evidence or withdraw your claim that he was abusive. If you will do neither, I would request you not post here.

 

You made it public. So let's have it.

 

Wow, I can't believe you didn't see it.

[MMX2010]

The most recent episode of South Park - (Season 18, Episode 3) - "Cissy" - discussed transgenderism. 

 

www.comedycentral.com  (Click on link to Full Episodes). 

[iHuman]

Many Interesting Comments in this discussion, some good, some outright cringe worthy (considering the type of forum this is)...

 

what was the surprising part to me was how many seemed to go on the offensive armed with data that was largely "Popular Belief" based rather than factual on a subject that is more often than not muddied with social and religious stigmas to a literally disgusting extent, all the same for those who seem to have either not researched or have only researched non-factual information here is my input on this based on my own research and thoughts.

 

I will first start off with some basic and often not well known facts, then i will go into other linked issues and facts.

 

 

 

 

[*]All Humans Start as both Male & Female: http://www.livescience.com/32467-why-do-men-have-nipples.html

 

 

[*]Men Can Lactate: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-but-true-males-can-lactate/

 

 

[*]Men Have a Vestigial Uterus: http://clinanat.com/index.php/495-prostatic-utricle

 

 

[*]Women have a Vestigial Penis (3rd paragraph): http://www.thevisualmd.com/visualizations/result/healthy_nerve_supply_of_clitoris_and_labia

 

 

 

 

I will mention but not go into the brain structure issues, but they have scientifically proven that Transgendered indeviduals have brains with the same structure and fundamental development as the opposite physical sex.

 

A great deal of Children are born that have Klinefelter Syndrome or are Physically Intersexed (AKA Hermaphrodies) far more than most would think.

 

Gender Disphoria/Gender Identity Disorder is not a Mental Illness as many mistakenly think, their is a great deal of academic and intellectual debate on what the root cause is, but it can often be most simply likened to being allergic to the hormone balance your body naturally maintains to a degree of it being essentially toxic, it is manifested in several forms, not just "Feeling Female" it can also manifest as an unimaginably dense cloud of stress & or feeling of "something being wrong" (much like when you become ill) with no apparent cause that often starts at or escalates exponentially at the start of puberty but cumulatively worsens throughout life and in some cases can lead to actual mental illness if left untreated.
(I have no reference links on this handy at the time of posting this)

 

Not all who have Gender Disphoria Transition, but most therapists tend to recommend it with Males with Gender Disphoria primarily due to Stereotypes and Social issues (Eg "Better to appear as an ugly Woman than even a slightly Effeminate [Non-Macho] Man") that all to often result in a violent and or fatal end (This links back also to the issues of Female Abuse and Upbringing of Male Children and Radical Feminism) [some have gone as far as adults {both male and female} physically attacking and killing male children & or their parents with such issues when found out about].

 

Children who are Born Intresexed are in most cases quickly surgically altered (AKA "Assigned" but in most literal cases "mutilated") to "Conform" to "Gender Norms" in their Infancy (Often without even their parents being informed/asked), gender assignment is literally as random and arbitrary as a coin toss, and are often botched, although some changes in this practice are now being made: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2004/06/the_cutting_edge.html

(To Little, FAR to Late IMHO)

later in life the same kinds of societal nonsense that puts stigmas on transgendered individuals also hinders/prevents intersexed from finding out much of anything about it both through hurdles in obtaining medical records and attached social stigma that them and their parents should somehow be ashamed for them being born different and the subject should as a result be an extreme taboo and never spoken about.

 

None of this is really new, their are recorded cases of all of the above going back into some of the earliest of recorded history.

 

My own conclusion is that gender is not and never has been binary, their is as much variety as their is in human skin pigmentation possibly more depending on how/if you want to categorize things.

[MysterionMuffles]

The most recent episode of South Park - (Season 18, Episode 3) - "Cissy" - discussed transgenderism. 

 

www.comedycentral.com  (Click on link to Full Episodes). 

 

I'm loving this season so far for its continuity among episodes, but let's not transform this thread despite my deep desire to geek out about it.

[MMX2010]

I'm loving this season so far for its continuity among episodes, but let's not transform this thread despite my deep desire to geek out about it.

 

I can tie in the South Park episode without extensively mentioning its plot elements. 

 

iHuman is one of many posters in this thread who've declared that transgender is a medical reality because of Brain Scans.  To declare that transgender is a medical reality is to declare that it's exactly like elevated blood pressure and low testosterone. 

 

If I wake up tomorrow and declare, "I feel like I have elevated blood pressure and low testosterone...", the ONLY way to confirm my feelings is to go to the doctor.  If a doctor declares that I have elevated blood pressure, then I have elevated blood pressure.  If a doctor declares that my T-levels are normal, then my T-levels are normal. 

 

In this video, Rob the transgender, never mentioned "brain scans" nor "doctor's visit".

 

 

In page one of this thread, you can do "search -> find" for the word "brain".  And it comes up four times, but never in the context of, "I went to my doctor, who did a brain scan and confirmed that I'm transgender."  (Instead, it came up in medical studies of transgender individuals.) 

 

In page two of this thread, you can do "search -> find" for the word "brain".  And if comes up fifty times, but never in the context of, "I went to my doctor, who did a brain scan and confirmed that I'm transgender." 

 

In page three of this thread, the word "brain" comes up over 100 times!  But, again, never in the context of, "I went to my doctor, who did a brain scan and confirmed that I'm transgender."

 

In page four of this thread, the word "brain" comes up 17 times.  But, again, never in the context of, "I went to my doctor, who did a brain scan and confirmed that I'm transgender." 

 

--------------------

 

So the glaring inconsistency is this: On the one hand, transgender individuals and transgender-supporters loudly declare that transgender is a medical reality.  But on the other hand, transgender individuals NEVER say, "I didn't want to declare myself transgender, but once I went to my doctor and heard his opinion on my brain scan, I knew I was transgender." 

 

Also, on the other hand, I suspect that they'll be extremely hostile to anyone who says, "I refuse to believe your declaration that you're transgender until you provide me with a doctor's note confirming it."

 

(In the South Park episode, neither "Erica" nor "Wendell" used a doctor's note to declare themselves transgender.  They just declared that they were, and used social pressure to get everyone else to believe them.) 

[_LiveFree_]

MMX, why are you putting so much time, effort, and passion into this topic? What is it important to you?

[MMX2010]

MMX, why are you putting so much time, effort, and passion into this topic? What is it important to you?

 

I've already answered that question. 

 

Page Three, approximately two-thirds down. 

 

=========================

 

I was born in 1976 and graduated high school in 1994.  I was third in my class of over 600 people, and attended public school in a middle-class, highly-liberal state. 

 

In my lifetime, FOUR major social movements have ascended, all of which followed the following structure: "We are an oppressed minority.  Society-as-a-whole, (not just-us), would be better if we weren't oppressed.  Be careful, though, because our oppressors profit greatly from our oppression - so you shouldn't expect them to just agree with us.  After they resist our pleas over a sufficient period of time, you can just ignore and dismiss them." 

 

Those four social movements are, IN ORDER: (1) pro-Black, anti-racism, (2) pro-women, non-misogynistic, (3) pro-gay/lesbian, anti-homophobic, (4) pro-transgender, anti-transphobic. 

 

Each of these movements can be evaluated (on a 1=bad, 10=good scale) with regard to two aspects: Philosophical Integrity and Solutions Integrity. 

 

-----------------------

 

(1) The pro-Black, anti-racism movement scores 8 on the Philosophical Integrity scale, and a 6 on the Solutions Integrity scale.  Their complaints are reasonable and scientifically-supported, but their solutions have been hit-or-miss.  (One wonders whether the government-backed nature of their solutions causes the problems.) 

 

(2) The pro-women, anti-misogyny scale scores 2 on the Philosophical Integrity scale, and a 1 on the Solutions Integrity scale.  Feminism as a philosophy is almost completely wrong, to the point where you can replace "women" with "men" and achieve a much more accurate assessment.  (Thus, when feminists say "Women's bodies are collectivized!", you should assume that "Men's bodies are collectivized.")  And its solutions are, not-surprisingly, damaging to everyone. 

 

(3) The pro-gay/lesbian movement scores a 6 on the Philosophical Integrity scale, and a 5 on the Solutions Integrity scale.  Their complaints are mostly reasonable, and mostly scientifically-supported.  I, personally, have zero problems with gay marriage - but I'm absolutely not sold on gay parenting.  I would much prefer a "trial experimental period" of fifty years, wherein the US is divided into "states that allow gay parenting" and "states that don't".  But I'm only being offered, "If you don't accept gay parenting, everywhere, you're a homophobe!" 

 

(4) The pro-transgender, anti-transphobia movement gets a ??? on the Philosophical Integrity scale, and a ??? on the Solutions Integrity scale.  You're simply too new to the party to determine your grade. 

 

NOW, the absolute most important thing to realize is that the "social movement" structures I described can produce the mostly-good movement called "pro-Black / anti-racism" OR the utterly destructive, philosophically-bankrupt movement called "pro-women / anti-misogyny".  Consequently, I'm not impressed with complaints of discrimination and oppression, but instead with scientific-evidence acquired under maximum skepticism.  (Scientific-evidence acquired under minimum skepticism is practically useless.) 

[_LiveFree_]

How is the score for each movement calculated? How is the number determined?

[MMX2010]

How is the score for each movement calculated? How is the number determined?

 

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

 

 

I can tie in the South Park episode without extensively mentioning its plot elements. 

 

iHuman is one of many posters in this thread who've declared that transgender is a medical reality because of Brain Scans.  To declare that transgender is a medical reality is to declare that it's exactly like elevated blood pressure and low testosterone. 

 

 

non-factual? 

 

---------------------------

[_LiveFree_]

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

 

 

 

 

non-factual? 

 

---------------------------

 

I'm really not interested in playing games here. I asked you a very straight forward question. Since you've put forward this scientific scale, could you please explain how the numbers were determined?

[MMX2010]

I'm really not interested in playing games here. I asked you a very straight forward question. Since you've put forward this scientific scale, could you please explain how the numbers were determined?

 

I never represented my scale as scientific.

 

Quoting myself directly, "Their complaints [referring to the pro-Black, anti-racism movement] are reasonable and scientifically-supported, but their solutions have been hit-or-miss."  (Not a declaration that my scale is scientific.)

 

Quoting myself again, "Their complaints [referring to the pro-gay, anti-homophobic movement] are mostly reasonable, and mostly scientifically-supported.  I, personally, have zero problems with gay marriage - but I'm absolutely not sold on gay parenting."  (Not a declaration that my scale is scientific.) 

[_LiveFree_]

I never represented my scale as scientific.

 

Quoting myself directly, "Their complaints [referring to the pro-Black, anti-racism movement] are reasonable and scientifically-supported, but their solutions have been hit-or-miss."  (Not a declaration that my scale is scientific.)

 

Quoting myself again, "Their complaints [referring to the pro-gay, anti-homophobic movement] are mostly reasonable, and mostly scientifically-supported.  I, personally, have zero problems with gay marriage - but I'm absolutely not sold on gay parenting."  (Not a declaration that my scale is scientific.) 

 

Ok, so then how did you come to assign each movement to a numbered scale? What was your process?

[Josh F]

-edit-

 

didint realize i was walking into a bee's nest.  Nevermind.

[MMX2010]

Ok, so then how did you come to assign each movement to a numbered scale? What was your process?

 

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

 

Do you think there's a large philosophical contradiction between those two positions? 

[_LiveFree_]

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

 

Do you think there's a large philosophical contradiction between those two positions? 

 

Why are you avoiding answering this very straight forward, simple question? I'm not even asking for a "yes" or "no". Just tell me how you came to the conclusions in your scale. 

[Josh F]

Part of the guidelines of this board are that you don't make accusations of people without evidence. I haven't seen MMX2010 be abusive towards you. I've seen him be quite skeptical, which is not abusive in and of itself.

 

I've also seen MMX2010 ask you directly for evidence, which you responded to by airily re-dismissing him by quoting yourself.

 

I am requesting that you provide this evidence or withdraw your claim that he was abusive. If you will do neither, I would request you not post here.

 

You made it public. So let's have it.

Sry, I just have to add.... calling Transgendered people delusional, saying that gay people's right to adopt should be segregated, that in-the-closet transgendered people are declaring that being transgendered is unimportant to them, and that being transgendered is a byproduct of being indoctrinated into a cult are fairly offensive.

 

James, try this out.  FDR members are delusional.  Sounds offensive to me.

 

Abused children hiding the truth from their parents, they must not really value the truth.  Pretty offensive, too.

 

Freedomainradio is a cult and requires indoctrination.  No one's identity biologically links them to FDR, therefor FDR is a religion.  

 

And I also think the above person appropriately distanced themselves from this conversation.  I've also read comments on yours regarding this topic elsewhere and you're NOT an unbiased observer.  I highly recommend you respect the person's choice to back out of the conversation.

[MMX2010]

Why are you avoiding answering this very straight forward, simple question? I'm not even asking for a "yes" or "no". Just tell me how you came to the conclusions in your scale. 

 

(1) Because the topic is NOT "Does anyone have knowledge about how MMX2010 formulates conclusions about racism, sexism, homosexuality, and transgender?", it's "Does anyone have knowledge of transgender?" 

 

(2) Because the question you're avoiding, "Does a large philosophical contradiction exist while simultaneously arguing: (A) Transgender is a medical reality and (B) No transgender individual needs to have his/her transgender feelings confirmed by a brain scan?" is much more relevant to the topic.

 

Would you like to answer my question now - or is it somehow "good" for you to ignore questions, but "bad" for me to ignore questions? 

[Josh F]

(1) Because the topic is NOT "Does anyone have knowledge about how MMX2010 formulates conclusions about racism, sexism, homosexuality, and transgender?", it's "Does anyone have knowledge of transgender?" 

 

(2) Because the question you're avoiding, "Does a large philosophical contradiction exist while simultaneously arguing: (A) Transgender is a medical reality and (B) No transgender individual needs to have his/her transgender feelings confirmed by a brain scan?" is much more relevant to the topic.

 

Would you like to answer my question now - or is it somehow "good" for you to ignore questions, but "bad" for me to ignore questions? 

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

 

shit couldnt resist 

[_LiveFree_]

(1) Because the topic is NOT "Does anyone have knowledge about how MMX2010 formulates conclusions about racism, sexism, homosexuality, and transgender?", it's "Does anyone have knowledge of transgender?" 

 

(2) Because the question you're avoiding, "Does a large philosophical contradiction exist while simultaneously arguing: (A) Transgender is a medical reality and (B) No transgender individual needs to have his/her transgender feelings confirmed by a brain scan?" is much more relevant to the topic.

 

Would you like to answer my question now - or is it somehow "good" for you to ignore questions, but "bad" for me to ignore questions? 

 

 

I'm not avoiding anything. I've asked you a question, which you have continued to avoid. Now you're trying to turn the tables on me. This is super creepy behavior on your part. What is going on here? Why will you not answer my question? I absolutely will not answer any question you pose until you answer mine. You're the one putting forth this argument. Is it wrong to question how you came to your position?

[MMX2010]

This is super simple, A is wrong.  Being transgender is about identity, even if it has biological or environmental influences.

 

 

In the "Introduction to Philosophy" series, Stefan spends about fifteen minutes discussing the statement, "I had a dream about a sparrow last night."  He argues that such a statement can never be TRUE, because it cannot be verified with empirical evidence.  If you state that "Transgender is about identity", then you're equating transgender to "I had a dream about a sparrow last night." 

 

 

 

B is also wrong because not only can a brain scan not give you that information, but that why would someone "need" the brainscan?  I was abused as a child, apparently that can show up in brainscans, do I NEED a brainscan to confirm my feelings?

 

You're comparing "being abused as a child" (NOT a medical reality) to "transgender" (which some people argue is a medical reality).  That comparison is invalid. 

I'm not avoiding anything. I've asked you a question, which you have continued to avoid. Now you're trying to turn the tables on me. This is super creepy behavior on your part. What is going on here? Why will you not answer my question? I absolutely will not answer any question you pose until you answer mine. You're the one putting forth this argument. Is it wrong to question how you came to your position?

 

 The facts of your participation in this thread are as follows:

 

(1) Your first post in this thread strongly implied that no-less-than-THREE FDR staff members missed my "abusive behavior" towards transgender and transgender supporters. 

 

(2) My very next post, addressed to Rainbow Jamz, explained what I believe is a very large philosophical contradiction in the pro-transgender perspective. 

 

(3) Your post to me, immediately afterwards, ignored my post to Rainbow Jamz and asked me about my "motive".  Meanwhile, I already answered questions about my "motive", and my "motive" is irrelevant to the discussion of transgender. 

 

(4) Ever since then, I've been trying to re-direct you to my post to Rainbow Jamz.  And every time I've done so, you've ignored it.  First, I asked you whether anything in that post was non-factual.  (You ignored that.)  Second, I asked you whether you think there's a philosophical contradiction within the pro-transgender position.  (You ignored that, too.) 

 

So it's not-at-all factual for you to say, "I'm not avoiding anything." 

 

And it's arguable that your unwillingness to address the presence (or absence) of a philosophical disconnect in the pro-transgender perspective is WHY you don't understand "how" I discern philosophical inconsistencies in anti-racism, anti-misogynist, anti-homophobic, and anti-transphobic arguments. 

[_LiveFree_]

Oh for goodness sakes, are you going to answer my question or not?

[Josh F]

In the "Introduction to Philosophy" series, Stefan spends about fifteen minutes discussing the statement, "I had a dream about a sparrow last night."  He argues that such a statement can never be TRUE, because it cannot be verified with empirical evidence.  If you state that "Transgender is about identity", then you're equating transgender to "I had a dream about a sparrow last night." 

 

You're comparing "being abused as a child" (NOT a medical reality) to "transgender" (which some people argue is a medical reality).  That comparison is invalid. 

It is empirical.  They exist and they can be observed.  They are not a "medical" reality, but they are quite real and observable unlike a dream.  

 

You're continuing repeatedly to conflate biology with behavior.  Let me break down to actual argument in gender theory so you can understand it better, instead of this strawman you keep spamming.  

 

The argument is that gender and sex are separate.  Sex is biological, gender is not.  Gender describes a person's behavioral characteristics within a paradigm of masculine/feminine.  Sec is about the biological characteristics of a person within a paradigm of male/female.  

 

Gender is social and cultural, sex is biological.  How a culture defines masculine or feminine varies widely.  Some cultures even place gender into other paradigms.  Queer theory wishes to challenge our preconceptions about gender roles, not undermine the scientific reality of X and Y chromosomes.

 

So lets make an example.  You're born as a white person, biologically you're white.  Can you "act black" by listening to hiphop or dressing and speaking a certain way? 

 

Does "acting black" mean something completely different in Kenya than it does in Brooklyn?  

 

Does "acting black" mean you ARE black?  

 

Does someone "acting black" need to have their skin color tested so they can "confirm their feelings?"