Does anybody have knowledge of transgenderism?

[MMX2010]

how many times do I have to write this before someone will read it and have it stick....?

 

The MAJORITY of the "Post Transition" Suicide rates are down to downright evil treatment by other people which are caused by baseless religious and socially driven stigmas.

 

Though this is true, it's nearly impossible (or quite possible to do, but at massive social cost) to change other peoples' opinions.  Better off allowing them to have whatever opinions they want to have, and work on changing yourself. 

[iHuman]

it's nearly impossible (or quite possible to do, but at massive social cost) to change other peoples' opinions.  Better off allowing them to have whatever opinions they want to have, and work on changing yourself. 

 

I am not saying otherwise, I was just listing the root cause of the suicide rates.

[iHuman]

found an interesting article related to this.

 

http://happyplace.someecards.com/beautiful-irony/this-guy-actually-changed-his-mind-about-caitlyn-jenner-because-of-this-photo/

[Eternal Growth]

I have been studying epistemology lately, and had some new thoughts about the ideas that have been promoted in this thread.

 

MMX seems to be approaching the concept "transgender" in the same way that atheists approach "god", or that skeptics approach "supernatural dimension", or that libertarians approach the word "state", or that individualists approach "the will of the people", or that voluntaryists approach "obligation", or that FDR approaches "family" (as some non-existent entity that creates moral demands). He can describe himself as "anti-transgender" because what he means by this is that he is against "transgender" as a Platonist / Idealist concept which is promoted as a justification for an unlimited, unquestionable, unrelated to any evidence of reality, and not to be subject to rational analysis, demand upon everyone to conform to any arbitrary, whimsical demands made by self-identified "transgender" people. MMX is interpreting "transgender" as a concept which derives from the philosophical premise of the primacy of consciousness: that reality is that which is created by consciousness. That "transgender" is a concept that was just invented by people, and corresponds to nothing in objective reality. More specificially (because philosophies that hold the primacy of consciousness typically do so as a mechanism of controlling other people, listen to FDR's 96th podcast "Concepts part 2"), that "transgender" is a construction that was created in order to control people. Because as independent thinkers we shouldn't allow ourselves to be controlled by non-realities that other people have invented - indeed, this is much of what the content of FDR gets us to become better at doing, it is therefore logical that - viewing "transgender" in this way - he responds by refusing to allow it to control his behaviour and hence refers to those trans people who are just conspiring to control him with incorrect pronouns.

 

In contrast, I approach the concept "transgender" from an Aristotelian or Objectivist epistemology. In such an epistemology, existence is primary: something exists in objective reality first, and is identified by consciousness second. As a trans individual, the evidence of my senses indicated to me that I was trans first, through the persistent sensation of incongruence between my psychological experience of gender and my the sex I had been assigned at birth - and although I could have described it in words earlier, I was able to conceptualise this as "transgender" upon learning this terminology and what it refers to from others. Following from this identification of reality, I could proceed to take appropriate actions - medical, in terms of personal expression, and social.

 

My experience of being trans, and my identification of it, is the same as an individual who is born colour blind, who throughout their childhood experiences sense data which indicates colour blindness, but who only upon hearing about the concept "colour blindness" and finding that their experience is congruent with it identifies their experience of reality using this concept, and maybe then goes around telling other people that they are colour blind. Reality exists first: A person is colour blind first, and a person is trans first. The concepts "colour blind" and "transgender" is then created as mental representations of phenomena of objective reality. A colour blind individual might conceivably respond to the predicament of their existence by requesting that people express things to them using a restricted colour palette, so that they are able to see everything clearly. This is analogous to transgender individuals responding to the predicament of their existence by requesting that other people treat them in an appropriate manner - e.g. by using the correct pronouns. No reasonable person would demand that every colour blind person carry with them at all times a medical test confirming that they are colour blind before anyone should be willing to give them the colour blind friendly version of a leaflet, simply because it is reasonable in most social encounters to just trust a person on matters of their own existence. Likewise for personal pronouns - it is effortless to use a certain set of pronouns, and about another person's internal gender identity, you always know less than they do and so it is best to recognise their responsibility for determining those pronouns which are appropriate. They aren't "controlling you" - even if they are being dishonest about their existence, only they will suffer as a result of this.

 

Having identified the situation, here are my thoughts:
1. I will give that "transgender" is actually used by individuals who subscribe to anti-rational philosophies in order to control other people - and the words "gay", "woman", "black" and "working class" are misused by the same individuals in the same way. These are the Postmodernists, Marxists and so forth that you can find in an academic Sociology department or on Tumblr. However, these do not change the fact that Aristotelian equivalents of the same concepts exist - because gay people, women, black people and working class people do actually exist in reality, hence it is valid to form concepts which describe them. Transgender people do actually exist in reality, hence "transgender" is a valid concept - to declare yourself "anti-transgender" (in the sense of denying its existence) is to declare yourself anti-reality.
2. In addition to the lives of trans people being coopted by irrationalists, there is one more reason why we may have the phenomon of an "anti-transgender" person in the FDR community but not an "anti-colour blind" person: gender, unlike colour perception, is a topic about which people have a lot of very strong emotional views (this is a whole topic in itself, but seems to stem primarily from the way gender is experienced in childhood).
3. The evidence, for me, of the existence of transgenderness is my own sense data - which, given my metaphysical inclinations, I trust. For non-transgender people, you'll either have to trust the millions of trans people who exist in all cultures (though, understandably, in visibly smaller numbers in cultures that will murder them being honest about the evidence of their senses) that we are accurately reporting our experience, or depend upon physical evidence of the phenomenon reported in peer reviewed scientific papers (e.g. on comparative brain structure or prenatal hormone levels).
4. My political demands as a libertarian trans person are quite easy: Don't use guns against me. This has implications in our medical care: don't insert your guns between me and my doctor. It also has implications in identity documents: if you are a coercive authority which demands identification documents in order to not infringe upon a person's basic rights (e.g. requiring a passport to move between countries), do not deny me access to accurate identity documents. No subscriber to the NAP can disagree with these.
5. It is silly that the English language even elevates gender to the level of importance that it does, where it is mandatorily stated whenever talking about a person. Many of the world's languages do not do this (e.g. Finnish uses "hän" which means he/she/they). Given, however, that this is the language that we're using, it is reasonable to have the social expectation as a trans person that another person will not intentionally use the incorrect pronoun for your gender identity when referring to you - that the person you are talking to is not antagonistic towards you and reality. This can be "policed" simply by freedom of association - if in a voluntaryist society some group of neoreactionaries want to form a socially exclusionary enclave where they refuse to use the correct pronouns for the gender identities of trans individuals, I'll let them - the areas of highest productivity will be elsewhere.
6. I cannot tell whether MMX has his particular views on this issue, and expresses them with such passion, because of either 1. an overresponse to neo-Marxists, who genuinely have hijacked the issue of trans individuals (as well as many other groups) to use them towards their destructive ends, misdirecting the negativity that the is appropriately directed towards these individuals instead towards rational trans individuals or 2. psychological issues of his own related to gender that would best be explored with a good therapist. But I cannot imagine any possible cause beyond these two.

 

On another point, I don't like the complete blank out that followed my posting of 20-30 pieces of evidence of MMX being abusive towards myself and trans people. Is the evidence I have provided valid and proves the case, or is it not? If it is not, state why. Nor was there any defence - or retraction - by JamesP of his threat that I should "not post here" merely for making the accurate identification that MMX was being abusive.

[MMX2010]

I have been studying epistemology lately, and had some new thoughts about the ideas that have been promoted in this thread.

 

MMX seems to be approaching the concept "transgender" in the same way that atheists approach "god", or that skeptics approach "supernatural dimension", or that libertarians approach the word "state", or that individualists approach "the will of the people", or that voluntaryists approach "obligation", or that FDR approaches "family" (as some non-existent entity that creates moral demands). He can describe himself as "anti-transgender" because what he means by this is that he is against "transgender" as a Platonist / Idealist concept which is promoted as a justification for an unlimited, unquestionable, unrelated to any evidence of reality, and not to be subject to rational analysis, demand upon everyone to conform to any arbitrary, whimsical demands made by self-identified "transgender" people. MMX is interpreting "transgender" as a concept which derives from the philosophical premise of the primacy of consciousness: that reality is that which is created by consciousness. That "transgender" is a concept that was just invented by people, and corresponds to nothing in objective reality. More specificially (because philosophies that hold the primacy of consciousness typically do so as a mechanism of controlling other people, listen to FDR's 96th podcast "Concepts part 2"), that "transgender" is a construction that was created in order to control people. Because as independent thinkers we shouldn't allow ourselves to be controlled by non-realities that other people have invented - indeed, this is much of what the content of FDR gets us to become better at doing, it is therefore logical that - viewing "transgender" in this way - he responds by refusing to allow it to control his behaviour and hence refers to those trans people who are just conspiring to control him with incorrect pronouns.

 

 

It is rare for someone who opposes my viewpoints to accurately summarize my viewpoints.  And, not only that, but with dispassionate language devoid of passive aggression and accusatory assumptions.  Bravo. 

 

My only disagreement with you is over the blue-colored words.  Because transgender has been hijacked by Marxist, social-justice warriors, Postmodernists, and so on, every transgender person is trying to control me.  The very moment Caitlyn Jenner's Vanity Fair magazine came out, a group of Twitter "mobsters" tried to get Mike Huckabee fired because he made a transgender joke six months ago. 

 

From here, I can turn your argument around by asking, "Do you support the use of force against me, particularly if I refuse to call Alice Amell 'she' instead of 'he'?"  And I don't know how you can answer that without appearing either hypocritical or ignorant - (ignorant for under-estimating the dedication with which Postmodernists and Marxists are using transgender-support because it's just another weapon against White, heterosexual families). 

 

 

 

In contrast, I approach the concept "transgender" from an Aristotelian or Objectivist epistemology. In such an epistemology, existence is primary: something exists in objective reality first, and is identified by consciousness second. As a trans individual, the evidence of my senses indicated to me that I was trans first, through the persistent sensation of incongruence between my psychological experience of gender and my the sex I had been assigned at birth - and although I could have described it in words earlier, I was able to conceptualise this as "transgender" upon learning this terminology and what it refers to from others. Following from this identification of reality, I could proceed to take appropriate actions - medical, in terms of personal expression, and social.

 

My experience of being trans, and my identification of it, is the same as an individual who is born colour blind, who throughout their childhood experiences sense data which indicates colour blindness, but who only upon hearing about the concept "colour blindness" and finding that their experience is congruent with it identifies their experience of reality using this concept, and maybe then goes around telling other people that they are colour blind. Reality exists first: A person is colour blind first, and a person is trans first. The concepts "colour blind" and "transgender" is then created as mental representations of phenomena of objective reality. A colour blind individual might conceivably respond to the predicament of their existence by requesting that people express things to them using a restricted colour palette, so that they are able to see everything clearly. This is analogous to transgender individuals responding to the predicament of their existence by requesting that other people treat them in an appropriate manner - e.g. by using the correct pronouns. No reasonable person would demand that every colour blind person carry with them at all times a medical test confirming that they are colour blind before anyone should be willing to give them the colour blind friendly version of a leaflet, simply because it is reasonable in most social encounters to just trust a person on matters of their own existence. Likewise for personal pronouns - it is effortless to use a certain set of pronouns, and about another person's internal gender identity, you always know less than they do and so it is best to recognise their responsibility for determining those pronouns which are appropriate. They aren't "controlling you" - even if they are being dishonest about their existence, only they will suffer as a result of this.

 

Having identified the situation, here are my thoughts:

1. I will give that "transgender" is actually used by individuals who subscribe to anti-rational philosophies in order to control other people - and the words "gay", "woman", "black" and "working class" are misused by the same individuals in the same way. These are the Postmodernists, Marxists and so forth that you can find in an academic Sociology department or on Tumblr. However, these do not change the fact that Aristotelian equivalents of the same concepts exist - because gay people, women, black people and working class people do actually exist in reality, hence it is valid to form concepts which describe them. Transgender people do actually exist in reality, hence "transgender" is a valid concept - to declare yourself "anti-transgender" (in the sense of denying its existence) is to declare yourself anti-reality.

2. In addition to the lives of trans people being coopted by irrationalists, there is one more reason why we may have the phenomon of an "anti-transgender" person in the FDR community but not an "anti-colour blind" person: gender, unlike colour perception, is a topic about which people have a lot of very strong emotional views (this is a whole topic in itself, but seems to stem primarily from the way gender is experienced in childhood).

3. The evidence, for me, of the existence of transgenderness is my own sense data - which, given my metaphysical inclinations, I trust. For non-transgender people, you'll either have to trust the millions of trans people who exist in all cultures (though, understandably, in visibly smaller numbers in cultures that will murder them being honest about the evidence of their senses) that we are accurately reporting our experience, or depend upon physical evidence of the phenomenon reported in peer reviewed scientific papers (e.g. on comparative brain structure or prenatal hormone levels).

4. My political demands as a libertarian trans person are quite easy: Don't use guns against me. This has implications in our medical care: don't insert your guns between me and my doctor. It also has implications in identity documents: if you are a coercive authority which demands identification documents in order to not infringe upon a person's basic rights (e.g. requiring a passport to move between countries), do not deny me access to accurate identity documents. No subscriber to the NAP can disagree with these.

5. It is silly that the English language even elevates gender to the level of importance that it does, where it is mandatorily stated whenever talking about a person. Many of the world's languages do not do this (e.g. Finnish uses "hän" which means he/she/they). Given, however, that this is the language that we're using, it is reasonable to have the social expectation as a trans person that another person will not intentionally use the incorrect pronoun for your gender identity when referring to you - that the person you are talking to is not antagonistic towards you and reality. This can be "policed" simply by freedom of association - if in a voluntaryist society some group of neoreactionaries want to form a socially exclusionary enclave where they refuse to use the correct pronouns for the gender identities of trans individuals, I'll let them - the areas of highest productivity will be elsewhere.

6. I cannot tell whether MMX has his particular views on this issue, and expresses them with such passion, because of either 1. an overresponse to neo-Marxists, who genuinely have hijacked the issue of trans individuals (as well as many other groups) to use them towards their destructive ends, misdirecting the negativity that the is appropriately directed towards these individuals instead towards rational trans individuals or 2. psychological issues of his own related to gender that would best be explored with a good therapist. But I cannot imagine any possible cause beyond these two.

 

Your personal experiences here are very-well stated, but your political acumen is lacking.  To me, all transgender people are part of the movement to control the "employ-ability" of everyone by monitoring their opinions of transgender people until proven otherwise. 

 

In another thread, I pointed out that a ten year old boy who doesn't identify as transgender was being forced to wear tutus and respond to "Danielle", because his parents wanted to teach him a lesson in "gender enlightenment".  These results are the inevitable fall-out of using moralistic language to control the majority of people's natural revulsion to transgender individuals.  And no large number of transgender people say, "We don't need anti-discrimination laws.  We don't need mandatory pro-transgender education for children as young as five.  We understand that not nearly every parent wants their children educated to be pro-transgender, and, you know what, we support that."  Instead, transgender people either actively support such laws or look the other way and say, "But I'm not like that!" when these laws and events are happening. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On another point, I don't like the complete blank out that followed my posting of 20-30 pieces of evidence of MMX being abusive towards myself and trans people. Is the evidence I have provided valid and proves the case, or is it not? If it is not, state why. Nor was there any defence - or retraction - by JamesP of his threat that I should "not post here" merely for making the accurate identification that MMX was being abusive.

 

You did a good job of figuring out my perspective, so try to figure this one out: every transgender person I've encountered over the internet tries to heavily control the emotional reactions of others.  And the easiest (if not only) way they do this is by claiming to be abused and waiting for others to dogpile on the accused. 

 

I have some empathy for the fact that you feel abused, and some sadness over the fact that you've been through this your entire life.  But it is not my job to respond to your accusations of abuse.  I will, however, say that I've always tried to remain emotionally calm at all times, to the point where I view emotional outbursts - such as "I'm being abused over the internet!" - with extreme suspicion and doubt. 

 

NOT doubt over whether you were abused, BUT doubt over whether you'll ever be truly happy because you haven't learned the essential life lesson that you can't control the emotions of others.  You can't negotiate desire.  You can't make someone like you, nor accept you.  You can't do it with kindness or violence, complaining or stoic wishful thinking, anger nor happiness, joy nor depression.  People will just accept you, or not - and there's nothing you can do about that. 

[Eternal Growth]

Something I don't think I elaborated on enough in the above argument is what is meant by "sense data" indicating that a person is trans. In the most general sense, a "sense" is any source of data received by the nervous system (i.e. through one or more nerves) that represents a fact of objective reality in some way ("in some way" because our senses have their own identity, and so the form taken by their data is a consequence of the nature of this identity). This data may then be differentiated and integrated, i.e. organised into concepts by consciousness.

 

A religious person may sense the existence of what they proceed to conceptualise as "God", perhaps seeing God or God talking to them. Whether this data about reality can be accepted as true ought to be tested: Using the evidence of all of the other senses and the scientific method, are we able to prove that a god exists? We are not - hence we can conclude that the sensation is an incorrect portrayal of reality (i.e. delusion, hallucination).

 

A trans person may sense incongruence between their gender identity and physical body. Whether this data ought to be taken as a representation of a fact of objective reality may also be tested: Are there observable physical differences between the brains of trans individuals and cisgender individuals (of the same assigned at birth sex)? There are. Are trans individuals who transition their physical body less bothered by the sensation of incongruence afterwards? Yes, they are. "Stage of transition had a substantial impact upon life satisfaction within the sample. 70% of the participants stated that they were more satisfied with their lives since transition, compared to 2% who were less satisfied (N=671)." (Though any high quality study of this ought to control for the social context a person is in; that negative effects of a negative social context are not taken as evidence that transition itself was an incorrect choice. If there were such control, we might find this percentage even higher.)

 

Should every individual trans person mandatorily have their brain tested and give a copy of the results before anyone else accepts that they are trans, rather than relying merely upon a person honestly reporting their experience? Firstly, no - because the means of testing these is far from economical enough to be worth doing in all cases, and all economical medical tests have false positives and false negatives. And secondly, no - because of self-ownership, all individuals are individually responsible for determining whether transition is right for them - and are likewise individually responsible for the negative effects of making the wrong choice. A cisgender person who transitions will end up with the same gender dysphoria that transgender individuals experience pre-transition, which isn't pretty. As to whether others should "conform" to their assessment of their identity, the problem you are going to run into is that in most cases you aren't even going to know that a person is trans - most trans people pass i.e. are externally indistinguishable from a cisgender person and don't readily give out details of their medical history in irrelevant contexts.

[neeeel]

Something I don't think I elaborated on enough in the above argument is what is meant by "sense data" indicating that a person is trans. In the most general sense, a "sense" is any source of data received by the nervous system (i.e. through one or more nerves) that represents a fact of objective reality in some way ("in some way" because our senses have their own identity, and so the form taken by their data is a consequence of the nature of this identity). This data may then be differentiated and integrated, i.e. organised into concepts by consciousness.

 

  

 

Sense data does not come pre labelled. So, there is nothing on any sense data to say "this is a female feeling" or "this is a male feeling". this gets done after the sense data is sensed, so to speak. And, these labels only come about from previously held beliefs and experience.

 

Would you agree that a baby does not have gender dysphoria? Its not possible for a baby to feel "wrong" about its feelings, or to feel that some of its feelings are incongruent?

 

If you had been born on a desert island, do you think you would still have feelings of incongruence?

 

What I am trying to say is, although I dont doubt your feelings and sense data, I do doubt your labelling of the feelings and sense data.

 

I can empathise with the desire to be something other than what I am. I have even taken steps to try and be something other than I am. But this is a basic denial of reality. I am only desiring to be something other than what I am, in relation to something else I see in reality. I am making an unfavorable comparison between "how I am " and "how they are". 

 

There are certain aspects of my body that disgust me. Does that mean that it ( my body) is wrong? no, its not possible for it to be wrong, reality is never wrong. And my body is the way it is, in reality. 

 

The only place it is wrong, is in my head. And, its only wrong there, because I label it as "wrong", and those labels come from beliefs I hold, and not from reality. Reality does not tell you how you should be. knowing a fact about reality ( eg gravity, or the speed of light) does not tell you how you SHOULD be, how you SHOULD look

[Eternal Growth]

 

It is rare for someone who opposes my viewpoints to accurately summarize my viewpoints.  And, not only that, but with dispassionate language devoid of passive aggression and accusatory assumptions.  Bravo. 

 

My only disagreement with you is over the blue-colored words.  Because transgender has been hijacked by Marxist, social-justice warriors, Postmodernists, and so on, every transgender person is trying to control me.  The very moment Caitlyn Jenner's Vanity Fair magazine came out, a group of Twitter "mobsters" tried to get Mike Huckabee fired because he made a transgender joke six months ago. 

 

From here, I can turn your argument around by asking, "Do you support the use of force against me, particularly if I refuse to call Alice Amell 'she' instead of 'he'?"  And I don't know how you can answer that without appearing either hypocritical or ignorant - (ignorant for under-estimating the dedication with which Postmodernists and Marxists are using transgender-support because it's just another weapon against White, heterosexual families). 

 

 

"Every transgender person" is trying to control you? Do you mean this literally? Because it would take the identification of a single transgender person who isn't to disprove this.

 

I am not sure I understand the trail of logic in your last paragraph here. No, I don't support initiatory force against anybody, in any situation. But I am not following how this makes me either hypocritical or ignorant, if you could elaborate further on what you mean here.

 

 

 

In another thread, I pointed out that a ten year old boy who doesn't identify as transgender was being forced to wear tutus and respond to "Danielle", because his parents wanted to teach him a lesson in "gender enlightenment".  These results are the inevitable fall-out of using moralistic language to control the majority of people's natural revulsion to transgender individuals.  And no large number of transgender people say, "We don't need anti-discrimination laws.  We don't need mandatory pro-transgender education for children as young as five.  We understand that not nearly every parent wants their children educated to be pro-transgender, and, you know what, we support that."  Instead, transgender people either actively support such laws or look the other way and say, "But I'm not like that!" when these laws and events are happening. 

 

You did a good job of figuring out my perspective, so try to figure this one out: every transgender person I've encountered over the internet tries to heavily control the emotional reactions of others.  And the easiest (if not only) way they do this is by claiming to be abused and waiting for others to dogpile on the accused. 

 

I have some empathy for the fact that you feel abused, and some sadness over the fact that you've been through this your entire life.  But it is not my job to respond to your accusations of abuse.  I will, however, say that I've always tried to remain emotionally calm at all times, to the point where I view emotional outbursts - such as "I'm being abused over the internet!" - with extreme suspicion and doubt. 

 

NOT doubt over whether you were abused, BUT doubt over whether you'll ever be truly happy because you haven't learned the essential life lesson that you can't control the emotions of others.  You can't negotiate desire.  You can't make someone like you, nor accept you.  You can't do it with kindness or violence, complaining or stoic wishful thinking, anger nor happiness, joy nor depression.  People will just accept you, or not - and there's nothing you can do about that. 

 

I just see lots of non-sequiturs here. In what way is the external gender policing of a ten year old an inevitable fall-out of the promotion of the idea that it is immoral for people to police the gender expression and identity of children? Forcing a non-transgender child to present in a certain way against their will is in the same category as forcing a transgender child to present in a certain way against their will; neither is in the same category as an individualist approach to gender variance and individuality, that which I and most trans people I know support.

 

Most trans people are leftists and support left-wing policies, so what? This says nothing about all trans individuals, in the same way that most people in the general culture are leftists and support left-wing policies (or are conservatives and support irrational conservative policies), but this says nothing about all human beings universally. The refusal to identify trans people as a heterogeneous group of individuals, each with their own life, identity, actions, beliefs and values, united in only a single thing - a detail of their gender identity and nothing else - is accepting the same false collectivist premise as the postmodernists. Worse, this kind of alienation of LGBT individuals from communities that subscribe to individualist, rationalist and realist philosophies is just going to draw them towards finding safety with the left in greater numbers - a self-fulfilling prophecy that is not based in reality. If we want to remove the monopoly over LGBT issues held by the left, it is only by those who think rationally being the biggest defenders of the individual rights of LGBT people that "independent thinking" and "libertarianism" won't be seen by the LGBT individuals as just a guise put on by those who actually subscribe to neoreactionary, anti-individual and mystical prejudices. Ayn Rand described homosexuality as "immoral" and "disgusting", and as a result alienated a lot of gay people and those sympathetic towards gay people from Objectivism. However, Objectivism itself says nothing negative about gay people - and combined with an accurate and up-to-date scientific understanding of biology (which Ayn Rand did not have at the time that she made her claims, mistakenly regarding heterosexuality as a universal fact of human nature), the principles of Objectivism are actually affirmative towards the morality of gay people living in accordance with their natures. In practice, the status of the right of gay people to exist under the principles of Objectivism is a settled issue and there are actually a lot of gay Objectivists. However, the question of whether it is moral for a trans individual to live in accordance with their nature is 20-30 years behind that of gay individuals, and there are doubtless many trans individuals who would be sympathetic to a reason-based, objective reality-based, individualist philosophy - but who see its adherents promoting unscientific prejudices against their individual right to exist and are repelled.

 

LGBT people being attracted towards the left is not some automatic fact of the nature of LGBT people. It is an effect of everyone else (in particular, the individualists) failing to adequately and consistently face the facts regarding LGBT people, closely examine conservative prejudices or contrarian biases they have, and be the strongest supporters of the morality of them living in accordance with their natures. 

 

You say "And the easiest (if not only) way they do this is by claiming to be abused and waiting for others to dogpile on the accused." This is a misrepresentation of what took place. I identified you as acting abusively, and stated that I would not engage with you further. I had no expectation or desire that others would "dogpile on" you.

 

You say "I have some empathy for the fact that you feel abused" - whether you were being abusive is not a matter of what I feel, it is a matter of objective fact. It is either true or it isn't. I have presented the evidence that you were, and it has not been disputed. What I feel is irrelevant - what matters is the facts about your behaviour. Are they true or are they false?

 

You say "and some sadness over the fact that you've been through this your entire life." - you do not know enough about my life to make this assertion, and in fact I would regard it as false assumption you have made. In any case, it is not relevant to the topic - what was your motive in saying this?

 

You say "I will, however, say that I've always tried to remain emotionally calm at all times, to the point where I view emotional outbursts with extreme suspicion and doubt." - A person is allowed to have emotions and to express them. In the case of an individual promoting - in the name of reason, philosophy and truth - ideas which would invalidate your right to exist, it is quite appropriate to feel emotions in response to this. Furthermore, you are claiming that in this thread all I have done is an "emotional outburst" - when in fact I have first and foremost been making logical arguments and appealing to empirical evidence for my positions, and am trying to reach the truth on the topic being discussed. In the process of doing this, I am entirely allowed to experience emotions - particularly as it is an important issue for my life, and emotions exist as subconsciously-produced calculations as to what is good for one's survival and what is bad. People promoting bad ideas in the name of reason is bad for my survival, hence it produces negative emotions. Are you promoting emotional repression, or the non-expression of emotions as an ideal? The most calm person in a discussion is not automatically the most correct; nor is the person in a conversation who becomes emotional automatically the one who is arguing from inferior reason. There is a cognitive bias that humans have to side with the more calm person, but whatever evolutionary factor makes this so has no bearing on whether calm individuals have superior ideas or emotional individuals inferior ideas or inferior psychologies. Ellsworth Toohey in The Fountainhead was always a rather calm fellow. Contrast this with John Galt in Atlas Shrugged, who was strongly emotional throughout his speeches (his emotionality exceeded, only, by his rationality - these are not opposed). 

 

Moving on to your final paragraph: I don't understand what you are trying to say. I am not interested in whether people like me or not, nor in changing other people: I am interested in the truth. I am not really interested in you as a person - I am interested in the fact of objective reality that in the forum of "the most popular philosophy conversation in the world" (FDR), a community which I have generally found to hold very good ideas that are strongly grounded in reason and reality, the ideas that you have promoted have been promoted - and even that a staff member of the same community has sided with you. I give those ideas weight not because I care about you personally, but because I give extra thought to the opinions of those who have otherwise displayed themselves to be highly virtuous and to hold and promote good ideas - which is to say, this community. When in an (otherwise) hotbed of rationality and the affirmation of life one finds ideas that are irrational and harmful, it is important to take notice.

[Eternal Growth]

Sense data does not come pre labelled. So, there is nothing on any sense data to say "this is a female feeling" or "this is a male feeling". this gets done after the sense data is sensed, so to speak. And, these labels only come about from previously held beliefs and experience.

 

Would you agree that a baby does not have gender dysphoria? Its not possible for a baby to feel "wrong" about its feelings, or to feel that some of its feelings are incongruent?

 

If you had been born on a desert island, do you think you would still have feelings of incongruence?

 

What I am trying to say is, although I dont doubt your feelings and sense data, I do doubt your labelling of the feelings and sense data.

 

I can empathise with the desire to be something other than what I am. I have even taken steps to try and be something other than I am. But this is a basic denial of reality. I am only desiring to be something other than what I am, in relation to something else I see in reality. I am making an unfavorable comparison between "how I am " and "how they are". 

 

There are certain aspects of my body that disgust me. Does that mean that it ( my body) is wrong? no, its not possible for it to be wrong, reality is never wrong. And my body is the way it is, in reality. 

 

The only place it is wrong, is in my head. And, its only wrong there, because I label it as "wrong", and those labels come from beliefs I hold, and not from reality. Reality does not tell you how you should be. knowing a fact about reality ( eg gravity, or the speed of light) does not tell you how you SHOULD be, how you SHOULD look

 

It isn't pre-labelled and to identify what it indicates requires organisation into percepts and into concepts throughout one's development, but sense data does correspond to a facts of objective reality, and as we develop and learn about sex and gender and ourselves, it is natural that we become able to identify the underlying reality using the appropriate labels of our language.

 

I don't know enough about child development to be able to say whether a baby is capable of consciously experiencing dysphoria at their stage in life, but the evidence I have read would suggest that a baby is capable of having a brain configuration as a result of prenatal hormone levels that is going to, later in their development, cause them to experience gender dysphoria.

 

If I had been born on a desert island, I wouldn't have survived probably more than a few days. If somehow there was food, shelter and warmth readily available on the island, that might extend to a few months or a few years. But the nature of human beings is to shrivel up and die in social isolation, and so the thought experiment really isn't that useful. Our entire developmental process has evolved to depend upon having other humans around us.

 

If you rephrase the question to whether I, now a mostly developed adult and more capable of surviving alone on a desert island than a baby is, would feel a need to express my gender identity if I lived on a desert island with nobody else around me: the answer is emphatically yes. It isn't for other people - it is for myself. Other people can only serve as a hinderance to unrestricted, full self-expression; they are not the reason to self-express.

 

As to the idea of desiring to be something other than what you are: Is a person who chooses to wear glasses denying reality? Are they just making an unfavourable comparison between those people around them who can see clearly, and themselves who cannot see clearly, and defying the reality of their existence by daring to use technology to grant them what they individually value and see others enjoying: clear vision?

 

The fact is, as human beings we modify reality in response to our values. We cut down a forest and build a burgeoning city. We use modern medicine to fix malfunctioning aspects of our bodies that are not operating as we would optimally like them to be. We turn dinosaur goo deep underground into an efficient energy source. A trans person values their body being a certain way; they respond using technology to bring about their vision. And none of this is the evasion of reality - because in order to be successful at modifying reality, one has to first study it and develop the clearest, most accurate assessment as to what it is and how it works.

 

It is true that the question remains of how we determine what we value. That seems to be a mixture of reference to objective standards and of our objective nature, as well as semi-arbitrary personal taste. But once we have identified that we would prefer something, it is completely virtuous to manipulate reality into being what we desire. 

[Frosty]

The MAJORITY of the "Post Transition" Suicide rates are down to downright evil treatment by other people which are caused by baseless religious and socially driven stigmas.

 

Outside of pre-existing mental issues, I don't buy this.

 

Lots of people are treated badly in society for a huge array of different reasons, yes it's a very bad thing this happens but most people don't kill themselves over it and a lot of those people use practical strategies to end bullying by conforming in ways they'd prefer not to. I was bullied as a kid at school for a long time for no real other reason than I was new in an area and kids were tough on new kids, that was physically being attacked and verbally abused almost daily, you just adjust to fit in, I saw this in many other kids as well, especially the more niche groups such as the nerds (back then isn't what it's like now).

 

Yet we have plenty of trans people who do not need to transition and do not kill themselves yet they undergo roughly same amount of peer pressure from religious groups and transphobes etc, so that doesn't really make any sense.

 

Again I think this comes down to psychological issues with some trans people and separating out and acknowledging that we're talking about 2 different things here which aren't mutually exclusive, which is biologically having a brain similar to the other sex and also in addition to that having some kind of psychological issues possibly caused or related to this mis-match. There's something distinctly different between someone who's born with a different brain and shrugs it off as simply "well this is a problem but lets deal with it practically" and "I need to mutilate my own body in order to stop this perpetual bad feeling".

 

There really isn't a lot of correlation there, the people who go through sex changes aren't doing it to get more acceptance from everyone else, if anything presenting as the opposite sex just draws more attention and more negativity from others, they're doing because they're in some kind of inner turmoil adn the hope is that physical changes will heal psychological issues. The vast majority of post-ops are obviously not the sex they're trying to present as and that draws way more attention from someone who basically just presents as their biological sex.

 

If memory serves the suicide rate of post-ops is somewhat higher than those who haven't transitioned, I don't think anyone but the most out of touch with reality would have expectations that interactions with the rest of society is going to be easier post-op, it vastly increases your exposure, will likely alienate you from friends, there will be hiring biases, massively shrunken dating pool, etc.

[iHuman]

A video (NSFW) you may want to watch.

http://media01.commpartners.com/AMA/sexual_identity_jan_2011/index.html

[Frosty]

Yeah that's interesting and confirms much of what I believe about homosexuality and transgederism, it's good to have some science behind it. I don't think any of that contradicts what I've said though.

[iHuman]

Yeah that's interesting and confirms much of what I believe about homosexuality and transgederism, it's good to have some science behind it. I don't think any of that contradicts what I've said though.

 

In case you did not notice, I had already written quite extensively about the science that was covered in that video (and a great deal more) more than once.

 

I am quite puzzled as to why it keeps going un-noticed.

 

 

[Frosty]

Un-noticed by who? If it's good science then I'm always interested to review it and learn from it. Anyway I'm still not 100% on my position with regards to some of these ideas, I think I stated up front early on in this thread that I'm still trying to form what I consider an informed opinion, and I'm not there yet, the science helps a lot though, it grounds the discussion in reality and makes things a bit more objective.

[MMX2010]

This was posted on the Roosh V Forum.

 

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

 

In recent years I have done my own research on the causes of gender dysphoria and male-to-female transsexualism from a scientific and medical perspective and so I would like to add my two cents to this discussion.

First and foremost, I would like to make it clear that there is an evident distinction between transsexualism and transgenderism. They are not the same phenomenon in any way. Authentic transsexualism is a congenital condition in which the patient from a very young age identifies as female and displays all the natural traits of a feminine psyche. As recent studies show, these true transsexuals seem to possess a brain structure more akin to that of the opposite sex. On the other hand, transgender is a leftist-inspired bullshit umbrella term invented to lump together various groups of "gender-variant" people such as effeminate cross-dressers, fetishistic non-op shemales and any other kind of gender-bending individuals. Unfortunately authentic transsexuals who really wish to be complete women are often forced into this bogus social construct as part of the LGBT Social Justice Warrior agenda.

Here I will reveal a truth that most of the so-called transgender activists don't want you to know. The reality is that modern psychiatric research has demonstrated that there are actually two distinct etiologies behind the transsexual condition, namely, homosexual/early onset transsexualism and autogynephilic/late onset transsexualism. I recommend that you read the academic and medical works of Dr. Ray Blanchard for more information.

According to Blanchard's observations, homosexual/early onset transsexuals tend to be attracted exclusively to men, are very feminine both physically and psychologically from childhood to such a degree that it is obvious to everyone around them that something is odd about them, display a slighter physique than typical males and usually have an average IQ in the range of a regular genetic female (around 99-102). These are the male-to-female transsexuals who display cerebral structures similar to those of genetic women. They tend to experience major gender dysphoria from a very young age, are unable to hide their condition or adapt to the social expectations of masculinity and tend to be very passable as females when they transition. Full sex change surgery is almost always desired.

In contrast, autogynephilic/late onset transsexuals tend to live as mostly regular guys for most of their lives, are typically attracted to women (some may be bisexual), experience prolonged stints of autogynephilia or sexual arousal by imagining themselves as females and tend to transition well into adulthood or even during middle age. They usually have the same body dimensions as average males, possess typical male brain structures and typically have a high IQ of around 127. Many of them were once married to women and have even fathered children. It is only later in life that they feel determined to become women and "come out" so to speak. Few of these transsexuals are passable and many are openly trans and don't seem to care much for passing.

Early onset transsexuals are genuinely born that way. They are best described as "women trapped in male bodies". They cannot help the way they are and can only function within a female paradigm. Nothing can cure them and transition is the only viable option for them. Autogynephilic/late onset transsexuals, however, seem to be influenced more by their surrounding environment. They all have some kind of innate predisposition towards autogynephilic ideation, but these transsexuals will only choose to act on their feminine desires and transition when their environmental conditions favor such behavior, otherwise they continue to live as regular males and keep their autogynephilic fantasies and cross-dressing escapades to themselves. They tend to arise in sexually liberal and progressive cultures and in prosperous middle class communities where "coming out" is seen as socially acceptable and hormonal and surgical transition is financially feasable. They are much rarer in traditional societies and third-world regions where the first type, namely early onset transsexuals, tend to be more numerous.

Today, many transgender activists go beserk whenever anyone mentions Dr. Blanchard's model of transsexualism. They oppose it with a certain religious fervor despite the fact that it is based on solid empirical observation and scientific evidence. Instead they prefer to peddle their own subjective "Female Essence Narrative" model by which they arbitrarily define a transsexual as anyone who has experienced feminine feelings in their life. That way anybody can easily define himself as a "genuine transsexual".

Autogynephilic/late onset transsexuals are the ones who especially oppose Blanchard's dual etiology research. This comes from their own insecurity. They feel that the model invalidates them as genuine transsexuals and so they do all they can to attack it. This kind of transsexual is the one who is more likely to be involved in SJW trans-activism and the LBGT movement.

Feminists and LBGT activists don't really care about genuine transsexuals at all. Some feminists even haterize against transsexuals because they fear that the notion that a male human being can be born with an innate inclination towards femininity would destroy their ideological dogma that femininity and masculinity are social constructs. LBGT activists only use genuine transsexuals for their own political agenda, the promotion of gender-fluid "transgenderism" and other non-mainstream behaviors.

My conclusion is that a certain percentage of the transsexual population is genuinely feminine. However, unfortunately it is the queer "transgender" community who tends to be the most vocal and adversely shapes the popular image of transsexualism. I personally hold a libertarian worldview and believe that people should be allowed to live their lives as they choose. I think that transsexual people should be respected as human beings without discrimination. Discriminating against gays and transsexuals only gives ammo to the SJW's who constantly seek to validate their oppressed victim status. It is my belief that we should adopt a "live and let live" attitude and stop feeding the SJW oppression olympics racket.

[Frosty]

I might read up on some material by Blanchard, the more I read up on the topic the more nuance I find in the whole topic, as I mentioned before I think that there is some distinct differences in both the biology and mentality of some transgender people which goes some way to explaining why some live very normal and happy lives, and others go on to take their own life.

 

One thing I'm also in alignment with regrading the post quoted from the RooshV forum is that the SJW movement is extremely anti-scientific and generally run on emotions and not logic.

[iHuman]

another video, sadly only a 20 min intro for a documentary under production but it does cover a good deal of science.

 

more related to my own case, but touches on many issues that also effect transgendered.

 

[MMX2010]

I might read up on some material by Blanchard, the more I read up on the topic the more nuance I find in the whole topic, as I mentioned before I think that there is some distinct differences in both the biology and mentality of some transgender people which goes some way to explaining why some live very normal and happy lives, and others go on to take their own life.

 

One thing I'm also in alignment with regrading the post quoted from the RooshV forum is that the SJW movement is extremely anti-scientific and generally run on emotions and not logic.

 

Yes.  And they have the nerve to assume (like many people in this thread do) that scientific consensus has slowly but steadily changed the minds of many individuals.  But the truth is that the slow but steady increase in bullying and twitter outrage has made people afraid to vocally oppose transgender-ideology.

[Eternal Growth]

I came across this segment while reading a book from this list, Bradshaw's "Healing the shame that binds you". Thought it would contribute to the discussion to post it here.

 

Starting around page 25:
"Ages three and a half to eight is a time when a normal child endlessly asks questions. Their curiosity begins to extend to their identity, which includes their sexual identity as well as what they want to be when they grow up (their vocation). The normal child also begins to experience his or her needs for structure, gender identity and challenge. Gay, lesbian and transgendered children are not even accounted for in the psycohlogical literature during this (or any other) developmental stage. Every gay or lesbian child I know in any depth was born gay or lesbian. Some are born transgendered (they are a girl in a boy's body or vice versa). These children are the most viciously shamed and oppressed in our society, mostly by homophobic religions (especially the white supremacists and many Christian denominations, especially the evangelical fundamentalists). Common sense would tell us that no one would choose to be ridiculed, condemned to hell, and risk being viciously beaten or killed if being gay, lesbian or transgendered were a choice."

 

"Gays, lesbians and transgendered people are toxically shamed from the get-go. The churches and people who shame them should be ashamed. Any child who reaches preschool with a shame-based foundation (no secure attachment and constant overexposure) will experience her needs as selfish and her sexuality as shameful and bad."

 

Searched through it to find anything else on the topic, only match (page 260) was the sentence: "It seems clear that gay, lesbian and transgendered children have a different genetic inheritance than do heterosexuals."

[iHuman]

I came across this segment while reading a book from this list, Bradshaw's "Healing the shame that binds you". Thought it would contribute to the discussion to post it here.

 

Starting around page 25:

"Ages three and a half to eight is a time when a normal child endlessly asks questions. Their curiosity begins to extend to their identity, which includes their sexual identity as well as what they want to be when they grow up (their vocation). The normal child also begins to experience his or her needs for structure, gender identity and challenge. Gay, lesbian and transgendered children are not even accounted for in the psycohlogical literature during this (or any other) developmental stage. Every gay or lesbian child I know in any depth was born gay or lesbian. Some are born transgendered (they are a girl in a boy's body or vice versa). These children are the most viciously shamed and oppressed in our society, mostly by homophobic religions (especially the white supremacists and many Christian denominations, especially the evangelical fundamentalists). Common sense would tell us that no one would choose to be ridiculed, condemned to hell, and risk being viciously beaten or killed if being gay, lesbian or transgendered were a choice."

 

"Gays, lesbians and transgendered people are toxically shamed from the get-go. The churches and people who shame them should be ashamed. Any child who reaches preschool with a shame-based foundation (no secure attachment and constant overexposure) will experience her needs as selfish and her sexuality as shameful and bad."

 

Searched through it to find anything else on the topic, only match (page 260) was the sentence: "It seems clear that gay, lesbian and transgendered children have a different genetic inheritance than do heterosexuals."

 

 

Yes, it is the same (and in some aspects more so) with those like myself who were born intersexed, every aspect of it or even discussing it is viewed by many as something that you are expected to be ashamed (almost literally) to death of.

and it isn't "Just" religious groups pushing that mindset.

 

much of this can be referenced by past histories of people with nearly any abnormality being once and often even today classified as "Circus Freaks", a good example of which are women who have male pattern facial hair, still human, still female, but has a beard, yet gets told likely from childhood that she should be ashamed of her existence...

 

I could almost literally list examples for the next year.