If transgender, then transracial? Can you accept one and reject other?

[fractional slacker]

If you subscribe to transgender theory, are you not obligated to support and endorse transracial theory?
 

My philosophy knowledge is sparse at best, but is this just the latest example of rationalism vs. empiricism, or is it something completely different altogether?

 

The article that sparked my question.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/12/if-rachel-dolezal-isnt-black-how-is-caitlyn-jenner-a-woman/
 

[Slavik]

If you subscribe to transgender theory, are you not obligated to support and endorse transracial theory?

 

My philosophy knowledge is sparse at best, but is this just the latest example of rationalism vs. empiricism, or is it something completely different altogether?

 

The article that sparked my question.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/12/if-rachel-dolezal-isnt-black-how-is-caitlyn-jenner-a-woman/

 

Transgender - different sexual identity in a body has biological and genetic factors.  Transgenderism arises from incomplete "hormonal wash" of the brain of the fetus, it is not a choice.  As far as race goes, honestly I personally can not see the difference between races as far as communicating or interacting with people, a person can have a certain intelligence and attitude no matter what race they are.  Im not sure how a race defines a person away from subjective culture, or current experiences when dealing with bigotry.  

[WasatchMan]

I don't think they are mutually exclusive.  I think they both may point to an identity crisis issue due to a break down in philosophy in current society.

 

However, I don't think you are necessarily obligated to endorse transracial theory if you support transgender.  This is because it is not a proven fact yet that someone cannot necessarily have issues in their brain that makes them feel like a gender that is opposite from their genitalia. However, this is not the case with race, or even the context of race.  Race is a description of your genetic lineage that actually happened.  I know we all came from Africa at one point in time, however race definitions account for a single lineage with other definitions to describe branches from that lineage. 

 

In other words, you cannot claim to have have a genetic lineage that did not happen because it did not objectively happen, however you can claim to have a feminine brain and a penis because it has not been proven that this is not possible.

[Eternal Growth]

If gender is just an arbitrary socially constructed identity and race is just an arbitrary socially constructed identity, then surely a person claiming to be a different gender is identical to a person claiming to be a different race, right?

 

Except this is a mischaracterisation of the situation, because gender and race actually correspond to physical phenomena in objective reality - and the objective natures of gender and race are very different. Viewed in this way, it is a false equivocation to say that something which is true of one must be true of the other.

 

To elaborate on what this means, let us define both gender and race:

 

Gender is a property that develops in an individual human being in responds to a complex and highly nuanced combination of chromosomal factors and hormonal factors, in process that spans from conception to the end of puberty. 

 

Race, to the extent that it is a meaningful categorisation of human beings, is only relevant when you are looking at multiple human beings and attempting to group them on the basis of similar DNA. 

 

"Transgender" is a phenomenon that arises in response to some departure within the process of gender development from the standard gender binary, i.e. a person fails development to develop into either a person who is fully a male masculine man or fully a female feminine woman. Because no biological system is perfect, this may be understood as just a consequence of the complexity of the process of gender development - in a very small number of cases, it isn't going to go exactly as according to plan (in the same way that birth defects and variation exist that affect all aspects of the body). 

"Transrace" - I don't even understand what this word could even refer to. A person's DNA is their DNA.

[labmath2]

The problem many if us are having i think has to do with culture vs biology. The distinction is the difference between "i like" and "i am." Transgenders want us to believe the latter, but we are still stuck on the former. The difference between i like the idea of being a woman and i am a woman has to do with objective standards. As far as i know, there is no way to measure the latter other than by looking at their psysiology.

[shirgall]

This is, again, an exercise in only combatting claims that are actually made. If not, I could immediately insist on identifying as bacon and demanding that those that do not salivate at my appearance as oppressors. (No, I do not have that much of a tan. I'm raw bacon.)

 

No one cares to not identify me as bacon unless I insist on identifying as bacon. The only reason transgenderists and transracialists get attention and criticism is that they identify in such a way. No one is obligated to endorse or deny (or even connect) their theories until those subscribers push their theory on others.

[NotDarkYet]

It is conceivable that a brain and a body could be born in gender conflict.

 

You could NOT, however, be born with a different races brain or "identity".  

 

That is physically impossible and purely ideological in nature.

[MMX2010]

 

"Transrace" - I don't even understand what this word could even refer to. A person's DNA is their DNA.

 

 

You'd better be careful with that argument.  Once you say, "A person's DNA is their DNA" I can counter-argue, "Yeah, you're right about that: XX is one thing and XY is another thing entirely." 

[Donnadogsoth]

Everyone has a body map in their mind, NotDarkYet.  Some people's maps map to the opposite sex, some people's map to a different race, some people's map to having missing limbs, some people's map to weighing 500 lbs, and some people's map to elvenkind with pointy ears.  The only question is how much society should force other people to accommodate the physical expressions of these alternate mental maps.

[labmath2]

It is conceivable that a brain and a body could be born in gender conflict.

 

You could NOT, however, be born with a different races brain or "identity".

 

That is physically impossible and purely ideological in nature.

Why is that? The idea is that your identity is in your mind or brain and people should respect your "truth." Why do transgenders get to monopolize this? So far i am not aware of any research that has looked into the differences between those who identify as one race, and those born into it. The research on transgender brain is not conclusive either, the sample size is too small, and other effects cannot be ruled out. Then there is the problem of those others whose brain are different and result in mental disorders. Can they also claim their condition is an identity?

 

The most important concern of course is still the objective standard.

[Eternal Growth]

You'd better be careful with that argument.  Once you say, "A person's DNA is their DNA" I can counter-argue, "Yeah, you're right about that: XX is one thing and XY is another thing entirely." 

 

But I agree with "XX is one thing and XY is another thing entirely". Well, actually not "entirely" - both of them have an X chromosome, and the Y chromosome is much smaller than the X chromosome, and so XX and XY are actually very similar. 

 

But gender is much more nuanced than XX vs XY, and you know it.

[Donnadogsoth]

Not for most people, it isn't, or else there would be no need to point out how nuanced gender is.

[MMX2010]

Not for most people, it isn't, or else there would be no need to point out how nuanced gender is.

 

Agree with you here.  I'm old enough to remember the social progression of transgender over the last two decades.  When I was in high school, gender was not nuanced at all.  Today, gender is highly nuanced. 

[NotDarkYet]

I see a logical separation between transgender identity, and transracial identity:

 

 

 

A person could be born physically with a feminine brain circuitry (depending on hormones in the womb).     We DO have gay people after all!

 

But

 

A person could not be born as a different race.  This is physically impossible, no matter what washes of hormones occur in the womb.  There is no hormone that makes a Swedish guy Japanese.

 

 

 

One is in your head, and one is in your genes.  

 

One is a lie.  One is....complicated.

[GrungeGuy]

But even if we accepted that a person was born with a female brain and a male body, wouldn't their brain be effected over time by the fact that it was connected to and receiving stimuli from a male body?

[labmath2]

I see a logical separation between transgender identity, and transracial identity:

 

 

 

A person could be born physically with a feminine brain circuitry (depending on hormones in the womb). We DO have gay people after all!

 

But

 

A person could not be born as a different race. This is physically impossible, no matter what washes of hormones occur in the womb. There is no hormone that makes a Swedish guy Japanese.

 

 

 

One is in your head, and one is in your genes.

 

One is a lie. One is....complicated.

Again you just claim there is feminine brain and maeculine brain, when the science is not yet conclusive. You also reject race brain when there has been little research on this. How can you be so certain?

[labmath2]

Also being gay is about preference, not identity. It only became defined as an identity by the attempt to get others to accept it. Of course your preferences are a part of who you are, but they are not who you are.

[GrungeGuy]

I'd really like to see more empirical evidence in this conversation. Here is a pretty interesting study: http://www.journalofpsychiatricresearch.com/article/S0022-3956%2810%2900158-5/abstract

 

In the study they compared the brain structures of FtM transgender individuals who had not began hormone therapy (a pretty important factor to control for) and they found that their brain structure was closer to that of males (their gender identity) than to females (their sex). Of course, it would be great to be able to control for more, such as trauma, how the individuals were raised regarding gender, whether they were living as their identity and for how long, etc. and to have some larger sample sizes.

 

Another interesting study, this time using MtF transgender individuals who had not begun hormone therapy: http://www.journalofpsychiatricresearch.com/article/S0022-3956%2810%2900325-0/abstract

 

In this study, they describe the MtF brain structure as appearing "half way" between male and female controls.

 

This research does suggest that there are brain differences between transgender and non-trans individuals, that FtM transgender brains look more like male brains than female brains, and that hormone therapy is not the cause of these differences. They don't speak to the etiology of these differences, however.

 

Does anyone know of any well controlled studies that demonstrate that a hormone wash at birth produces a brain of one gender in the body of another? If so, please post!

[_LiveFree_]

But even if we accepted that a person was born with a female brain and a male body, wouldn't their brain be effected over time by the fact that it was connected to and receiving stimuli from a male body?

Yes, resulting in what is termed gender dysphoria.

[fractional slacker]

I found an article that cites 15 different studies claiming to show a biological origin of gender dysphoria. How they differentiate   cause from effect, and correlation (in regards to gender theory) is the only thing I am interested in, ie the epistemology of gender. Furthermore, not sure how gender can be dysphoric if it doesn't have an objective definition supported by empirical evidence, but that's more the realm of philosophy, I suppose.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brynn-tannehill/how-much-evidence-does-it_b_4616722.html

 

 

 

 

[Eternal Growth]

Not for most people, it isn't, or else there would be no need to point out how nuanced gender is.

 

Many things in nature are more nuanced than layperson knowledge holds them to be. For most people, quantum mechanics is neither relevant to how they interact with the universe, intuitive, or at all understood - but it doesn't make it any less accurate as a description of what actually takes place in objective reality at small scales. Gender, sex and the developmental process of each are extremely complex issues - beginning with the fact that chromosome combinations aren't even as simple as XX vs XY, but also include XXX, XYY and XXY among others.

 

Do you accept "If most people believe something, it is true" as a general philosophical principle?

[Donnadogsoth]

Many things in nature are more nuanced than layperson knowledge holds them to be. For most people, quantum mechanics is neither relevant to how they interact with the universe, intuitive, or at all understood - but it doesn't make it any less accurate as a description of what actually takes place in objective reality at small scales. Gender, sex and the developmental process of each are extremely complex issues - beginning with the fact that chromosome combinations aren't even as simple as XX vs XY, but also include XXX, XYY and XXY among others.

 

Do you accept "If most people believe something, it is true" as a general philosophical principle?

 

I believe that if something is prevalent, then it's normal.  Sexual bifurcation, or gender binary, in humans is normal.  A few outlying cases doesn't change this fact, any more than the existence of a glazed portal halfway between a window and a door changes the fact that the categories of "window" and "door" are normal.

Also being gay is about preference, not identity. It only became defined as an identity by the attempt to get others to accept it. Of course your preferences are a part of who you are, but they are not who you are.

 

That's like saying "Being a firefighter is about preference--someone wants to fight fires--not identity."  Everything you prefer to do, or don't prefer to do, is part of your identity, including firefighting while gay.

[Eternal Growth]

I believe that if something is prevalent, then it's normal.  Sexual bifurcation, or gender binary, in humans is normal.  A few outlying cases doesn't change this fact, any more than the existence of a glazed portal halfway between a window and a door changes the fact that the categories of "window" and "door" are normal.

 

Very well, but I don't understand why this is relevant to point out in a discussion of transgender people. It is like posting in a discussion about cancer "it is normal to not have runaway cell division", as though it contributes to the discussion - when the entire point of discussing people with cancer is that you are discussing the small minority who don't have normal cell division.

[Donnadogsoth]

Very well, but I don't understand why this is relevant to point out in a discussion of transgender people. It is like posting in a discussion about cancer "it is normal to not have runaway cell division", as though it contributes to the discussion - when the entire point of discussing people with cancer is that you are discussing the small minority who don't have normal cell division.

 

 

Do you accept "If most people believe something, it is true" as a general philosophical principle?"

 

I was responding to your question quoted above.

 

I already accept there are subtleties to a broad view of gender.  That said, do you have any thoughts on my question:

 

 

 

The only question is how much society should force other people to accommodate the physical expressions of these alternate mental maps.

 

?

[fractional slacker]

Mr. E. gives his two cents.

[Eternal Growth]

I already accept there are subtleties to a broad view of gender.  That said, do you have any thoughts on my question:

 

I can share my thoughts if the terms "force" and "accommodate", as used in the question, are clearly defined (otherwise they could mean potentially many things and I could end up answering the wrong question).

 

Fractional slacker, I intended to skim through the entire video at 2x speed but stopped watching altogether about 50 seconds in when he defines transsexuality as something new which is the next big thing being pushed by the political left. It is as though he has done no research on the topic whatsoever, on the existence of gender variance across eras and across cultures (and that any study of such also needs to take into account ways in which various cultures historically and still today have violently, including or perhaps most importantly in childhood, suppressed gender variance). The mainstream media may have only recently developed interest in it, indeed leftist groups might be jumping on the topic to advance their ends (AGAINST the interests of trans people themselves - in the same way that leftists pretend concern for other minorities in ways that actually harm them), but it isn't some new cultural phenomenon - and it is unempirical to suggest such.

 

In my personal opinion, the individual in this video is part of a culture which defines itself contrary to the trends and views of mainstream culture, which means they get some things right where the mainstream culture is wrong (e.g. they might be more attracted to free markets because the mainstream is anti-capitalist, and they are critical of feminism), but as a whole are not thinking rationally and empirically and are in fact being defined by popular culture as much as anyone else, just in reverse. Automatic, unthinking contrarianism is not the same as independent thought and isn't as respectable.

 

However, something that they are missing is that the relationship between trans individuals and feminists isn't as cosy as a simplistic reactionary contrarian narrative might want it to be. Feminism has had a protracted history of transphobia, particularly against trans women but also to some extent against trans men. In other words, feminists and men's rights activists (which I believe the person in the video and much of his audience are) have finally found an issue on which they are both passionately in agreement: the opposition to trans people.

 

My message to him and others would be that if you are going to be a contrarian, at least be a real contrarian and be pro-trans. Though ideally, don't define your thinking on the basis of either dogma or reverse dogma and have a tolerant, open perspective towards understanding the universe, to information you may not be considering, and to unexamined prejudices which are guiding your thinking.

[Funkmaster_A]

They're the same in terms of how people who have it act: make yourself into a stereotype of something you aren't.

[Donnadogsoth]

I can share my thoughts if the terms "force" and "accommodate", as used in the question, are clearly defined (otherwise they could mean potentially many things and I could end up answering the wrong question).

 

Force as in any kind of coercion, whether state authority or community (peer pressure) authority.  Must the seats on airliners be widened to accommodate the morbidly obese?  Must wheelchairs be provided for those tranabled persons who have had their legs amputated?  Must tiger-man with tiger tattoos and tiger piercings and who walks on all fours as much as possible be given a job as a bellhop?  Or should society have the liberty to refuse all these and the many more things transoid people will come up with?

[Eternal Growth]

Force as in any kind of coercion, whether state authority or community (peer pressure) authority.  Must the seats on airliners be widened to accommodate the morbidly obese?  Must wheelchairs be provided for those tranabled persons who have had their legs amputated?  Must tiger-man with tiger tattoos and tiger piercings and who walks on all fours as much as possible be given a job as a bellhop?  Or should society have the liberty to refuse all these and the many more things transoid people will come up with?

 

Government guns and peer pressure are quite different things. I think we're all in agreement here that the only legitimate use of force is in self-defence against other people who have initiated force against our bodies or property.

 

You're using the word "must", but there are no musts. These are decisions for voluntary actors in a free market to make. An airline can calculate whether it makes more profit and has happier customers from offering wider seats, and choose to act accordingly. Perhaps if it chooses not to accommodate overweight people, this will annoy a number of customers and cause them to boycott and attempt to trash the reputation of the airline. This determination by those who value the inclusion of overweight people might shift the cost/benefit analysis towards the airline providing wider seats (maybe at a higher cost), but so long as no force is being used, this is just the free market doing its magic and providing what people value.

 

You're also using the word "society", but society is not a homogeneous collective that chooses to accept or reject things together as a whole. In any society of multiple people, people will disagree. Some will want to employ e.g. trans people on the basis of how qualified they are for the job, not on the basis of an aspect of their medical history that is irrelevant to job performance. Other free market actors might refuse applications from trans applicants. Now, I (among other people) would personally be willing to donate to an organisation that would publicly shame the latter company and encourage all individuals who care about the inclusion of trans people to boycott them, but they would be free to continue. Another group of people might form an organisation which publicly shames trans people and companies that employ or serve them, and seeks to boycott these. But trans people and their allies would be free to continue living and trading with those who wanted to trade with them, which in a world of 7b people is still going to be a huge number. 

 

Stefan Molyneux has frequently talked about the importance of us not deriving self-esteem from things which we did not choose. Under such a view, cisgender individuals should not regard themselves as of superior value just because they happened to be born cisgender. A rational understanding of one's value is based on one's volitional virtues, not one's race, sexuality, gender identity or other unchosen factor. As such, rational cisgender people are not going to regard themselves as superior to transgender people just because they happened to be born cisgender and are going to be repelled by (irrational) people who do. Which means that consistent rationalists are going to be on the side of defending the social inclusion of trans people.

 

As for those things which are chosen, this is just going to depend on how much people value individuality and self-expression. A person who enjoys dressing up as a tiger isn't harming anyone, and there are jobs for people like that e.g. Disneyland. 

[Carl Green]

...Or should society have the liberty to refuse all these and the many more things transoid people will come up with.

 

Yes. An individual, within a society, should have the liberty to reject someone's claim if they want to maintain a peaceful society. Just as anyone should be able to make any claim they want as long as they're not coercing anyone else.

 

 

 

They're the same in terms of how people who have it act: make yourself into a stereotype of something you aren't.

 

But doesn't this assume the transgendered person is making the decision.

[MMX2010]

 

You're also using the word "society", but society is not a homogeneous collective that chooses to accept or reject things together as a whole. In any society of multiple people, people will disagree. Some will want to employ e.g. trans people on the basis of how qualified they are for the job, not on the basis of an aspect of their medical history that is irrelevant to job performance. Other free market actors might refuse applications from trans applicants. Now, I (among other people) would personally be willing to donate to an organisation that would publicly shame the latter company and encourage all individuals who care about the inclusion of trans people to boycott them, but they would be free to continue. Another group of people might form an organisation which publicly shames trans people and companies that employ or serve them, and seeks to boycott these. But trans people and their allies would be free to continue living and trading with those who wanted to trade with them, which in a world of 7b people is still going to be a huge number. 

 

 

This is going to sound crass, but do you think Not Killing Yourself is an essential part of every job?  I ask because, as you know, the suicide rate among transgender individuals is astronomically higher than that of the general public and, unlike depression (which may be cured), transgender is permanent. 

 

 

 

 

Stefan Molyneux has frequently talked about the importance of us not deriving self-esteem from things which we did not choose. Under such a view, cisgender individuals should not regard themselves as of superior value just because they happened to be born cisgender. A rational understanding of one's value is based on one's volitional virtues, not one's race, sexuality, gender identity or other unchosen factor. As such, rational cisgender people are not going to regard themselves as superior to transgender people just because they happened to be born cisgender and are going to be repelled by (irrational) people who do. Which means that consistent rationalists are going to be on the side of defending the social inclusion of trans people.

 

As for those things which are chosen, this is just going to depend on how much people value individuality and self-expression. A person who enjoys dressing up as a tiger isn't harming anyone, and there are jobs for people like that e.g. Disneyland. 

 

Like pretty much every transgender individual I've interacted with, you focus on the emotional side of things, using emotional words like self-esteem and feeling superior about yourself. 

 

But the suicide rate and Alice Amell's language where she said, "In sex change operations, the penis isn't removed; it's re-shaped into a vagina." strongly suggest that "self-esteem" and "feeling superior about yourself" aren't the operative focus-words.  Instead, the operative-focus words are "I don't want to get close to people who are much more likely to kill themselves." and "I don't want to get close to people who use delusional language." 

[MMX2010]

Does anybody here think being gay is a mental disorder?

 

I don't fully believe that, but I'm leaning towards believing that.  There are some studies that highly correlate being sexually molested by a same-sex individual with becoming gay in adulthood. 

 

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

 

Courtesy of the Roosh V Forum: http://www.hollanddavis.com/?p=3647

 

Summary: "Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way.

 

“At best genetics is a minor factor,” says Dr. Neil Whitehead, PhD. Whitehead worked for the New Zealand government as a scientific researcher for 24 years, then spent four years working for the United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency. Most recently, he serves as a consultant to Japanese universities about the effects of radiation exposure. His PhD is in biochemistry and statistics.

 

 

 

Identical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions. If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay.

 

“Because they have identical DNA, it ought to be 100%,” Dr. Whitehead notes. But the studies reveal something else. “If an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances the co-twin has it are only about 11% for men and 14% for women.”

 

Because identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. “No-one is born gay,” he notes. “The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.”

 

Dr. Whitehead believes same-sex attraction (SSA) is caused by “non-shared factors,” things happening to one twin but not the other, or a personal response to an event by one of the twins and not the other.

 

For example, one twin might have exposure to pornography or sexual abuse, but not the other. One twin may interpret and respond to their family or classroom environment differently than the other. “These individual and idiosyncratic responses to random events and to common environmental factors predominate,” he says."

 

 

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

 

Also, courtesy of the Roosh V Forum: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11501300

 

Summary: "In research with 942 nonclinical adult participants, gay men and lesbian women reported a significantly higher rate of childhood molestation than did heterosexual men and women. Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. Twenty-two percent of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation. This research is apparently the first survey that has reported substantial homosexual molestation of girls. Suggestions for future research were offered."

 

 

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

 

Here's a highly uncomfortable question: If the research above were disputed but not wholly discredited, would you voluntarily expose your children to homosexual individuals in the name of personal freedom and tolerance for all?  Or would you declare that your children's future is much more important than any perceived slight against homosexuals, no matter how "unjust" that slight may appear, and therefore, refuse to let your children interact with homosexuals? 

[Donnadogsoth]

Does anybody here think being gay is a mental disorder?

 

If not, then why can't we accept transgender-ness as a real biological state of mind?

 

I have no dog in this fight.  Just curious.

 

Yes, I think homosexuality is a mental disorder, or a neurological disorder, as you prefer.  In many cases it appears intractable.  In other cases, the person is merely "on the fence" and confused and demoralised about heterosexuality, and so can be set straight.  (The gayification of contemporary media doesn't help this.)  Or, the person is incarcerated and is resorting to homosexual behaviour for sexual relief, not because it is their first preference.  People in "prisons" can be set free.  But, as I said, many cases appear intractable.

 

No, we shouldn't persecute gays.

Government guns and peer pressure are quite different things. I think we're all in agreement here that the only legitimate use of force is in self-defence against other people who have initiated force against our bodies or property.

 

You're using the word "must", but there are no musts. These are decisions for voluntary actors in a free market to make. An airline can calculate whether it makes more profit and has happier customers from offering wider seats, and choose to act accordingly. Perhaps if it chooses not to accommodate overweight people, this will annoy a number of customers and cause them to boycott and attempt to trash the reputation of the airline. This determination by those who value the inclusion of overweight people might shift the cost/benefit analysis towards the airline providing wider seats (maybe at a higher cost), but so long as no force is being used, this is just the free market doing its magic and providing what people value.

 

You're also using the word "society", but society is not a homogeneous collective that chooses to accept or reject things together as a whole. In any society of multiple people, people will disagree. Some will want to employ e.g. trans people on the basis of how qualified they are for the job, not on the basis of an aspect of their medical history that is irrelevant to job performance. Other free market actors might refuse applications from trans applicants. Now, I (among other people) would personally be willing to donate to an organisation that would publicly shame the latter company and encourage all individuals who care about the inclusion of trans people to boycott them, but they would be free to continue. Another group of people might form an organisation which publicly shames trans people and companies that employ or serve them, and seeks to boycott these. But trans people and their allies would be free to continue living and trading with those who wanted to trade with them, which in a world of 7b people is still going to be a huge number. 

 

Stefan Molyneux has frequently talked about the importance of us not deriving self-esteem from things which we did not choose. Under such a view, cisgender individuals should not regard themselves as of superior value just because they happened to be born cisgender. A rational understanding of one's value is based on one's volitional virtues, not one's race, sexuality, gender identity or other unchosen factor. As such, rational cisgender people are not going to regard themselves as superior to transgender people just because they happened to be born cisgender and are going to be repelled by (irrational) people who do. Which means that consistent rationalists are going to be on the side of defending the social inclusion of trans people.

 

As for those things which are chosen, this is just going to depend on how much people value individuality and self-expression. A person who enjoys dressing up as a tiger isn't harming anyone, and there are jobs for people like that e.g. Disneyland. 

 

Peer pressure is worse than force.  Force can kill you, but peer pressure threatens social death.  Both are ways of getting what you want.  I don't see how the former is purer than the latter.

[Eternal Growth]

Yes, I think homosexuality is a mental disorder, or a neurological disorder, as you prefer.

 

Ah, the bad type of libertarian (typically those who come from the socially conservative right). Freedom for everyone, so long as you're exactly like us, otherwise you are "disordered". No, we won't persecute you, we will just identify you as disordered and exclude you from normal society and family life and then blame any psychological problems that result on you, because social ostracism is completely fi...

 

Peer pressure is worse than force.  Force can kill you, but peer pressure threatens social death.  Both are ways of getting what you want.  I don't see how the former is purer than the latter.

 

Oh. Oh. How then do you feel then about the peer pressure put upon trans people to not be open about their internal experience, and to not live in accordance with their true selves because it isn't convenient for others to have to go through the effort of adding an extra letter "s" to the pronoun "he", or to deal with gender being more complicated than a simple binary and requiring more than a perceptual-level understanding?

 

If peer pressure is in fact worse than force, how do you feel about a member of this board explicitly declaring himself anti-transgender and receiving support from a staff member for doing so?

 

I don't personally think peer pressure is worse than force, but somebody who does must be pretty affected when the read study outcomes such as these:

 

Experiences of discrimination and harassment were common. Nearly two thirds of participants (64.8%) reported at least one instance, with experiences ranging from social exclusion to violence and assault. Many participants reported changing their behaviour for fear of being subject to further instances. Participants also reported discrimination when accessing healthcare, and that the healthcare system generally failed to meet their needs. Some participants did report good relationships with medical practitioners, but this was often a matter of luck in finding a supportive doctor and knowing where to go for help.

 

Source: The First Australian National Trans Mental Health Study

 

Over 90% had been told that trans people were not normal, over 80% had experienced silent harassment. 50% had been sexually objectified or fetishised for being trans, 38% had experienced sexual harassment, 13% had been sexually assaulted and 6% had been raped for being trans. Over 37% had experienced physical threats or intimidation for being trans, 19% had been hit or beaten up for being trans. 25% had to move away from family or friends for being trans; over 16% had experienced domestic abuse, and 14% had experienced police harassment for being trans.

 

Source: Trans Mental Health and Emotional Wellbeing Study 2012 (UK)

[MMX2010]

 

Peer pressure is worse than force.  Force can kill you, but peer pressure threatens social death.  Both are ways of getting what you want.  I don't see how the former is purer than the latter.

 

I have to go to work soon, so I won't be posting an excellent comparison between 1980's Social Justice Warriors and their modern day counterparts. 

 

But I will point you towards an exchange between Liberalismus and me that took place in the Downvoting thread.

 

(1) Liberalismus: The NAP does not apply to MMX, because he has personally rejected it as a principle, supporting violations of the NAP against trans people and/or their medical professionals:

 

Liberalismus quotes me: "Facing legal obstacles to accessing medical treatment for gender dysphoria (e.g. hormone therapy if uncomfortable with the effects of hormones of the coercively-assigned gender)"  (What you call "legal-obstacles", everyone else calls "Are you SURE?!?"  Moreover, people face more "legal obstacles" when they want to donate a kidney to an absolute stranger than when they seek hormonally-induced sex-changes.)"

 

 

(2) I reply to Liberalismus: "Wow.  Okay MMD and JamesP.   I don't think you can ignore that accusation, can you?  Is Liberalismus correct or incorrect when he says that?"

 

(3) Liberalismus replies to me: "Upvoted, because you are now showing actual interest in assessing the objective truth value of the things that I have said, whereas before you were portraying my experience of you as somebody who is abusive / antagonistic / supportive of NAP violations towards trans people as merely something that existed in my own mind and that was completely divorced from your objective actions."

 

(4) I reply: "So you don't prefer to focus on whether your accusation that I violated the NAP was TRUE or FALSE?"

 

(5) Liberalismus: "Replace "violated" with "expressed support for the violation of", as you are misrepresenting me here.

 

Other than that point, that is exactly what I wish to focus on, to quote myself: "Upvoted, because you are now showing actual interest in assessing the objective truth value of the things that I have said"

 

"The things that I have said" would include that my best-effort interpretation of something which you have said implies support for violations of the NAP (those violations of the NAP being present government initiation of violence against medical professionals if they do not conform to the requirements and dictates of the state with respect to voluntary interactions with and prescription of treatment for transgender patients - government dictates which differ between countries, but in many instances cause much harm to trans individuals, just as forcible government intervention in medicine causes harm to almost everyone and is opposed by adherents to the NAP).

 

Perhaps my interpretation is wrong; perhaps my interpretations of the 20+ other things in your posts in that other thread are also wrong, but so far, nobody has made any effort to challenge them. If my interpretations are proven wrong, I have the commitment to intellectual integrity that I will revoke them, revoke the accusation that you have supported violations of the NAP, and revoke my previous accusation that you were abusive towards me (in the context of me being a trans person) in your posts.

 

Otherwise my interpretation is correct, which means you have supported violations of the NAP. You would either have to admit mistake and revoke this position, or remain a person who supports violations of the NAP."

 

(6) Finally, me:  "Fine.  I accept the correction.  Not good enough.  You will not merely apologize and revoke the accusation.  You will do more than that. Since I don't like telling people how to make atonement, (because then I don't know whether their atonement is genuinely derived from a sense of justice and peaceful-living), it's up to you to decide what more you need to do."

 

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

 

I highlighted what I believe to be the most important part in blue.  Liberalismus actually expected me to be happy or satisfied with the offer, "If you prove me wrong, I'll revoke my accusations that you violated the NAP."  And Liberalismus has not, so far, realized why I'm not satisfied with it, nor has offered something more satisfactory to me. 

 

This not only supports your belief that "Peer pressure is not at all more pure than government force.", but also explains why in a deeply personal, emotional way. 

 

I don't even have to explain to you why I found Liberalismus's offer of Revocation deeply unsatisfying.  You already know without me having to explain it to you.  But Liberalismus doesn't know, and yet wants to use peer pressure, boycotts, and all sorts of ostracism anyway.