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

[Eternal Growth]

I expect reciprocity with other people. I have stated something that I will do if I am wrong and you are right in the conversation. You have offered nothing if you are proven wrong and I am proven right, as though even the possibility of you being wrong does not occur to you.

 

"But Liberalismus doesn't know" - That is correct, I don't. Would you like to state it?

[MMX2010]

I expect reciprocity with other people. I have stated something that I will do if I am wrong and you are right in the conversation. You have offered nothing if you are proven wrong and I am proven right, as though even the possibility of you being wrong does not occur to you.

 

And, like I told you, the something that you offered isn't good enough for me. 

 

I've 100% confidence that donalddogsoth understands why, "If I was wrong to accuse you of violating the NAP, then I'll retract my claim that you were." is not-at-all satisfactory. 

 

I've 100% confidence that the majority of people in this thread, (suspiciously, none of them are transgender), will understand why I find your Offer of Retraction not-at-all satisfactory.

 

But you?  Impossible for you to get it.  Can't hint at it with a joke.  Can't directly explain using logic and reason.  Can't get outsiders to explain it to you, (although they're welcome to try, I've no confidence that it'll work). 

 

You simply believe it's 100% legitimate to accuse someone of violating the NAP under the condition, "Well, I said that I would retract it if I was wrong!"  You believe it, and that settles it. 

[Eternal Growth]

Sorry if I wasn't clear in what I meant. I have offered something, you have offered nothing. You were not happy with what I offered, but it was something, and I am not going to give more to another person before the other person has given anything at all. This is basic reciprocity.

 

Just to point it out, it is a technique of mystics, manipulators and abusive people to claim that a certain piece of knowledge incriminates a person, but to withhold this piece of knowledge.

 

I like quoting Ayn Rand, so:

"Mysticism requires the notion of the unknowable, which is revealed to some and withheld from others; this divides men into those who feel guilt and those who cash in on it." - Ayn Rand

 

"Can't directly explain using logic and reason." - have you done this? Please point me towards the post.

[MMX2010]

Sorry if I wasn't clear in what I meant. I have offered something, you have offered nothing. You were not happy with what I offered, but it was something, and I am not going to give more to another person before the other person has given anything at all. This is basic reciprocity.

 

So this is important to you, "Did I, or did I not, offer something?"

 

And this is not important to you, "Was the something I offered satisfactory to the other person?  If not, why not?  Does that person have a legitimate complaint with what I offered?" 

 

 

 

Just to point it out, it is a technique of mystics, manipulators and abusive people to claim that a certain piece of knowledge incriminates a person, but to withhold this piece of knowledge.

 

It's also a technique of highly intelligent olden men, who know when something has to be learned through direct experience, rather than through argument.  One of my favorite writers, Quintus Curtius, described this is his book Thirty-Seven, calling it, "The world will teach you." 

 

 

 

 

This is basic reciprocity.

 

Interesting that you choose the non-emotional, dictionary-definition of reciprocity, rather than automatically knowing the emotional, implied definition of reciprocity. 

 

Hint: If you focus, long enough, on what's not important to you, you'll realize why you're not behaving in a reciprocal way. 

 

If not, "The World Will Teach You". 

[Eternal Growth]

So this is important to you, "Did I, or did I not, offer something?"

 

And this is not important to you, "Was the something I offered satisfactory to the other person?  If not, why not?  Does that person have a legitimate complaint with what I offered?" 

 

As somebody who has been offered nothing, which is quite unsatisfactory indeed, I understand how you feel. 

 

 

Just to point it out, it is a technique of mystics, manipulators and abusive people to claim that a certain piece of knowledge incriminates a person, but to withhold this piece of knowledge.

 

It's also a technique of highly intelligent olden men, who know when something has to be learned through direct experience, rather than through argument.

 

Hahaha, you literally just gave your entire game away and in your own words. It's over. You're a committed mystic who has consistently shown themselves in multiple domains to be a person who believes that truth is something that arises from the consciousnesses of people, not something which arises from objective reality. I knew this already from everything else you have posted (in both trans-related threads and the others - it is natural and in fact follows entirely that a man who believes in the primacy of consciousness will seek to use manipulation as their method of choice for picking up women), I just thought it was important to carry on sufficiently that other people could easily tell this as well and had no doubts. I am done here. (And this discussion taking place here was a diversion from the actual topic)

 

--

 

In response to the below, and so anyone just reading this part can understand the full context: I am being told I am not showing "basic emotional concern" for a person who (on this board) has repeatedly misgendered me (a trans woman who has presented as a woman for multiple years, and my entire adult life, in the real world, and am unambiguously identified as female in the real world - i.e. he chose the opposite pronoun to the one I use in real life specifically because I was trans and to be antagonistic), has said that trans people should not be "tolerated", has called himself in his own words "anti-transgender" and "trans-non-friendly" and criticised the "trans-friendly", has called me "delusional" and has justified the abuse of gender variant children because "biological sex is objectively observed" among many other things (documented in the thread in Men's Issues, Feminism and Gender). I identified him on the board as being "abusive", and in response to this he did whatever networking was necessary to get a member of FDR staff to threaten me to "not post here" because I had not justified this claim. However, throughout his posts, he had accused trans people of "bullying" and "yelling loudly at" other people and had not substantiated these claims. i.e. this standard of "accusations of abuse should be substantiated immediately when made, or you should not be on the FDR board" was not being applied universally (for whatever reason).

 

Given that in the 7 years that I have been listening to (and donated multiple times, including early BTC donations that grew into significant sums of money, despite being very poor) FDR I have found the message of self-knowledge, of no positive obligations, and of honesty to oneself and others as strongly affirmative of my right to exist in the world as a trans person (despite a family and childhood social context highly antagonistic towards gender variance) and I found this very helpful in developing the confidence to implement the positive developments in my life that I needed to, experiencing a strongly transphobic individual on the FDR board who was implicitly supported by a staff member brought up a lot of emotions and contributed to me changing my entire view of FDR, causing me to disavow the show and community entirely for a year. It was only when I was pointed towards a video in which Stef said something mildly trans-affirmative (his statements regarding Caitlyn Jenner in a recent call-in of a gay man having difficulty with a homophobic family) that changed my view of the "official FDR position on trans people" and made me reconsider FDR's integrity and empathy.

 

The same man is talking now about "basic emotional concern" regarding a factually, objectively true (as far as I can still tell) identification of him supporting NAP violations against trans people / medical professionals. What can I say. (To his other point below about being "scientifically-rigorous", all I can say is: honest humans do not interact with one another with Behaviourist scientific experiments.)

[MMX2010]

As somebody who has been offered nothing, which is quite unsatisfactory indeed, I understand how you feel. 

 

 

Hahaha, you literally just gave your entire game away and in your own words. It's over. You're a committed mystic who has consistently shown themselves in multiple domains to be a person who believes that truth is something that arises from the consciousnesses of people, not something which arises from objective reality. I knew this already from everything else you have posted (in both trans-related threads and the others - it is natural and in fact follows entirely that a man who believes in the primacy of consciousness will seek to use manipulation as their method of choice for picking up women), I just thought it was important to carry on sufficiently that other people could easily tell this as well and had no doubts. I am done here. (And this discussion taking place here was a diversion from the actual topic)

 

So let's get this straight.  You refused to change your mode of communication, and then you concluded that I was a mystic? 

 

A scientifically-rigorous person would've tested their conclusion by behaving in a way that challenges their conclusion.  In this case, you would've offered me more, just to see how I would react.  (Instead, you did the opposite.) 

 

These are not important to you: "Was the something I offered satisfactory to the other person?  If not, why not?  Does that person have a legitimate complaint with what I offered?"  What do those questions have in common?  Simple, they indicate basic emotional concern for the other person, the one you're presenting yourself as "behaving reciprocally with".  Without basic emotional concern for the other person, how can you convince someone else that you're really behaving in a reciprocal fashion? 

 

Simply put, you can't.  In fact, the only people you can convince are those who habitually refuse to express basic concern for other people when seeking what they want.  There's a word for such people, and it's not very pretty. 

[Donnadogsoth]

 

 

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...

 

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?

 

Transgender is a pathology, like transableism or Body Integrity Identity Disorder, or thinking the government has already put a microchip in your head (which, admittedly, is only pathological for being a few years premature).  The question is, as I have stated previously, how much should society accommodate these people?  Do we call the man who thinks he is Napoleon, Napoleon?  Do we insist he doff his bicorne hat for a funeral?  What about that long, sharp sword he likes to carry around--okay with that everywhere, too?  What about anorexics who starve themselves to death--just a personal preference?  How libertarian are we in our thinking that every twisted notion must be accommodated, as if out of inexhaustible politeness for the foibles of others?  And why are the preferences of the majority not taken into account, that they maybe don't want to modify their esses, and turn the natural gender binary of complementary anatomy and sexuality upside-down, inside-out, and sideways?

 

 

 

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:

 

Yes, it's unfortunate, sad even.  Who was it who cited data that said transgender people are often still disturbed even after every effort has been made to accommodate them?  That some suicide out of realising they've made the wrong choice?  In a culture of trans-acceptance, how much effort is going to be made to "talk down" someone who's almost trans enough to benefit from surgery, but actually just got a bunch of wrongheaded notions and would have ruined their life by going through with it?

 

What's also sad, or should I say gives one grave trepidation, is how sexuality is being overheated and melted down, towards an unknown omega point.  I think incest is coming next, then bestiality, then pedophilia, but perhaps there are a dozen minor flavours waiting in the wings to be added to the alphabet soup of LGBT&c.  Wanna know something?  I think all this "freedom" (license) is not leading us towards "libertarianism," it's leading us towards Molech.

[Donnadogsoth]

Here's from the horse's mouth:

 

http://www.sexchangeregret.com/

 

and,

 

http://www.catholic.com/audio-player/30567

[Eternal Growth]

Transgender is a pathology, like transableism or Body Integrity Identity Disorder, or thinking the government has already put a microchip in your head (which, admittedly, is only pathological for being a few years premature).  The question is, as I have stated previously, how much should society accommodate these people?  Do we call the man who thinks he is Napoleon, Napoleon?  Do we insist he doff his bicorne hat for a funeral?  What about that long, sharp sword he likes to carry around--okay with that everywhere, too?  What about anorexics who starve themselves to death--just a personal preference?  How libertarian are we in our thinking that every twisted notion must be accommodated, as if out of inexhaustible politeness for the foibles of others?  And why are the preferences of the majority not taken into account, that they maybe don't want to modify their esses, and turn the natural gender binary of complementary anatomy and sexuality upside-down, inside-out, and sideways?

 

One's gender identity is a fundamental aspect of one's identity. You really cannot live a life at all if you are not able to express it, and it is also impossible to repress or change your gender identity. And the health and well-being of a trans person is in not being coerced through parental ostracism / government force / social ostracism to fake an external presentation and deny their true self just to please others. I don't think the other things you've stated are comparable - an anorexic who doesn't want to die is acting irrationally, a person who thinks the government has put a microchip in their head has incorrectly identified reality, a person who thinks he is Napolean (literally, the Napolean) is speaking a falsehood. 

 

There is no such thing as "the natural gender binary". In nature, gender/sex is mostly a binary categorisation (in organisms which reproduce sexually), but there are exceptions. 

 

Yes, it's unfortunate, sad even.  Who was it who cited data that said transgender people are often still disturbed even after every effort has been made to accommodate them?  That some suicide out of realising they've made the wrong choice?  In a culture of trans-acceptance, how much effort is going to be made to "talk down" someone who's almost trans enough to benefit from surgery, but actually just got a bunch of wrongheaded notions and would have ruined their life by going through with it?

 

It would be very difficult for a study to completely isolate the effect of being transgender from the social context in which transgender people find themselves in causing mental illness. Given that it is only very recently that the idea of trans acceptance has entered popular consciousness at all, and that on this board of all places we recognise that childhood can have a great effect on a person's psychology for the rest of their lives, even if current society became completely trans-accepting we would still be unable to disregard the way in which negative childhood experiences for being gender variant contribute to the higher rates of mental distress among trans people compared to the general population even after transition. It completely clear, however, that for trans people, transition is overwhelmingly a positive process.

 

The solutions to these problems are peaceful parenting, self-knowledge and individual responsibility. 

 

What's also sad, or should I say gives one grave trepidation, is how sexuality is being overheated and melted down, towards an unknown omega point.  I think incest is coming next, then bestiality, then pedophilia, but perhaps there are a dozen minor flavours waiting in the wings to be added to the alphabet soup of LGBT&c.  Wanna know something?  I think all this "freedom" (license) is not leading us towards "libertarianism," it's leading us towards Molech.

 

Gender identity and sexuality are two separate and distinct issues. A trans person can have a very plain, conventional sexuality. 

 

Here's from the horse's mouth:

 

http://www.sexchangeregret.com/

 

and,

 

http://www.catholic.com/audio-player/30567

 

What are you referring to when you say "horse"?

 

The "sexchangeregret" website came up in the other thread. The individual behind it is an extremist Christian with severe mental illness (dissociative identity disorder, which is itself strongly suggestive of an unprocessed background of extreme (sexual) child abuse) who promotes the idea that trans people, rather than living with authenticity, should turn to Jesus.

 

I don't have the time to listen to the other recording, but the clue that it isn't coming from a place of reason and self-knowledge is in the domain name.

[Donnadogsoth]

One's gender identity is a fundamental aspect of one's identity. You really cannot live a life at all if you are not able to express it, and it is also impossible to repress or change your gender identity. And the health and well-being of a trans person is in not being coerced through parental ostracism / government force / social ostracism to fake an external presentation and deny their true self just to please others. I don't think the other things you've stated are comparable - an anorexic who doesn't want to die is acting irrationally, a person who thinks the government has put a microchip in their head has incorrectly identified reality, a person who thinks he is Napolean (literally, the Napolean) is speaking a falsehood.

 

Like the microchippee: Just as a transgender person is incorrectly identifying the reality of their physical sex.

 

Like the anorexic: Just as a transgender who commits suicide rather than live as their biological sex is irrationally acting against the fact of that sex.

 

 

 

There is no such thing as "the natural gender binary". In nature, gender/sex is mostly a binary categorisation (in organisms which reproduce sexually), but there are exceptions. 

 

There are misfires of nature, you mean. I mean, I forgot, there is no natural bilateral symmetry in human beings either, because we can example people born with cyclopia, and Franceso Lentini, the three-legged man. These are deformities, not part of the intentionality of the species.

 

Have you addressed the gist of my response: What limits are there to society's accommodation of freaks? Including “irrational” and “factually incorrect”​

 

 

 

It would be very difficult for a study to completely isolate the effect of being transgender from the social context in which transgender people find themselves in causing mental illness. Given that it is only very recently that the idea of trans acceptance has entered popular consciousness at all, and that on this board of all places we recognise that childhood can have a great effect on a person's psychology for the rest of their lives, even if current society became completely trans-accepting we would still be unable to disregard the way in which negative childhood experiences for being gender variant contribute to the higher rates of mental distress among trans people compared to the general population even after transition. It completely clear, however, that for trans people, transition is overwhelmingly a positive process.

 

The solutions to these problems are peaceful parenting, self-knowledge and individual responsibility. 

It's not overwhelmingly positive for everyone, and again, what about people—including, especially, children--who get hurried along the “transition” road by “helpful” professionals without any countervailing voices of reason and authority telling them they might regret what they're doing?

 

 

 

Gender identity and sexuality are two separate and distinct issues. A trans person can have a very plain, conventional sexuality. 

 

Indeed. Nevertheless, it's all part of the increasingly diverse stew of sexual and identity weirdness that is presently being boiled.

 

 

 

What are you referring to when you say "horse"?

 

The “horse” of the trans person who came to regret it and transitioned back MTFTM.

 

 

 

The "sexchangeregret" website came up in the other thread. The individual behind it is an extremist Christian with severe mental illness (dissociative identity disorder, which is itself strongly suggestive of an unprocessed background of extreme (sexual) child abuse) who promotes the idea that trans people, rather than living with authenticity, should turn to Jesus.

 

“Extremist Christian”? If I'm against terrorism, does that make me an “extremist anti-terrorist”? Good grief. I'm afraid I don't agree that “extreme” Christianity is not a valid response to personal problems. I bet you can find testimonial after testimonial that Christianity has helped people overcome their problems, including in this case, transtransgenders.

[Eternal Growth]

Like the microchippee: Just as a transgender person is incorrectly identifying the reality of their physical sex.

 

A trans person correctly identifies it, which is why they undergo a process called "transition" which often involves hormonally or surgically modifying it. If they identified it incorrectly (i.e. as already being congruent with their gender identity), they would not undergo a process of transition.

 

Like the anorexic: Just as a transgender who commits suicide rather than live as their biological sex is is irrationally acting against the fact of that sex.

 

Why would a transgender person commit suicide except in response to social pressure for them to not express their identity?

 

Suicide isn't necessarily irrational though. It just means that on the transgender person's hierarchy of values, death is preferred over their alternatives (tolerating having to fake a false persona for the people around them vs. taking whatever risk would be necessary to just be themselves).

 

Have you addressed the gist of my response: What limits are there to society's accommodation of freaks? Including “irrational” and “factually incorrect”​

 

There is no society; only individuals who should think for themselves about with whom they associate.

 

It's not overwhelmingly positive for everyone, and again, what about people—including, especially, children--who get hurried along the “transition” road by “helpful” professionals without any countervailing voices of reason and authority telling them they might regret what they're doing?

 

"Hurried along"? Medical care is a service, which is ultimately (in a free society) the responsibility of the patient. Medical professionals are there to respond to market demand for their services by informed patients, and shouldn't be hurrying along anyone into anything - which would be a breach of medical ethics.

 

Obviously the decision of I am going to transition is a huge one to take that has to be approached very carefully, fully examining why one wishes to transition and to what extent it is a good decision - ideally with the assistance of a good therapist.

 

In the case of children, it is their own internal experience, thoughts, feelings and desires that should be the sole consideration in any treatment received. There should be no medical or parental pushing towards any specific kind of gender presentation. In practice, in present society, violations of this principle overwhelmingly harm trans kids (who are pushed to express gender according to the expectations of their parents) more than they harm cis kids who are "hurried along" into hormonal treatment for gender dysphoria that they do not desire - a complete strawman, as I have not heard of a single instance of it actually happening.

 

Indeed. Nevertheless, it's all part of the increasingly diverse stew of sexual and identity weirdness that is presently being boiled.

 

"Presently"? Are you arguing that diversity in sexuality and gender expression are something new to humanity?

 

The “horse” of the trans person who came to regret it and transitioned back MTFTM.

 

There are no grounds to suggest that the individual behind the sexchangeregret website is trans. He identifies as a man. His mistaken transition is regrettable, but really only one of a huge number of personal problems which he is maladaptively dealing with through superstition as opposed to acquiring reality-based self-knowledge and processing his extremely abusive childhood (I did more research, and he actually was sexually abused as a child - which explains the DID and hence identity issues). 

 

“Extremist Christian”? If I'm against terrorism, does that make me an “extremist anti-terrorist”? Good grief. I'm afraid I don't agree that “extreme” Christianity is not a valid response to personal problems. I bet you can find testimonial after testimonial that Christianity has helped people overcome their problems, including in this case, transtransgenders.

 

Christianity in any manifestation is irrational, opposed to reality, and opposed to morality. Like any cult, Christians target the vulnerable for recruitment. The most vulnerable members of society are children, and so it follows (and is observable) that the biggest targets of Christian recruitment efforts are children, but Christians also seek to recruit vulnerable adults e.g. alcoholics or conflicted LGBT people, which is what we see happening with the sexchangeregret website. 

[Donnadogsoth]

Gnar.

[Donnadogsoth]

 

 

A trans person correctly identifies it, which is why they undergo a process called "transition" which often involves hormonally or surgically modifying it. If they identified it incorrectly (i.e. as already being congruent with their gender identity), they would not undergo a process of transition.

 

A trans person has correctly identified that they like to dress up, act, and look anatomically like, the opposite sex. The only question is how much society is obligated to accept this and treat them as cis people, including washroom and change room rights. Which, of course, is why in the rainbow age we might as well throw in the towel and have unisex wash and change rooms.

 

 

 

Why would a transgender person commit suicide except in response to social pressure for them to not express their identity?

 

Because they can never get “real” enough, no matter how much they partake of drugs and surgery? Or because they're not “trans” enough in the first place and are instead hopelessly confused and conflicted about their identity?  Or their "trans-ness" is associated with mental illnesses, abuse, defective fathers, etc.?

 

 

 

Suicide isn't necessarily irrational though. It just means that on the transgender person's hierarchy of values, death is preferred over their alternatives (tolerating having to fake a false persona for the people around them vs. taking whatever risk would be necessary to just be themselves).

 

Are you applauding anorexic suicides for being authentic?

 

 

There is no society; only individuals who should think for themselves about with whom they associate.

 

Including those women who are forced by peer pressure to change with biological men, etc..

 

 

 

In the case of children their own internal experience, thoughts, feelings and desires that should be the sole consideration in any treatment received. There should be no medical or parental pushing towards any specific kind of gender presentation. In practice, in present society, violations of this principle overwhelmingly harm trans kids (who are pushed to express gender according to the expectations of their parents) more than they harm cis kids who are "hurried along" into hormonal treatment for gender dysphoria that they do not desire - a complete strawman, as I have not heard of a single instance of it actually happening.

 

Wait for it.

 

 

 

"Presently"? Are you arguing that diversity in sexuality and gender expression are something new to humanity?

 

No, I am arguing that we are on a road to infinite perversity.

 

 

 

There are no grounds to suggest that the individual behind the sexchangeregret website is trans. He identifies as a man. His mistaken transition is regrettable, but really only one of a huge number of personal problems which he is maladaptively dealing with through superstition as opposed to acquiring reality-based self-knowledge and processing his extremely abusive childhood (I did more research, and he actually was sexually abused as a child - which explains the DID and hence identity issues).

 

No true transwoman? If you get to say that Walt Heyer isn't trans enough to count as trans, I can say the exact same thing about EVERY trans person.

 

 

 

Christianity in any manifestation is irrational, opposed to reality, and opposed to morality. Like any cult, Christians target the vulnerable for recruitment. The most vulnerable members of society are children, and so it follows (and is observable) that the biggest targets of Christian recruitment efforts are children, but Christians also seek to recruit vulnerable adults e.g. alcoholics or conflicted LGBT people, which is what we see happening with the sexchangeregret website.

 

 

Ravi Zacharias says the four fundamental questions of any belief system reduce to meaning, morality, origin and destiny. In terms of meaning, atheism has no ultimate meaning for man. We are accidents, there is no reference to anything noble or higher or perduring, and our higher intentions are interred forever with our bodies. Morality is might makes right, the will of the mob, rather than the Christian base of a God that embodies and incarnates goodness. Origin for atheism is the inconceivable Void, that, for no reason, produced everything. And destiny is the heat death, where all human aspirations, and all memory of its struggles and joys, are forever obliterated.

 

Christianity offers hope to the hopeless, that there will be meaningful justice for the oppressed, and that beauty, truth, and goodness cohere into a grand Intentionality behind the observable universe.  Contrast this with atheism that says all the evil people of history got away with it. Christianity creates a morality based on the empirically observable nature of man as being so made in God's image, as creative beings whose origin is intelligible, whose morality is sacrifice for the good, and whose intended destiny is judgement, paradise and glory.

[AncapFTW]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudohermaphroditism

 

I'm just wondering how the people on this thread will respond to a real medical case of people not being 10% biologically male or female.

[Eternal Growth]

The only question is how much society is obligated to accept this and treat them as cis people, including washroom and change room rights.

 

If you can even externally tell the difference between a cis person and a trans person.

 

Because they can never get “real” enough, no matter how much they partake of drugs and surgery? Or because they're not “trans” enough in the first place and are instead hopelessly confused and conflicted about their identity?  Or their "trans-ness" is associated with mental illnesses, abuse, defective fathers, etc.?

 

Therapy, therapy, self-work and more therapy is all I can recommend to individuals who are considering suicide for these reasons. 

 

Are you applauding anorexic suicides for being authentic?

 

 

Dying from anorexic is different from intentional suicide, in that people with anorexia usually do not actually want to die. 

 

Including those women who are forced by peer pressure to change with biological men, etc..

 

They may choose to only associate with businesses that provide individual changing cubicles, rather than the imperfect (and, to be honest, pointless, given that some women in the women's changing room may be tall, dominant, muscly lesbian women - while gay men who would be harmless and friendly to a heterosexual woman are in the men's room) system of gender segregation. 

 

Wait for it.

 

Meanwhile, trans people have lives to lead, and transitioning early in life - i.e. undergoing puberty the first time as the right sex - is much better than later in life, especially when combined with supportive parents and a supportive community. Just as appropriate, proven medical treatment wouldn't be withheld for a decade for any other medical condition, so the emotional weight which people attach to gender shouldn't create exceptional medical rules for this particular birth defect, such that the horror of undergoing the wrong puberty may be avoided by the individuals affected. 

 

No, I am arguing that we are on a road to infinite perversity.

 

Who is "we"? What is "perverse" about trans people? If you could please explain this point.

 

No true transwoman? If you get to say that Walt Heyer isn't trans enough to count as trans, I can say the exact same thing about EVERY trans person.

 

Misusing the fallacy. There are certain requirements to actually be "trans", and Mr Heyer doesn't meet them. He identifies with his birth sex and is comfortable remaining this way, and so is not trans, but is in fact cis.

 

Ravi Zacharias says the four fundamental questions of any belief system reduce to meaning, morality, origin and destiny. In terms of meaning, atheism has no ultimate meaning for man. We are accidents, there is no reference to anything noble or higher or perduring, and our higher intentions are interred forever with our bodies. Morality is might makes right, the will of the mob, rather than the Christian base of a God that embodies and incarnates goodness. Origin for atheism is the inconceivable Void, that, for no reason, produced everything. And destiny is the heat death, where all human aspirations, and all memory of its struggles and joys, are forever obliterated.

 

Christianity offers hope to the hopeless, that there will be meaningful justice for the oppressed, and that beauty, truth, and goodness cohere into a grand Intentionality behind the observable universe.  Contrast this with atheism that says all the evil people of history got away with it. Christianity creates a morality based on the empirically observable nature of man as being so made in God's image, as creative beings whose origin is intelligible, whose morality is sacrifice for the good, and whose intended destiny is judgement, paradise and glory.

 

When I am presented with an idea, the only question that I really care to ask is: is it true? That which is false has and can have no value.

 

Human beings do not need an "ultimate meaning", and in any case one does not exist. The lives of human beings are ends in and of themselves, to do pretty much whatever they want with them. This actually includes inventing religions and believing them as though they are fact, if they want to - but it still doesn't make them fact.

 

The purpose of a good atheist morality is to secure for individual human beings the basic individual rights which they require in order to live. UPB is one such approach that uses the concept that moral rules which are enforced by force must be universal; the Objectivist morality was another that was based upon the idea of rational self-interest (where, to Ayn Rand, "rational" implies not sacrificing other people to oneself). Morality isn't might makes right - that is the default state of nature, prior to the introduction by humans of morality. If you want to see a true "might makes right" in human society, allow moralities that are not based on universalisation to flourish and go unopposed by rational, secular moralities. 

 

Origin for atheists is: your mummy and your daddy decided to have some fun. Their mummies and daddies decided to have some fun... all the way back to asexually reproducing and unicellular organisms, and further back to a primordial soup of molecules that by chance (and Earth having many of the right conditions) started replicating themselves. Pretty cool, don't you think? How far you have come, in a single chain of lifeforms giving birth to ever so slightly different lifeforms, to now possessing consciousness and the ability to reason? Even emotionally speaking, I think this gives me a much nicer feeling than Big Father Figure Up In The Sky (whose own origin is itself unknown) Magically Made Everything.

 

And atheist destiny: Whatever you want it to be. Free reign. A completely open plane, to go wherever your values and work take you. Including building the spaceships that will keep humanity alive after the Sun fries the Earth, if that is what somebody wants to do. I'll take that over a false promise of unearned "judgement, paradise and glory" - and work towards a true paradise, for my actual life here on Earth.

 

False hope is meaningless, false justice is valueless, and beauty/truth/goodness are human values - which humans ascribe to things that are good for their survival.

 

"all of the evil people of history got away with it" - they did, but pretty much none of them would have if the other people around them didn't incorrectly believe a slave pseudo-morality that only got in the way of the recognition of a rational, universalised, secular form of ethics and the true justice it would have achieved here on Earth. Sociopaths love and thrive upon managing to convince other people to believe Christianity and all other forms of mysticism. No dictator in history has said: "Your life is an end in and of itself; please refuse to sacrifice yourself to others, nor others to you. A higher realm of knowledge does not exist; trust your own senses and individual judgment above everything else."

[Eternal Growth]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudohermaphroditism

 

I'm just wondering how the people on this thread will respond to a real medical case of people not being 10% biologically male or female.

 

One of many instances of:

 

"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). 

 

The only bad thing about these conditions is when parents / medical professionals perform non-consensual surgery upon the affected children so they appear more binary, rather than leaving this decision to the children themselves. 

[shirgall]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudohermaphroditism

 

I'm just wondering how the people on this thread will respond to a real medical case of people not being 10% biologically male or female.

 

Since I'm drawing the distinction between males and females at Y-chromosome deficiency (call it the firmware level, and not hardware or software), hermaphroditism is not an edge case.

[Donnadogsoth]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudohermaphroditism

 

I'm just wondering how the people on this thread will respond to a real medical case of people not being 10% biologically male or female.

Interesting article, thanks, especially this clarification:

 

"In human beings, the sex status is defined at four levels: chromosomal (XY; XX), internal organs (ovaries; testicles), external organs (breasts, vulva + vagina; penis), and psyche (sexual identity)."

 

The thing to bear in mind is that the archetypal norm is the sexual binary.  Deviations occur, for which we must allow, but we must not allow the mere presence of deviations to wreck the archetype.

[MMX2010]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudohermaphroditism

 

I'm just wondering how the people on this thread will respond to a real medical case of people not being 10% biologically male or female.

 

The overwhelming majority of transgendered individuals are not intersex. 

[Donnadogsoth]

 

 

Therapy, therapy, self-work and more therapy is all I can recommend to individuals who are considering suicide for these reasons.

 

Reasonable enough. But a therapy that includes the possibility, if true, of revealing to them that they are misled and transitioning would be a ghastly mistake.

 

 

Dying from anorexic is different from intentional suicide, in that people with anorexia usually do not actually want to die.

A quibble. It's been said that no suicide actually wants to die.

 

 

They may choose to only associate with businesses that provide individual changing cubicles, rather than the imperfect (and, to be honest, pointless, given that some women in the women's changing room may be tall, dominant, muscly lesbian women - while gay men who would be harmless and friendly to a heterosexual woman are in the men's room) system of gender segregation.

The chief purpose of gender segregated washrooms and change rooms is to shield people from being eyed up by the opposite sex. Since homosexuals are not made to use the opposite sex's washroom, there's really no point to the segregation, is there? Women should be made to use the same washrooms as men and vice versa.

 

 

Meanwhile, trans people have lives to lead, and transitioning early in life - i.e. undergoing puberty the first time as the right sex - is much better than later in life, especially when combined with supportive parents and a supportive community. Just as appropriate, proven medical treatment wouldn't be withheld for a decade for any other medical condition, so the emotional weight which people attach to gender shouldn't create exceptional medical rules for this particular birth defect, such that the horror of undergoing the wrong puberty may be avoided by the individuals affected.

What percentage of trans people regret transitioning?

 

 

 

Who is "we"? What is "perverse" about trans people? If you could please explain this point.

 

We humanity. Trans is arguing a medicalisation (and then, soon, a demedicalisation and normalisation) of a condition that is allied in spirit with the sexual perversions. A MTF who married a man is, in plain (you'll call it naïve) terms, a homosexual in drag. How bent out of shape will we get over the snowball effect this is going to have?

 

 

 

Misusing the fallacy. There are certain requirements to actually be "trans", and Mr Heyer doesn't meet them. He identifies with his birth sex and is comfortable remaining this way, and so is not trans, but is in fact cis.

 

I used the fallacy very well. You're shifting the goalposts. Who are you to say he does not meet the “certain requirements” when he had his penis amputated to prove he did? That's commitment, for sure. If he's not MTF transgender, no one is.

 

 

 

When I am presented with an idea, the only question that I really care to ask is: is it true? That which is false has and can have no value.

 

Human nature as being made in the image of the Creator is a fact. We may argue over the nature of the Creator, but that humans are creative, potentially omnipotently, at least in theory, through their discovery of principle and reordering of nature by same, is fact.

 

From this, the question turns to Christ. The question of Christ is whether Christ was right, most specifically and in kernal over the Crucifixion. If man is indebted, in bondage, in sin, then the only possible answer is Calvary. That is, man, the sensitive, thoughtful man, realises he is indebted, seemingly hopelessly, to the great figures of the past, and to the small ones who sustained the race through their significant efforts—people who lived and died for principle. The only way to escape a sense of indebtedness, a kind of mental pain, is to live according to principle. Hence, Christ. This is the important point; all else is secondary.

[Frosty]

This comes down to a lack of understand of trans people I think, there's a much bigger and better thread in the gender forum about this which has a lot of interesting information. There is a lot of scientific evidence that points to issues of both gender and sex being independent, typically they match and male sex matchces with masculine traits and female sex matches with feminine traits, however they can be mismatched due to biological differences that occur normally during early foetal development.

 

Transgenderism isn't a choice and it's not a delusion and it's not normally due to psychological issues (although it can be), it's based in biological reality, although it may cause a level of mental suffering in a person who is trying to cope with mismatched biology and external stresses of society. If you're struggling to understand transgenderism then you're probably conflating biological sex (X/Y chromosomes) with gender identity. In short gender isn't something you can objectively derive, femininity and masculinity are a spectrum and are expressions of specific type of mind that is typical to males and females, so it's perfectly logical and coherent that people with biological traits closer to that of the opposite sex would have a gender identity to that close of the opposite sex.

 

Race is loosely a distinction made in biology based on your genetic line and the biological traits it gives you, there's no logical sense in which you can identify as something which is objectively derived such as race. This Rachel Dolezal woman is clearly a bit mental, in fact you can kinda tell just from the look of her that she's a bit mental, it's hard to quantify but it's one of those "I know it when I see it" things. She's just jumping on the bandwaggon of SJWs who are either mentally ill or just smart enough to cause a controvosy to make some money off.

[labmath2]

What would it take to change your mind that a persob can be transracial?

[_LiveFree_]

What would it take to change your mind that a persob can be transracial?

 

brain scans to start

[Donnadogsoth]

Do you need a brainscan to prove someone loves you?

[shirgall]

Do you need a brainscan to prove someone loves you?

 

Well, flowers would be nice.

[_LiveFree_]

Do you need a brainscan to prove someone loves you?

I put all my prospects into a fMRI machine. It's cheaper than dating.

[Donnadogsoth]

I put all my prospects into a fMRI machine. It's cheaper than dating.

 

Touché.