SoCaliGirl Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/second-wachowski-sibling-comes-as-873674 http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/lgbt/Second-Wachowski-filmmaker-sibling-comes-out-as-trans-/54509.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
SirrusDundle Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 If you--as I do--reject the claims of idealist metaphysics, I fail to see how you can credit the claims that a 50 year old biological male has somehow contained Magical Woman Essence all along, in utter contradiction of the facts of biology and sociology. But that's just me. 2
Jer Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 I wonder what childhood was like in the Wachowski household. 1
Torero Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 I wonder why we should care? If he/she is happier now than before, then go ahead. There's no violation of NAP, the owner of the property rights is the transgender itself and he/she probably paid the medical costs him/her/itself; the films were successful enough. What's the problem? 1
Boohickey11 Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 I wonder why we should care? If he/she is happier now than before, then go ahead. There's no violation of NAP, the owner of the property rights is the transgender itself and he/she probably paid the medical costs him/her/itself; the films were successful enough. What's the problem? If their childhood was bad then there was a violation of NAP. If a drug user is "happier" on drugs does that mean the user is healthy? 2
Jer Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 I wonder why we should care? If he/she is happier now than before, then go ahead. There's no violation of NAP, the owner of the property rights is the transgender itself and he/she probably paid the medical costs him/her/itself; the films were successful enough. What's the problem? You wonder why we should care how children are treated? I didn't make a moral judgement of the self mutilation. I suspect it's a symptom of a bad childhood. I think it's worth discussing because the leftist MSM will probably be congratulatory and treat this as a good thing rather than the desperate actions of troubled individuals.
Torero Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 If their childhood was bad then there was a violation of NAP.That's the past, which is impossible to change. The only thing that can be changed is the future. And if an adult (wo)man feels happier on the other side, what's the problem? Their choice, their decision, no violation involved and in this case wealthy enough to not have to rely on Obamacare. Live and let live. If a drug user is "happier" on drugs does that mean the user is healthy? Life is "unhealthy" anyway but if a drug user is not harming anyone and having a good time, who am I (or who are you) to take that away from him/her? Alcohol is just a drug too. And a lot less healthy and happy than xtc. Probably I will have a good time on the latter tomorrow on a night full of love, happiness, laughter and fun. Did you want to take that away from me? On what grounds? And you don't call that violence?
Torero Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 You wonder why we should care how children are treated? I didn't make a moral judgement of the self mutilation. I suspect it's a symptom of a bad childhood. I think it's worth discussing because the leftist MSM will probably be congratulatory and treat this as a good thing rather than the desperate actions of troubled individuals.It's fine with me you want to take the childhood of a grown up (wo)man into the discussion but do you really think transgenderism is stemming from childhood traumas for the full 100%? And that transgenderism could be solved by therapy? Do you reckon the same for gays/lesbians or is that different and why? I guess some are so unfortunate to have physical-biological problems and are "born in a wrong body". I would have preferred having born in that of Brad Pitt as well, but that is still different... It's not about children, it's a grown up (wo)man. With just as much individual choice over his/her/its own body as you and me, wouldn't you agree?
Jer Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 yes, they're grown ups and I am curious. The Matrix is one of my favorite movies.
Kevin Beal Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 It's fine with me you want to take the childhood of a grown up (wo)man into the discussion but do you really think transgenderism is stemming from childhood traumas for the full 100%? And that transgenderism could be solved by therapy? Do you reckon the same for gays/lesbians or is that different and why? The word "solved" here serves to muddy things up. Obviously, it implies it's a bad thing. You don't "solve" heterosexuality or other things deemed healthy or normal. Gay people do not tend to consider their sexual orientation a cause of suffering, something to be cured. Although, there are some strong evidence to suggest that it could be prevented or reversed. Steven Pinker says that his research shows that genes account for 40% max of the variance in sexuality. Gay men and straight men pick up scents slightly differently and men with more older brothers are more likely to be gay. On the other hand, there's no way to get around the fact that gender dysphoria is considered by the people who suffer it to be something which is suffered and must be treated. The debate is mostly around how it's treated, not that it should be treated. Some people think it requires a change in sex presentation, surgery, hormones, etc, and the other camp tend to think the treatment is psychological. Although I'm not finding hard research on it, you'd get the impression by googling that transgenderism may be a symptom of a borderline personality. And there is some limited research which shows a positive correlation between transexuals and the size of a particular brain region. As far as I can tell, there is evidence for both sides, just as there is evidence for homosexuality being both genetic and environmental. Many transexuals report feeling so intensely agonized that they are tempted to cut off their own genitals.
utopian Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 You know what interests me, is why divergent icons like Bradley Manning, the first Wachowski brother, and now the second, are doing this. Bradley did not become transgender until, of course, he was in prison. We should all know by now our government is not above torture. I don't think governments appreciate movies like The Matrix and V for Vendetta coming out.
Kevin Beal Posted March 13, 2016 Posted March 13, 2016 This described Homosexuals not too many years ago. Do I understand you correctly that you mean to imply that because transexuality is considered pathological, even by transexuals today, and because this attitude also described homosexuals in the recent past, that is cause to doubt that transexuality is indeed pathological? If so, there is a pretty big flaw in that argument. Responding with "this used to describe homosexuals" could be applied to brain tumors, psychopathy, dissociative personality disorder, etc. They are all considered to be pathological and needing treatment (if possible). This argument takes the same form as the subjectivists who say that science is bunk because new scientific theories and models regularly replace old and outdated ones. Basically, Einsteinian physics is wrong because it replaced Newtonian physics and something will, no doubt, replace Einsteinian physics – is the argument. Transexuality is now considered pathological by the people who suffer it. In fact, they are the ones who are the ones pushing for more dramatic treatment in most cases. They see young boys who feel more comfortable doing girl typical things and then get them on drugs, permanently altering the physiology through hormone treatments. (Trans = treatment / change / this body & presentation is wrong). If this is not justified by a legitimate medical condition or disorder, then this is horribly unjust for the child. It would be worse than genital mutilation in that respect. So, we must accept that it is a medical condition needing very long, expensive, treatment if we take the "transexuals are not deluded" proposition. This is the exact opposite way homosexuality has been treated in history. The "homosexuals are not deluded" camp had the attitude of just leave people alone and associate freely. They didn't not want to get gay kids on drugs; that was the "homosexuals are deluded" camp. It may be a limitation of my own imagination, but I cannot conceive of an interpretation of transexuality which does not imply that it is pathological in some respect, even if the word "pathological" is distasteful. We can call it whatever you like, but the meaning will be the same. Personally, I'm surprised that the gay community is not outraged that people are exploiting their struggle to justify transexuality. If I were gay, I would be demanding much more evidence and research be done into transexuality that wasn't just activism research and could look at it as a medical condition without worrying about losing funding. ---------- And also, if gays and lesbians didn't want to have their sexual orientations anymore, I don't think they ought to be shamed for trying to change it, like they have internalized homophobia. There are a lot of costs to being a homosexual which aren't all the fault of bigotry. From the research I've seen and anecdotal evidence (my sister), lesbians tend to be the most miserable, and female sexuality, the most malleable (if you take Kinsey seriously) – so, maybe that is something worth considering for some people. I personally don't give a shit who consenting adults want to have sex with. Who they have babies with? Yea, that's a different story (first cousins, violent people, borderline personalities, etc). 2
Kevin Beal Posted March 14, 2016 Posted March 14, 2016 It seemed you were saying (above) that because transgender individuals consider their condition to cause suffering, and that homosexuals do not, that therefore transexuality must be a pathological state, whereas homosexuality is not. And I was just saying that is an insufficient argument, and seems to contradict yourself, because homosexuals fit the same descriptions (of their condition causing intense suffering), not very long ago. Q No. You've misrepresented my argument. You cannot get around the fact that transexuality causes suffering. This is not true for homosexuality. Saying that homosexuality is different is exactly my point. "Homosexuality is no longer something people must suffer" accomplishes this. You say there is a contradiction, but you've made my point for me. You say "no," you were just referring to my previous post, but it seems that I interpreted your comment exactly as it was intended. My last post is a direct response to exactly this objection. It's like saying that I contradict myself when I say that a brain tumor is bad because being gay used to be considered bad and no longer is, as if this should cast doubt on the badness of brain tumors. Transexuality is not like homosexuality. They are very different things.
Recommended Posts