JamiMacki Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 Hey everyone. I'm not a regular here and though I've listened to a fair number of podcasts, I'm not aware of Stefan's views on this topic, or of the general opinions of his listeners. I often find his views disagreeable yet well articulated, and I expect his audience would follow suit. That suits my purpose just fine, since I'm here mostly to find points of disagreement to challenge some of my own ideas about gender, and perhaps reach a greater mutual understanding of what it means to be transgender. I'm someone with (presumably, since I've never actually had it tested) XY chromosomes and that was raised as a boy, but has undergone a medical transition using means such as hormone replacement therapy and others, who currently lives and identifies as a woman. About myself and of people like me I make these assertions: -I'm a girl -I'm not a guy -I'm not delusional or denying science -Transition is the best option for those struggling with gender dysphoria in the vast majority of circumstances -Transgenderism is not a mental illness, but rather the state or process in which the actual mental illness (gender dysphoria), is cured -If I need to pee, the ladies room is the best place to do so Since I don't know what kind of opinions I'll find here I figured I'd make the claims first and the arguments later if there's disagreement. So if you find yourself opposed to any of the things I just said, please say so and why and I'll make my case for it. Also, if you have a specific 'anti-trans' argument that you believe is convincing or damning to one of my beliefs, I'd be happy to respond. And lastly, if you have any notions or assumptions about people who are transgender, and therefore me, that you'd like to test, feel free to ask. Keep it civil and I promise I'll do the same!
neeeel Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 How are you defining girl/guy? You state that you are a girl. How do you know? You state you are not a guy. How do you know? What criteria are you using to come to those conclusions? Its interesting, having asked you these questions, I thought I should probably try and answer them too. Its not that easy. I would say I am male because I have male genitalia, male characteristics ( hair on face, deep voice,etc). I also assume I have XY chromosomes, but havent checked.
JamiMacki Posted October 17, 2017 Author Posted October 17, 2017 39 minutes ago, neeeel said: How are you defining girl/guy? You state that you are a girl. How do you know? You state you are not a guy. How do you know? What criteria are you using to come to those conclusions? Its interesting, having asked you these questions, I thought I should probably try and answer them too. Its not that easy. I would say I am male because I have male genitalia, male characteristics ( hair on face, deep voice,etc). I also assume I have XY chromosomes, but havent checked. I'm defining girl/guy much in the same way you seem to be. They are categories based on patterns of sexually dimorphic traits involving phenotype and genotype. My own characteristics are something of a blend, with some male-typical such as certain bone structures, genitalia, and chromosomes, and some female-typical like soft skin, breasts, no hair on face/minimal body hair, estrogen dominant hormones, etc. My claim that I'm a girl has to do with the way I've assigned categorical value to those traits, and is predicated on an assumption that dysphoria and gender identity are both fundamentally linked to sexually dimorphic structure in the brain. I'm putting this brain structure at the top of the list above other male or female traits, because it relates most directly to the formation of our conscious identities, which I argue is the thing we actually care about when constructing the categories considering they have such a close relation to our concept of self. So I wouldn't say I know with absolute certainty that I'm a girl, but I believe there's strong evidence to suggest this is the case. I can say with certainty that the state of being perceived as a girl by myself and others, resolves an intuitive conflict going on in my brain.Here's the original study that first showed female brain structure in transexual women, and one of the many followups. That's not to say any of the characteristics you mentioned are unimportant. I wouldn't value medical transition if those things didn't matter. I'm just asserting that gender identity is a physical, sexually dimorphic trait just like genetalia or anything else, and giving it somewhat greater importance than the rest when deciding where to draw the line.
Boss Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 I am unsure of Stefan views on transgenderism but he has done a spectacular video on mental illness title: There Is No Such Thing as Mental Illness I do not understand why anyone would believe transgenderism is a mental illness when there is no objective way that can diagnose or treat such a thing. Anyways, as far as transgenderism, it doesn't exist. What actually exists is the biological differences between the sexes like as you stated XY Chromosomes. There is also the biological differences that allow pregnancy, breastfeeding, periods, genitalia etc. And from these biological differences, you can then decide on ways to help conceptualize the situation, for example: fe·male ˈfēˌmāl/ adjective 1. of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes. I personally think the biological differences are what matters, rather than the conceptualizing part. Btw this is just my current understanding and view on this topic. I am willing to hear counter-arguments and be corrected.
neeeel Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 I think this brain thing is misleading. I mean, there is no way for a brain to know that it is supposed to be in a different body. I suppose its possible that a "female" brain in a more "male" body could cause miscommunication of signals and stuff, but theres still no way that you could link those miscommunications to "Oh, Im a girl/boy/whatever". There is no such thing as "feeling like a man", or at least, there is no way to isolate and identify a feeling as "feeling like a man" because you have nothing to compare against. Its likely that higher testosterone may cause different signals, emotions, and sensations than low testosterone, or high oestrogen, but again, you have no way of identifying what causes those signals, emotions etc.
Siegfried von Walheim Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 If you were born with a penis, you are male regardless of how much you want otherwise. Similar for girls to guys. I think transgenderism results from the huge sexism against men (in particular) and the unhistorical expectations towards women (to be like men and do manly things). Personally, I wanted to be a girl when I was a boy. Girls had it so much easier than boys and were treated like goddesses while boys were treated like shits-that-don't-deserve-to-exist. This was the feeling I got from attending public school all my life. Many young boys (elementary school age) stated out loud they wished they were girls and wanted to be girls, and one even attempted to make himself a girl by attempting to pop out his own testicles! I think if even 1% of males in public schools feel this way, then surely .0!% will actually act upon it and go through surgery and hormone treatments to make themselves as girly as possible to make being a girl as real as possible. However that does not change one's gender. Even if all the parts of the car were taken out and replaced with parts of a boat, the car is still a car (especially in human's case since brain transplants are still impossible and I doubt it's possible to have functional sexual parts made/changed). Therefore I think the best cure to gender dysphoria is therapy. Sit down, talk with a reliable guy, confess your past and your innermost pains, and then attempt to recognize what caused the pain and find some lessons to work with from there for healing. Gender surgery because life as an X is hard is like shooting oneself in the head because life with a constant migraine or anxiety is hard; a very permanent solution to an otherwise temporary problem.
JamiMacki Posted October 17, 2017 Author Posted October 17, 2017 9 hours ago, neeeel said: I think this brain thing is misleading. I mean, there is no way for a brain to know that it is supposed to be in a different body. I suppose its possible that a "female" brain in a more "male" body could cause miscommunication of signals and stuff, but theres still no way that you could link those miscommunications to "Oh, Im a girl/boy/whatever". There is no such thing as "feeling like a man", or at least, there is no way to isolate and identify a feeling as "feeling like a man" because you have nothing to compare against. Its likely that higher testosterone may cause different signals, emotions, and sensations than low testosterone, or high oestrogen, but again, you have no way of identifying what causes those signals, emotions etc. Much like having healthy ribs, the body doesn't have any mechanism or sense to specifically communicate to you that you feel like a man. Just try and describe what your ribcage feels like right now without touching it. But then if one of your ribs was broken, suddenly you have an abundance of sensation being communicated to you that something is wrong with your ribs. I believe this is a decent comparison to gender identity. I don't "feel like a woman" but instead "feel awful" and have to break down the feeling by observing the context and measuring what relieves it. There is absolutely a way to isolate and identify feelings like this, in the same way that you can identify the acute pinching sensation in your fingers after sticking your hand in a bucket of crabs. 10 hours ago, Boss said: I am unsure of Stefan views on transgenderism but he has done a spectacular video on mental illness title: There Is No Such Thing as Mental Illness I do not understand why anyone would believe transgenderism is a mental illness when there is no objective way that can diagnose or treat such a thing. Anyways, as far as transgenderism, it doesn't exist. What actually exists is the biological differences between the sexes like as you stated XY Chromosomes. There is also the biological differences that allow pregnancy, breastfeeding, periods, genitalia etc. And from these biological differences, you can then decide on ways to help conceptualize the situation, for example: fe·male ˈfēˌmāl/ adjective 1. of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes. I personally think the biological differences are what matters, rather than the conceptualizing part. Btw this is just my current understanding and view on this topic. I am willing to hear counter-arguments and be corrected. Saying transgenderism doesn't exist in this way seems like saying cars don't exist because what they really are is a collection of aluminum, plastics, leather, and other metals. While this is technically true, we still use the word car because it's a useful term to describe a particular arrangement of these objects. The word car is a category, and so is transgender and male and female. I agree that the biological differences matter, but if we wanna get anywhere useful we have to evaluate them as such. The definition you've provided is pragmatically useful in the majority of circumstances, but the issue I have with it is that's it's not consistent. Some females do not produce eggs and cannot bear offspring, yet are nonetheless still considered categorically female. It simply doesn't make sense to draw a hard line and break down the definition to one single aspect of sexual dimorphism, when clearly many exist. Sex should be considered a product of our total biological makeup. It's the most consistent way to define the categories.
neeeel Posted October 18, 2017 Posted October 18, 2017 17 hours ago, JamiMacki said: Oops I think I accidentally got my post auto-hidden because I said a naughty word. I'll try again sorry if I double post. Much like having healthy ribs, the body doesn't have any mechanism or sense to specifically communicate to you that you feel like a man. Just try and describe what your ribcage feels like right now without touching it. But then if one of your ribs was broken, suddenly you have an abundance of sensation being communicated to you that something is wrong with your ribs. I believe this is a decent comparison to gender identity. I don't "feel like a woman" but instead "feel awful" and have to break down the feeling by observing the context and measuring what relieves it. There is absolutely a way to isolate and identify feelings like this, in the same way that you can identify the acute pinching sensation in your fingers after sticking your hand in a bucket of crabs. Ribs occupy a specific place in your body. You can feel a specific place, and feel the pain when you touch that place. You can cut open your body and identify that a rib is broken, or get an xray When you examine "feeling awful" ( I am assuming you do this by introspection, or therapy, or something similar), you find that thoughts and beliefs are the things that are causing you pain. You do not identify that your "female" brain is stuck in a "male" body. That is another thought, another assumption, and again, there is no way for your body/brain to inform you of this , because a brain does not know that its in the wrong body. What is the awful feeling that you have? Or in what way do you feel awful, to put it another way? I realise that this might be hurtful, or insulting, and its not meant that way, but it is something I struggle to understand, so I want to bring it up to you. I am sure you have heard of the man who identifies as a 6 year old girl. Would you say that he has the brain of a 6yo girl stuck in a mans body? Or that he feels awful and finds that identifying as a 6yo girl makes him feel better ? Or, what is your explanation? I sometimes feel awful , and wish, or imagine, or want, to be something other than what I am. Im not sure that means that I am actually something other than what I am?
smarterthanone Posted October 18, 2017 Posted October 18, 2017 These discussions go nowhere fast because everyone confuses gender and sex. In some instances sex is the important factor and in others gender. So to use you as an example, you are male sex, feminine gender. Biologically you are a male, I am talking about born with presumable working male parts and genetics. No amount of surgery or feeling can change this. Gender though is not male female but masculine and feminine (or some mix of). It is essentially irrelevant in terms of biology. So you would be feminine gender. A very feminine man and a very feminine woman have much more in common than a very feminine man and a very masculine man in terms of gender. But both men have penises so in terms of sex, the men have more in common. There is no specific amount of masculinity or femininity that defines which bathroom you should use, its extremely subjective. How much facial hair is masculine enough to override a persons preference for wearing a dress? That's an impossible question. So one side tends to view this is a gender issue (let the person decide), while the other major side views bathrooms being separated by sex and nothing to do with gender (penises go to urinals, vaginas sit on toilets). When you mix up sex and gender, that is when you get all these outrageous situations and arguments that make no sense.
JamiMacki Posted October 18, 2017 Author Posted October 18, 2017 On 10/17/2017 at 12:13 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said: If you were born with a penis, you are male regardless of how much you want otherwise. Similar for girls to guys. I think transgenderism results from the huge sexism against men (in particular) and the unhistorical expectations towards women (to be like men and do manly things). Personally, I wanted to be a girl when I was a boy. Girls had it so much easier than boys and were treated like goddesses while boys were treated like shits-that-don't-deserve-to-exist. This was the feeling I got from attending public school all my life. Many young boys (elementary school age) stated out loud they wished they were girls and wanted to be girls, and one even attempted to make himself a girl by attempting to pop out his own testicles! I think if even 1% of males in public schools feel this way, then surely .0!% will actually act upon it and go through surgery and hormone treatments to make themselves as girly as possible to make being a girl as real as possible. However that does not change one's gender. Even if all the parts of the car were taken out and replaced with parts of a boat, the car is still a car (especially in human's case since brain transplants are still impossible and I doubt it's possible to have functional sexual parts made/changed). Therefore I think the best cure to gender dysphoria is therapy. Sit down, talk with a reliable guy, confess your past and your innermost pains, and then attempt to recognize what caused the pain and find some lessons to work with from there for healing. Gender surgery because life as an X is hard is like shooting oneself in the head because life with a constant migraine or anxiety is hard; a very permanent solution to an otherwise temporary problem. I don't really mind if people use the born with a penis = male thing as a baseline for their understanding of the male category, since it usually is the case and it's easy and useful to think using these kinds of abstractions. I'm simply pointing out that despite a strong correlation, it isn't true in all circumstances. Anomalies exist, and in reality the formation of genitals isn't as straight forward a process as one might assume. The difference between your desires as a child to be a girl and mine are in the causes. You wanted to be a girl because of some perceived social advantage, whereas I want to be a girl because there is a fundamental aspect of my biology that is female (brain structure), which intuitively manifests that desire. It's a strawman to characterize my argument as claiming to be a girl because I want to be a girl. That reasoning is obviously circular and it's not at all what I'm suggesting. It isn't always easy to tell the difference between the two of us, I do admit. Which is why I would also agree (and so would both the general trans and medical communities) that therapy is the first option and most important. But through therapy the difference can be reliably diagnosed. Your claim that therapy can cure gender dysphoria is something we can measure, and the claim is false. This has been tried for decades and doesn't work, and the fact that it doesn't work is why we've switched to medical transition in the first place. There are some cases where a boy will want to be a girl due to some past unresolved trauma in their lives, and for them, transition is not the answer, and will actually be harmful to their overall well being. But in cases where a boy wants to be a girl due to lack of androgen exposure during brain development in utero, transition is necessary to improve well being. 3 hours ago, smarterthanone said: These discussions go nowhere fast because everyone confuses gender and sex. In some instances sex is the important factor and in others gender. So to use you as an example, you are male sex, feminine gender. Biologically you are a male, I am talking about born with presumable working male parts and genetics. No amount of surgery or feeling can change this. Gender though is not male female but masculine and feminine (or some mix of). It is essentially irrelevant in terms of biology. So you would be feminine gender. A very feminine man and a very feminine woman have much more in common than a very feminine man and a very masculine man in terms of gender. But both men have penises so in terms of sex, the men have more in common. There is no specific amount of masculinity or femininity that defines which bathroom you should use, its extremely subjective. How much facial hair is masculine enough to override a persons preference for wearing a dress? That's an impossible question. So one side tends to view this is a gender issue (let the person decide), while the other major side views bathrooms being separated by sex and nothing to do with gender (penises go to urinals, vaginas sit on toilets). When you mix up sex and gender, that is when you get all these outrageous situations and arguments that make no sense. Trying to separate gender from sex entirely is silly. A person's gender, or a persons behaviors and preferences that we can describe as masculine or feminine, are strongly correlated to our biology. You could even say that gender is an expression of our sexually dimorphic, biological nature. Saying that it's irrelevant in terms of biology is absurd. I'm not here to discuss whether or not I'm feminine. If you were to meet me I'm sure that'd be self evident. I'm actually challenging your definition of sex. The human body is filled with examples of sexual dimorphism in our biology. I don't see the justification to exclude parts of the brain from sex when it is just as biological as everything else, and clearly displays dimorphism.
Boss Posted October 18, 2017 Posted October 18, 2017 On 10/17/2017 at 10:19 AM, JamiMacki said: Saying transgenderism doesn't exist in this way seems like saying cars don't exist because what they really are is a collection of aluminum, plastics, leather, and other metals. While this is technically true, we still use the word car because it's a useful term to describe a particular arrangement of these objects. The word car is a category, and so is transgender and male and female. I agree that the biological differences matter, but if we wanna get anywhere useful we have to evaluate them as such. The definition you've provided is pragmatically useful in the majority of circumstances, but the issue I have with it is that's it's not consistent. Some females do not produce eggs and cannot bear offspring, yet are nonetheless still considered categorically female. It simply doesn't make sense to draw a hard line and break down the definition to one single aspect of sexual dimorphism, when clearly many exist. Sex should be considered a product of our total biological makeup. It's the most consistent way to define the categories. "technically true" is what matters as if it didn't we would be wasting our time on opinions. "Some females do not produce eggs and cannot bear offspring, yet are nonetheless still considered categorically female" I do not care what people consider as a female. What is "technically true" about the female who cannot produce eggs? She has XX Chromosome? Was she born with women genitalia? Does she have a uterus/ovaries? Does she have a period? Etc These questions provide biological truths. Which is why I like to stick with them over conceptualization like the example I provided with the definition. My point is the question is he a boy or a girl is irrelevant, while questions like does he have XX or XY Chromosome? will provide truth.
JamiMacki Posted October 18, 2017 Author Posted October 18, 2017 3 minutes ago, Boss said: "technically true" is what matters as if it didn't we would be wasting our time on opinions. "Some females do not produce eggs and cannot bear offspring, yet are nonetheless still considered categorically female" I do not care what people consider as a female. What is "technically true" about the female who cannot produce eggs? She has XX Chromosome? Was she born with women genitalia? Does she have a uterus/ovaries? Does she have a period? Etc These questions provide biological truths. Which is why I like to stick with them over conceptualization like the example I provided with the definition. My point is the question is he a boy or a girl is irrelevant, while questions like does he have XX or XY Chromosome? will provide truth. In using the category in the first place, you already are one of those people considering what is female. We can and should be as objective as we're able, but a certain level of abstraction is necessary for us to function at all. The truest version of what we are in terms of our sexually dimorphic nature is something so complex that it becomes unwieldy. If you'd prefer to perceive me in the purest form of objectivity possible, then you should avoid categorizing at all, or construct a new category for every possible combination of physical traits. We don't do this because our minds have limitations in memory and processing power, and there is enough correlation to reduce the categories down to two sexes anyway, despite there being some overlap and the occasional anomaly. Like it or not, you're already at a certain level of abstraction and have already made assumptions that aren't entirely objective. There's not much you can do about it and this is true of everything to an extent. So I don't accept that you can simply define male and female as the two gamete producers and wash your hands of it. When I pointed out a basic inconsistency, you brought up a list of other traits that I assume you see as not only simply existing, but also having some categorical value. Why? And what do you do when these traits also show some inconsistency? What does it even mean to say the biological differences matter more than how those differences are conceptualized, when we must conceptualize them to even understand them enough to categorize them at all?
Donnadogsoth Posted October 18, 2017 Posted October 18, 2017 On 10/17/2017 at 1:23 AM, JamiMacki said: Hey everyone. I'm not a regular here and though I've listened to a fair number of podcasts, I'm not aware of Stefan's views on this topic, or of the general opinions of his listeners. I often find his views disagreeable yet well articulated, and I expect his audience would follow suit. That suits my purpose just fine, since I'm here mostly to find points of disagreement to challenge some of my own ideas about gender, and perhaps reach a greater mutual understanding of what it means to be transgender. I'm someone with (presumably, since I've never actually had it tested) XY chromosomes and that was raised as a boy, but has undergone a medical transition using means such as hormone replacement therapy and others, who currently lives and identifies as a woman. About myself and of people like me I make these assertions: -I'm a girl -I'm not a guy -I'm not delusional or denying science -Transition is the best option for those struggling with gender dysphoria in the vast majority of circumstances -Transgenderism is not a mental illness, but rather the state or process in which the actual mental illness (gender dysphoria), is cured -If I need to pee, the ladies room is the best place to do so Since I don't know what kind of opinions I'll find here I figured I'd make the claims first and the arguments later if there's disagreement. So if you find yourself opposed to any of the things I just said, please say so and why and I'll make my case for it. Also, if you have a specific 'anti-trans' argument that you believe is convincing or damning to one of my beliefs, I'd be happy to respond. And lastly, if you have any notions or assumptions about people who are transgender, and therefore me, that you'd like to test, feel free to ask. Keep it civil and I promise I'll do the same! Hello. Interesting stuff, intelligently presented. I'm not your enemy. I would add the following: (1) Biologically you're male. Biology is a hard science and science is not in doubt that human beings with XY chromosomes are male by definition. Your natural phenotypal expression further confirms this. (2) Metaphysically you're female. You're responding to the feminine archetype as you see it incarnated in the society around you and you say to yourself, "That's reflecting what I am inside." Your transition is about making your phenotype match your metaphysical identity, which you have learned about by observing the heterosexual dynamic all around you. (3) You and all transsexuals are therefore defying feminist dogma that says that all human beings are psychologically identical, modified only by lived experience. If you didn't deny it, at least implicitly, then how would you know what "girl" even means, and why would "girl" have such an important meaning to you? (4) How do you feel about transableism, the psychological condition whereby someone feels the deep need to amputate their foot, for example? Would you consider such a person mentally ill? If not, what about someone intentionally blinding themselves, or killing themselves? If so, why is amputating a foot insane but amputating a penis not insane? 1
Boss Posted October 18, 2017 Posted October 18, 2017 1 hour ago, JamiMacki said: In using the category in the first place, you already are one of those people considering what is female. We can and should be as objective as we're able, but a certain level of abstraction is necessary for us to function at all. The truest version of what we are in terms of our sexually dimorphic nature is something so complex that it becomes unwieldy. If you'd prefer to perceive me in the purest form of objectivity possible, then you should avoid categorizing at all, or construct a new category for every possible combination of physical traits. We don't do this because our minds have limitations in memory and processing power, and there is enough correlation to reduce the categories down to two sexes anyway, despite there being some overlap and the occasional anomaly. Like it or not, you're already at a certain level of abstraction and have already made assumptions that aren't entirely objective. There's not much you can do about it and this is true of everything to an extent. So I don't accept that you can simply define male and female as the two gamete producers and wash your hands of it. When I pointed out a basic inconsistency, you brought up a list of other traits that I assume you see as not only simply existing, but also having some categorical value. Why? And what do you do when these traits also show some inconsistency? What does it even mean to say the biological differences matter more than how those differences are conceptualized, when we must conceptualize them to even understand them enough to categorize them at all? 3 Yea I believe you should reread my original post. I stated and provided an example of how people can conceptualize and define terms. I also stated "the biological differences are what matters, rather than the conceptualizing part" "transgenderism, it doesn't exist. What actually exists is the biological differences between the sexes like as you stated XY Chromosomes. There is also the biological differences that allow pregnancy, breastfeeding, periods, genitalia" Also to take it one level deeper to provide a better understanding. It's not about biological differences, it's about truth. Its just that biological differences provide truth. and concepts/opinions/categories do not. Like people can call others a boy, a girl or transgender based on their opinions. People cant be called to have XX Chromosome, uterus, ovaries, periods or having a vagina, etc as this actually involves truth as in looking at cells, not concepts/opinions/categories I dont know much about transgenderism but I am willing to chat about it more to learn. Are you familiar with the FDR discords group? I feel instant text message would be better than waiting for post replies.
JamiMacki Posted October 19, 2017 Author Posted October 19, 2017 7 hours ago, Donnadogsoth said: Hello. Interesting stuff, intelligently presented. I'm not your enemy. I would add the following: (1) Biologically you're male. Biology is a hard science and science is not in doubt that human beings with XY chromosomes are male by definition. Your natural phenotypal expression further confirms this. (2) Metaphysically you're female. You're responding to the feminine archetype as you see it incarnated in the society around you and you say to yourself, "That's reflecting what I am inside." Your transition is about making your phenotype match your metaphysical identity, which you have learned about by observing the heterosexual dynamic all around you. (3) You and all transsexuals are therefore defying feminist dogma that says that all human beings are psychologically identical, modified only by lived experience. If you didn't deny it, at least implicitly, then how would you know what "girl" even means, and why would "girl" have such an important meaning to you? (4) How do you feel about transableism, the psychological condition whereby someone feels the deep need to amputate their foot, for example? Would you consider such a person mentally ill? If not, what about someone intentionally blinding themselves, or killing themselves? If so, why is amputating a foot insane but amputating a penis not insane? To point #1) For a definition to be an accurate description of reality, does it not require consistency? If you look at the details, saying that humans with XY chromosomes are male just doesn't make any sense. Sometimes SRY is absent from the Y chromosome entirely. There is androgen insensitivity. If the entire meaning of the word male is going to be defined by the Y chromosome, why do we need the word male at all? We could just call ourselves double X's and Y's. I just don't see how it's reasonable to define sex as anything other than a product of our total biological makeup. Meaning, all observable aspects of sexual dimorphism in our biology, chromosomes included. 2) I'm not sure I buy this either. It seems like a fair description of what transition is, but I don't think that's a correct assessment of how that metaphysical identity manifests. I think the evidence shows that in many (but perhaps not all) cases, it isn't a product of socialization but an expression of some fundamental structure in the brain. I linked to two studies which I consider evidence in my first reply. It's also worth noting the reason they knew where to look for this sort of thing in the Zhou study was from previous experiments with mice. Researchers essentially created transgender mice by controlling the level of androgens during fetal development, noting specifically that increased or decreased androgen exposure during certain stages of brain stem development resulted in sexually dimorphic BNST's opposite of chromosomes. This results in genetically male mice exhibiting female behaviors and visa versa. Sexually dimorphic behavior is fundamentally related to the brain. The brain is just as much a biological organ as the genitals or anything else. So it doesn't make sense not to consider brain structure as an aspect of biological sex. 3) If we were all psychologically identical, stories like David Reimer's shouldn't exist. After all, if lived experience is all that shapes us, why should a boy raised from birth and accepted as a girl not be perfectly fine with that? Instead he killed himself. I don't think you'll find me disagreeing with your conclusion, but I think we may arrive there through different paths. 4) I'm aware of what you're referring to though I know it as BIID, or body integrity identity disorder. The difficulty in dealing with this comparison is that so little is known about BIID. If there is a significant difference I would assume it is in the causes, but while we have some solid insights into the causes of gender dysphoria, we have no idea why someone develops BIID. The question of whether or not it's a mental illness isn't really my concern. The term itself is a medicinal tool, and I'm happy to leave that to the actual professionals that are going to be treating it. In other words, the people writing the DSM. The word insane serves no purpose in helping us achieve any sort of understanding. The relevant question is, "does amputating a foot or a penis improve wellness or well being?" This is a question that can be objectively answered, and it seems the answer is yes, in some contexts. As for whether or not BIID is comparable to GID, I don't know. It's frustrating, but I don't think there's enough data to draw any kind of meaningful conclusion. If it turned out that someone with BIID had some fundamental brain structure identical to someone born an amputee, or some other similarity to the female BNST in transsexual women, then I would certainly need to reevaluate my position. I don't see this as being very likely, but given lack of evidence I remain open minded. 9 hours ago, Boss said: Yea I believe you should reread my original post. I stated and provided an example of how people can conceptualize and define terms. I also stated "the biological differences are what matters, rather than the conceptualizing part" "transgenderism, it doesn't exist. What actually exists is the biological differences between the sexes like as you stated XY Chromosomes. There is also the biological differences that allow pregnancy, breastfeeding, periods, genitalia" Also to take it one level deeper to provide a better understanding. It's not about biological differences, it's about truth. Its just that biological differences provide truth. and concepts/opinions/categories do not. Like people can call others a boy, a girl or transgender based on their opinions. People cant be called to have XX Chromosome, uterus, ovaries, periods or having a vagina, etc as this actually involves truth as in looking at cells, not concepts/opinions/categories I dont know much about transgenderism but I am willing to chat about it more to learn. Are you familiar with the FDR discords group? I feel instant text message would be better than waiting for post replies. I can certainly agree biological truth matters. What I don't understand is why that is an argument against my position, since my entire argument is based on this assertion. If you were to cut open my brain you'd find physical, observable female biology inside, present from before I was even born. And certainly after hormones, you'll find even more female biology all over the place. It seems as though you are assigning value to those female traits which trans people can't or don't usually possess, and ignoring the ones we do have without providing a reason for doing so. I'm not familiar with the discord group but I'd be willing to join and discuss at some point certainly, though it might be tough to find a good time.
Boss Posted October 19, 2017 Posted October 19, 2017 29 minutes ago, JamiMacki said: I can certainly agree biological truth matters. What I don't understand is why that is an argument against my position, since my entire argument is based on this assertion. If you were to cut open my brain you'd find physical, observable female biology inside, present from before I was even born. And certainly after hormones, you'll find even more female biology all over the place. It seems as though you are assigning value to those female traits which trans people can't or don't usually possess, and ignoring the ones we do have without providing a reason for doing so. I'm not familiar with the discord group but I'd be willing to join and discuss at some point certainly, though it might be tough to find a good time. 3 Could you link me evidence about the brain and "physical, observable female biology inside" most brain work I have seen is inconsistent which would mean invalid for truth. Also, there is neuroplasticity which means changes can naturally occur. As far as which traits I chose, whichever is consistent and true. I would be surprised If I didn't miss a lot of other true consistent biological traits. if so please share the biological traits as it will help with my main point. My main point is to point out truthful distinctions. Then one can say from looking at their biological makeup that they fall more into either male/female biology. As male and female both share some of the same biologies(like they both have arms, legs, etc) what separates us are the truthful biological distinctions.
Donnadogsoth Posted October 19, 2017 Posted October 19, 2017 (1) Maleness biologically is the ability to produce viable sperm, which is associated with a functional Y chromosome. Anyone who can produce viable sperm is male. A person with XY chromosomes that can't produce viable sperm is a malfunctioning male. Similarly, a biological female is someone who can produce viable eggs. An inability to do this is a malfunction. Other malfunctions can include deformed or absent genitalia, absent or nonfunctioning uterus, and hormones that lead them to develop characteristics of the opposite sex. There are to my knowledge people with intersexual genetic codes, and these people may well constitute a third sex, but the natural dimorphic nature of human beings is into male and female, and these are not decided by psychology but by biology. These issues are only an issue with people who have confused psychologies and some kind of malfunction. The vast majority of people fit well within the category of maleness or femaleness biologically. (2) The brain is conditioned by hormones to think a certain way, I agree. But, what is the mind? Popular thought says the mind is an epiphenomenon on the brain, like gasoline swirling on the surface of a pond. If we believe that then we must believe that humans have no free will, since everything they do is a result of their brain and their brain is nothing but the interplay of electrochemical law. If we reject this then we allow ourselves to have free will and recognise that “the human mind is a product of the noetic process operating on the brain” (LaRouche). This process is what creates human beings, not reductionist physics or biology as such. So, when I say “metaphysics” I mean it literally, not as a poetic metaphor or something. I am male because the noosphere generated me as a male, and how that happens to look is by giving me a genetic code, a phenotype, and a psychology in accordance with that idea. (3) I've heard of the Reimer case, and I agree. (4) I like “insane” and think it's a useful catch-all term for “conditions and behaviours we shouldn't encourage.” Do you think we should encourage people with “BIID” to chop off their limbs/blind themselves/etc.? Not when the science data come in, right now, in today's world.
RichardY Posted October 19, 2017 Posted October 19, 2017 How can a person have intimacy when they are biologically Male, but masquerade as biologically female, although feeling Feminin personality wise and sexually? i.e What guy is going to fuck another guy, fully conscious?
JamiMacki Posted October 19, 2017 Author Posted October 19, 2017 8 hours ago, Boss said: Could you link me evidence about the brain and "physical, observable female biology inside" most brain work I have seen is inconsistent which would mean invalid for truth. Also, there is neuroplasticity which means changes can naturally occur. As far as which traits I chose, whichever is consistent and true. I would be surprised If I didn't miss a lot of other true consistent biological traits. if so please share the biological traits as it will help with my main point. My main point is to point out truthful distinctions. Then one can say from looking at their biological makeup that they fall more into either male/female biology. As male and female both share some of the same biologies(like they both have arms, legs, etc) what separates us are the truthful biological distinctions. Here are the two I linked earlier in the thread again for your convenience. These ones discuss the BNST. And here's another that looks at a different section of the brain, the INAH3. Neuroplasticity seems to have some clear limitations. These aspects of the brain related to sexual behavior and gender identity are set for life. Nothing but physically destroying them seems to have much impact on their development path. Of the traits you chose, what do you mean by consistent and true? No single trait has total consistency. Not one. Once you've gathered all the sexually dimorphic traits in a person, and you find that the individual has a mix of male and female traits, how are you deciding which traits have the most categorical value? Obviously you've decided that the presence or absence of a Y chromosome has the greatest value, but why exactly? Can you actually do this with the level of truth you're demanding? 1 hour ago, Donnadogsoth said: (1) Maleness biologically is the ability to produce viable sperm, which is associated with a functional Y chromosome. Anyone who can produce viable sperm is male. A person with XY chromosomes that can't produce viable sperm is a malfunctioning male. Similarly, a biological female is someone who can produce viable eggs. An inability to do this is a malfunction. Other malfunctions can include deformed or absent genitalia, absent or nonfunctioning uterus, and hormones that lead them to develop characteristics of the opposite sex. There are to my knowledge people with intersexual genetic codes, and these people may well constitute a third sex, but the natural dimorphic nature of human beings is into male and female, and these are not decided by psychology but by biology. These issues are only an issue with people who have confused psychologies and some kind of malfunction. The vast majority of people fit well within the category of maleness or femaleness biologically. (2) The brain is conditioned by hormones to think a certain way, I agree. But, what is the mind? Popular thought says the mind is an epiphenomenon on the brain, like gasoline swirling on the surface of a pond. If we believe that then we must believe that humans have no free will, since everything they do is a result of their brain and their brain is nothing but the interplay of electrochemical law. If we reject this then we allow ourselves to have free will and recognise that “the human mind is a product of the noetic process operating on the brain” (LaRouche). This process is what creates human beings, not reductionist physics or biology as such. So, when I say “metaphysics” I mean it literally, not as a poetic metaphor or something. I am male because the noosphere generated me as a male, and how that happens to look is by giving me a genetic code, a phenotype, and a psychology in accordance with that idea. (3) I've heard of the Reimer case, and I agree. (4) I like “insane” and think it's a useful catch-all term for “conditions and behaviours we shouldn't encourage.” Do you think we should encourage people with “BIID” to chop off their limbs/blind themselves/etc.? Not when the science data come in, right now, in today's world. 1) Why is maleness defined by sperm production? With the way you're presenting it I may as well presume you're claiming it's defined that way because it's defined that way, which is obviously fallacious. The rest of your points here aren't worth discussing until we've established a working definition. Once that's done then we can happily discuss function and deformation. 2) The categorization of sexually dimorphic biology is not predicated on the existence of free will, so it really doesn't matter in this discussion whether or not we have it. Even if we remove my mind from the equation entirely, say if I were dead, my corpse will still display sexual dimorphism. 4) In today's world, doctors actually are amputating their limbs, or in some cases paralyzing them. What I'm arguing is, your and my personal disgust or revulsion to the practice isn't relevant. Whether or not this is something that should be done has an objective answer. The reason it's done is to improve well being. We can objectively measure whether well being is improved. I've seen studies claiming to demonstrate that it does improve well being, and if that's true, then my opinion doesn't matter.
Boss Posted October 19, 2017 Posted October 19, 2017 1 hour ago, JamiMacki said: Here are the two I linked earlier in the thread again for your convenience. These ones discuss the BNST. And here's another that looks at a different section of the brain, the INAH3. Neuroplasticity seems to have some clear limitations. These aspects of the brain related to sexual behavior and gender identity are set for life. Nothing but physically destroying them seems to have much impact on their development path. Of the traits you chose, what do you mean by consistent and true? No single trait has total consistency. Not one. Once you've gathered all the sexually dimorphic traits in a person, and you find that the individual has a mix of male and female traits, how are you deciding which traits have the most categorical value? Obviously you've decided that the presence or absence of a Y chromosome has the greatest value, but why exactly? Can you actually do this with the level of truth you're demanding? 1 consistent would mean unchanging in nature. Like XY Chromosome, uterus, ovaries, vagina etc It seems those studies you linked focus more on feeling rather than biology. As stated "Transsexuals have the strong feeling" "Transsexuals experience themselves as being of the opposite sex, despite having the biological characteristics of one sex" Anyways if you agree with these studies its clear to me where you fall, You have more biological characteristic(s) of one sex, and the "feeling" of another. Biology/truth/science is consistent. Feelings are not. So there is no point in claiming to be something as the biology is set.
JamiMacki Posted October 20, 2017 Author Posted October 20, 2017 20 minutes ago, Boss said: consistent would mean unchanging in nature. Like XY Chromosome, uterus, ovaries, vagina etc It seems those studies you linked focus more on feeling rather than biology. As stated "Transsexuals have the strong feeling" "Transsexuals experience themselves as being of the opposite sex, despite having the biological characteristics of one sex" Anyways if you agree with these studies its clear to me where you fall, You have more biological characteristic(s) of one sex, and the "feeling" of another. Biology/truth/science is consistent. Feelings are not. So there is no point in claiming to be something as the biology is set. I'm not sure how you can say the studies are focused on feeling more than biology unless you ignore all but the first sentence. The quotes you've picked are simply descriptions of the most common conceptualization of what a trans person is. The actual study involves biological characteristics these individuals possessed. Your views seem like they're coming from quite a different place than others in this thread, and I hope I'm not blending them together, but I might be because I'm confused as to what claims you're making. I don't feel you've adequately demonstrated that I have biological characteristics of one sex and the feeling of another. I'm claiming to have biological characteristics of both sexes, and the feeling of one. It might help me understand what you're talking about if you addressed this claim directly.
Boss Posted October 20, 2017 Posted October 20, 2017 49 minutes ago, JamiMacki said: I'm not sure how you can say the studies are focused on feeling more than biology unless you ignore all but the first sentence. The quotes you've picked are simply descriptions of the most common conceptualization of what a trans person is. The actual study involves biological characteristics these individuals possessed. Your views seem like they're coming from quite a different place than others in this thread, and I hope I'm not blending them together, but I might be because I'm confused as to what claims you're making. I don't feel you've adequately demonstrated that I have biological characteristics of one sex and the feeling of another. I'm claiming to have biological characteristics of both sexes, and the feeling of one. It might help me understand what you're talking about if you addressed this claim directly. None of the studies you linked had any biological conclusions. They both are looking at relations to "gender identity" which has nothing to do with biology. As I stated in my first post, There is no such thing as Transgenderism. Everyone has biological characteristics of both sexes as I explained with both having arms, legs, eyes etc. When it comes to which sex an individual is we must understand what sex is, sex is the division of humans on the basis of their reproductive functions. Biology shows these distinct characteristics in the form of XY Chromosome, uterus, ovaries, vagina, etc. So the biology of their reproductive functions will ultimately decide on the sex of an individual.
JamiMacki Posted October 20, 2017 Author Posted October 20, 2017 47 minutes ago, Boss said: None of the studies you linked had any biological conclusions. They both are looking at relations to "gender identity" which has nothing to do with biology. As I stated in my first post, There is no such thing as Transgenderism. Everyone has biological characteristics of both sexes as I explained with both having arms, legs, eyes etc. When it comes to which sex an individual is we must understand what sex is, sex is the division of humans on the basis of their reproductive functions. Biology shows these distinct characteristics in the form of XY Chromosome, uterus, ovaries, vagina, etc. So the biology of their reproductive functions will ultimately decide on the sex of an individual. There's a level of disconnect here that's kind of blowing my mind. The studies are direct evidence against your claim that gender identity has nothing to do with biology. It's not my intent to insult you so I hope you aren't taking it that way, but it's like I'm trying to show you something in my hand saying, "look at this thing I'm holding" and you keep replying, "there's nothing there, that's just your hand." The subjects in the study that you're referring to didn't even have a gender identity at the time they were being observed. They were all dead before the study took place. The researchers are observing something physical, biological, and objectively existing in reality. There is a piece of the brain with sexually dimorphic characteristics. In males it develops one way, in females it develops another way. The point of the study is to show that this piece of the brain is consistently female in transsexual women, and visa versa with transsexual men. It's right here. Look at it :P As for the claim that reproductive functions alone decide the sex of an individual, that was a reasonable assumption 60 years ago but new information has revealed it to be fallacious. "This person has a male trait, therefore the person is male" is an example of the fallacy of composition. What is true of a part is not necessarily true of the whole. There are a lot more examples of sexual dimorphism in humans than reproductive functions. Differences in vision, social preferences, fat distribution, skin thickness, bone structure, brain structure, emotional response, musculature, on and on.
Boss Posted October 20, 2017 Posted October 20, 2017 1 hour ago, JamiMacki said: As for the claim that reproductive functions alone decide the sex of an individual, that was a reasonable assumption 60 years ago but new information has revealed it to be fallacious. "This person has a male trait, therefore the person is male" is an example of the fallacy of composition. What is true of a part is not necessarily true of the whole. There are a lot more examples of sexual dimorphism in humans than reproductive functions. Differences in vision, social preferences, fat distribution, skin thickness, bone structure, brain structure, emotional response, musculature, on and on. This is not a claim, this is biology. The individual is divided on the basis of their reproductive functions because biological humans can procreate(have sex) and for that to happen the sex of the human matters. What doesnt matter, is your claim of examples "Differences in vision, social preferences, fat distribution, skin thickness, bone structure, brain structure, emotional response, musculature, on and on." These are all inconsistent, while the actual biology of sex is not. Why don't your examples matter? because on a biological level humans can have sex based on their sex to continue their biology. And none of your examples are needed on a biological level to do so. Unlike my consistent examples of XY Chromosome, uterus, ovaries, vagina, etc it seems you dont understand biological consistency. Sex needs consistency on a biological level for it to happen. Judging from your response to the study and the examples you provided you dont understand that at all. Which might explain as you stated, the "level of disconnect" in this conversation. Anyways no point in continuing to reply in this format if our conversation is disconnected. If you want to try instant chat on discords we can. nonetheless, I wish you well on your journey to truth
smarterthanone Posted October 20, 2017 Posted October 20, 2017 On 10/18/2017 at 5:23 PM, JamiMacki said: Trying to separate gender from sex entirely is silly. A person's gender, or a persons behaviors and preferences that we can describe as masculine or feminine, are strongly correlated to our biology. You could even say that gender is an expression of our sexually dimorphic, biological nature. Saying that it's irrelevant in terms of biology is absurd. I'm not here to discuss whether or not I'm feminine. If you were to meet me I'm sure that'd be self evident. I'm actually challenging your definition of sex. The human body is filled with examples of sexual dimorphism in our biology. I don't see the justification to exclude parts of the brain from sex when it is just as biological as everything else, and clearly displays dimorphism. Then why are there so many feminine men and masculine women if its so strongly correlated? I am not saying there its not a factor but its nowhere near being able to provide a full explanation. Any man (sex) can be any amount of feminine (gender), any woman (sex) can be any amount of masculine (gender). All the way would be a fully transitioned person.
Donnadogsoth Posted October 20, 2017 Posted October 20, 2017 21 hours ago, JamiMacki said: 1) Why is maleness defined by sperm production? With the way you're presenting it I may as well presume you're claiming it's defined that way because it's defined that way, which is obviously fallacious. The rest of your points here aren't worth discussing until we've established a working definition. Once that's done then we can happily discuss function and deformation. 2) The categorization of sexually dimorphic biology is not predicated on the existence of free will, so it really doesn't matter in this discussion whether or not we have it. Even if we remove my mind from the equation entirely, say if I were dead, my corpse will still display sexual dimorphism. 4) In today's world, doctors actually are amputating their limbs, or in some cases paralyzing them. What I'm arguing is, your and my personal disgust or revulsion to the practice isn't relevant. Whether or not this is something that should be done has an objective answer. The reason it's done is to improve well being. We can objectively measure whether well being is improved. I've seen studies claiming to demonstrate that it does improve well being, and if that's true, then my opinion doesn't matter. 1.Sex was created by and for the evolutionary process. Maleness (sperm production) and femaleness (egg production) exist because biology needed a way to perpetuate the species. All other definitions of male and female are either extensions of this, or are purely arbitrary. 2.I invoke free will to defend metaphysics, which moderns attempt to do without. Materialistically there is no reason why minds should exist. Ideally (i.e., in terms of Idealism), minds do exist and therefore a metaphysical realm, from which, in terms of the evolutionary process, we derive maleness and femaleness as psychological categories. 4.(a) Do you agree people who wish to die should be put to death? A depressed 13-year-old, for example? (b) Do you think that the "well-being" of a farmer who deeply wishes he could have his body amputated below the navel, outweighs the needs of his family to have him work on the farm and thereby provide for them?
JamiMacki Posted October 20, 2017 Author Posted October 20, 2017 13 hours ago, Boss said: it seems you dont understand biological consistency. Sex needs consistency on a biological level for it to happen. Judging from your response to the study and the examples you provided you dont understand that at all. Which might explain as you stated, the "level of disconnect" in this conversation. Anyways no point in continuing to reply in this format if our conversation is disconnected. If you want to try instant chat on discords we can. nonetheless, I wish you well on your journey to truth The level of disconnect I was talking about was in reference to you saying that gender identity has nothing to do with biology, while referring to studies which demonstrate a link between gender identity and biology. By all means disagree, but at least have an argument. As for your definition, I understand the appeal of categorizing human dimorphism based on the particular arrangement of organs necessary for procreation. It has what I would refer to as the greatest "correlative weight". I still don't think you've quite escaped the fallacy of composition with this however, and while I would say it is a consistent enough definition to be useful to us, it isn't the truest representation of dimorphism, and leads to a limited understanding of what we are. I'll get into the details of this in my discussion with Donnadogsoth, which you can read if you're interested, but wont bother you further since it seems like you prefer back and forth conversation to the slow pace of forums. I don't know what the FDR discord info is but if you provide it maybe I'll pop in. On 10/18/2017 at 7:36 AM, neeeel said: Ribs occupy a specific place in your body. You can feel a specific place, and feel the pain when you touch that place. You can cut open your body and identify that a rib is broken, or get an xray When you examine "feeling awful" ( I am assuming you do this by introspection, or therapy, or something similar), you find that thoughts and beliefs are the things that are causing you pain. You do not identify that your "female" brain is stuck in a "male" body. That is another thought, another assumption, and again, there is no way for your body/brain to inform you of this , because a brain does not know that its in the wrong body. What is the awful feeling that you have? Or in what way do you feel awful, to put it another way? I realise that this might be hurtful, or insulting, and its not meant that way, but it is something I struggle to understand, so I want to bring it up to you. I am sure you have heard of the man who identifies as a 6 year old girl. Would you say that he has the brain of a 6yo girl stuck in a mans body? Or that he feels awful and finds that identifying as a 6yo girl makes him feel better ? Or, what is your explanation? I sometimes feel awful , and wish, or imagine, or want, to be something other than what I am. Im not sure that means that I am actually something other than what I am? To understand where I'm coming from you should first concede that some assumptions I'm making are true for the sake of argument. One is that gender identity is an expression of fundamental, unchangeable biological brain structure. Second, this is an aspect of sexual dimorphism in humans. Meaning, it's not just me and other trans people that have it. You have it to, and so does everyone else. Just like being able to cut open your chest to examine your bones, you can cut open the brain to examine your gender identity, or more specifically, the brain structure that causes gender identity to manifest, similar to how the nerves on your bones cause pain to manifest. If you accept this premise you can start to ask questions like, objectively, when does gender identity manifest? The answer would be at a particular stage of fetal development when the infant receives androgens from the mother. The brain develops at a different stage than genitals, though they correlate with each other almost every time (unless scientists are deliberately messing with the process, like in mice experiments). Transgender people are a rare instance in which these two things do not correlate. The gender identity brain structure becomes female, the genitals become male. This leads to psychological distress that can be described as a persons biology in conflict with itself. I'm not hurt or insulted by your skepticism. So please don't feel any guilt over what you're saying. You're right that I examine the awful feeling through introspection and therapy. What we find is that specifically it's observations and perception that are causing me pain. I don't like the X in a Z's body analogy for a number of reasons. Some people really relate to it and it's fine to use as a self exploratory tool, but I don't think it's useful in the pursuit of truth. The phrase itself is a paradox. If your body belongs to you, and what you are is a man, then your body is a man's body by logical necessity. You can sort of get around this by subscribing to mind/body dualism, but that is a deeply flawed view of the mind which I don't really consider in my analysis. The feeling started as confusion in my early childhood but became 'awful' roughly when I was like, 11 or so. Observing the way my body was developing in puberty caused me psychological distress. At the time, being a kid that wasn't really skilled at introspection, I wasn't really able to process it like I can today, so as a defense mechanism I ended up dissociating, or becoming selectively unaware of my body. I can understand from your point of view that it's tempting to search for some kind of trauma in my childhood to explain these feelings, since trauma actually is the cause for this in some cases. But similar to depression, sometimes the cause is environmental, and sometimes it's just physical. The way myself and my therapist(s) narrowed things down is kind of a lengthy and very personal thing to describe. The important bit is, hormone replacement and physical transition are consistent with the idea that gender identity is related to biology and cannot be changed. Dysphoria might also be described as a psychological demand or strong desire for this piece of brain structure to match other dimorphic aspects of the body. I believe the evidence shows that is the most probable explanation for what is going on, and given that gender identity can't be changed without killing me and most everything else can be easily changed, if we want them to match it's clear what path we should tread.
JamiMacki Posted October 20, 2017 Author Posted October 20, 2017 11 hours ago, smarterthanone said: Then why are there so many feminine men and masculine women if its so strongly correlated? I am not saying there its not a factor but its nowhere near being able to provide a full explanation. Any man (sex) can be any amount of feminine (gender), any woman (sex) can be any amount of masculine (gender). All the way would be a fully transitioned person. Define "so many". The reason we associate masculine behaviors with males and feminine behavior with females in the first place is because there is a strong correlation. I agree that biology doesn't provide a full explanation. My objection is to the claim that there is no relation at all, which must be true in order for your argument to make any sense. The issue with trying to separate sex from gender as biological vs behavioral, is that you run into conflict with every scientific observation we make showing a causal relationship between behavior and biology. The "wider spectrum" descriptions of sex and gender have a slightly easier time dealing with this contradiction I think, but I don't think it solves the issue completely either. 3 hours ago, Donnadogsoth said: 1.Sex was created by and for the evolutionary process. Maleness (sperm production) and femaleness (egg production) exist because biology needed a way to perpetuate the species. All other definitions of male and female are either extensions of this, or are purely arbitrary. 2.I invoke free will to defend metaphysics, which moderns attempt to do without. Materialistically there is no reason why minds should exist. Ideally (i.e., in terms of Idealism), minds do exist and therefore a metaphysical realm, from which, in terms of the evolutionary process, we derive maleness and femaleness as psychological categories. 4.(a) Do you agree people who wish to die should be put to death? A depressed 13-year-old, for example? (b) Do you think that the "well-being" of a farmer who deeply wishes he could have his body amputated below the navel, outweighs the needs of his family to have him work on the farm and thereby provide for them? 1) I see this view as perhaps being due to, and leading to a limited understanding of human evolution. Some species evolved heavily optimized for the proliferation of the individual organism's genes. This explains instances of cannibalism, killing a rival member's children, etc. Humans evolved in groups or tribes, and ended up specialized for the proliferation of cohorts of genes, rather than a single individual's genes. The complete whole of human sexual differentiation reflects this, and the limited essentials for reproduction do not. This is why I think your definition is flawed, and subject to the fallacy of composition. 2) "Materialistically there is no reason why minds should exist." This is debatable. I'm not sure how you can reasonably assume this given how much uncertainty there is. Things which can't be reasonably assumed to be true shouldn't be used in arguments if you can avoid it. We're now going down a road where it becomes necessary to define what it means to exist, and I'm uncertain we need to do so to have a productive discussion of sex and gender. a) I believe the goal of medicine is to improve health, and the goal of morality is to improve well-being. Cases where decreasing health in order to improve well being sometimes exist, but they're tricksy. Assuming omniscience, I think it's entirely possible to know that death is necessary to improve well being in some circumstances. For example, if the 13-year-old was guaranteed to be locked in a state of perpetual suffering with no escape. I think in this case it would be hard to argue that the child should continue living in this state. The issue is that we never have this complete level of knowledge. I can imagine almost no circumstance likely to occur that it becomes reasonable to assume the depressed child will always be depressed. If it is even remotely possible to improve well-being, if there is any doubt whatsoever about the inevitability of continued suffering, then death is an illogical solution. b) In the scenario you're providing, it's possible that the amputation would actually decrease the entire families well being, the farmer included. Individual circumstances and context must be considered. You can add as much complexity to the situation as you like, but it will always come down to the observable consequences of overall well being. If it increases, then it's what should be done. If it decreases, then it shouldn't. Related to the topic, even though there are cases where transition objectively improves well-being, that doesn't mean that everyone experiencing gender dysphoria should transition. For example, if the person is living in one of the hostile environments to transgender people such as many places in Africa, the attempt to improve well being will also correlate with an increased risk of being buried in the sand up to your neck while your community throws rocks at your face until you die. The end result would be a reduction in both wellness and well-being.
Donnadogsoth Posted October 22, 2017 Posted October 22, 2017 On 10/20/2017 at 4:38 PM, JamiMacki said: 1) I see this view as perhaps being due to, and leading to a limited understanding of human evolution. Some species evolved heavily optimized for the proliferation of the individual organism's genes. This explains instances of cannibalism, killing a rival member's children, etc. Humans evolved in groups or tribes, and ended up specialized for the proliferation of cohorts of genes, rather than a single individual's genes. The complete whole of human sexual differentiation reflects this, and the limited essentials for reproduction do not. This is why I think your definition is flawed, and subject to the fallacy of composition. 2) "Materialistically there is no reason why minds should exist." This is debatable. I'm not sure how you can reasonably assume this given how much uncertainty there is. Things which can't be reasonably assumed to be true shouldn't be used in arguments if you can avoid it. We're now going down a road where it becomes necessary to define what it means to exist, and I'm uncertain we need to do so to have a productive discussion of sex and gender. a) I believe the goal of medicine is to improve health, and the goal of morality is to improve well-being. Cases where decreasing health in order to improve well being sometimes exist, but they're tricksy. Assuming omniscience, I think it's entirely possible to know that death is necessary to improve well being in some circumstances. For example, if the 13-year-old was guaranteed to be locked in a state of perpetual suffering with no escape. I think in this case it would be hard to argue that the child should continue living in this state. The issue is that we never have this complete level of knowledge. I can imagine almost no circumstance likely to occur that it becomes reasonable to assume the depressed child will always be depressed. If it is even remotely possible to improve well-being, if there is any doubt whatsoever about the inevitability of continued suffering, then death is an illogical solution. b) In the scenario you're providing, it's possible that the amputation would actually decrease the entire families well being, the farmer included. Individual circumstances and context must be considered. You can add as much complexity to the situation as you like, but it will always come down to the observable consequences of overall well being. If it increases, then it's what should be done. If it decreases, then it shouldn't. Related to the topic, even though there are cases where transition objectively improves well-being, that doesn't mean that everyone experiencing gender dysphoria should transition. For example, if the person is living in one of the hostile environments to transgender people such as many places in Africa, the attempt to improve well being will also correlate with an increased risk of being buried in the sand up to your neck while your community throws rocks at your face until you die. The end result would be a reduction in both wellness and well-being. 1.Sperm producers and egg producers form the necessary core of any fertile (i.e., evolutionary successful) group of humans. Everything else is secondary. 2.Principle of sufficient reason: everything happens for a reason and never otherwise. Minds existing like pond scum on the top of material brains lack sufficient reason to exist; if the brain is doing everything the mind can do, save a step and eliminate the mind. If we retain minds, we retain metaphysics, which means we retain Platonic forms. Ergo, male and female exist metaphysically. 3.If a depressed 13-year-old can't be reasonably assumed to be depressed forever, why should a transsexual be reasonably assumed to be depressed forever about not transitioning? 4.Is there no concept in our philosophy of bearing our crosses for the sake of others?
JamiMacki Posted October 23, 2017 Author Posted October 23, 2017 On 10/22/2017 at 9:05 AM, Donnadogsoth said: 1.Sperm producers and egg producers form the necessary core of any fertile (i.e., evolutionary successful) group of humans. Everything else is secondary. 2.Principle of sufficient reason: everything happens for a reason and never otherwise. Minds existing like pond scum on the top of material brains lack sufficient reason to exist; if the brain is doing everything the mind can do, save a step and eliminate the mind. If we retain minds, we retain metaphysics, which means we retain Platonic forms. Ergo, male and female exist metaphysically. 3.If a depressed 13-year-old can't be reasonably assumed to be depressed forever, why should a transsexual be reasonably assumed to be depressed forever about not transitioning? 4.Is there no concept in our philosophy of bearing our crosses for the sake of others? 1) Ultimately I think I agree. Sexual dimorphism is not always related to fertility, but the study of fertility is necessary to our understanding of evolution and we do need words for the distinctive gamete producers, and those words may as well be male and female. What we must recognize about this definition is that it is an abstraction, and in reality is not limited to just two distinct states of biology. By this logic, each intersexual variant could be considered its own sex, but we don't do this for the sake of pragmatism. However, when we define it this way, it means that sex is not the individual defining characteristic that our language and often ourselves perceive it to be. A male is therefore someone who possesses an arrangement of organs necessary to produce sperm. It's little different than saying a blonde is a person with blonde hair, and we don't go around creating pronouns for blondes. Since I think we do have a working definition now leme bring up some things you mentioned earlier. Calling something a malfunction doesn't give you cause to dismiss its importance unless you assign a value judgment, which is beyond the scope of science. Also, calling transgender people confused and malfunctioning is an uncharitable misrepresentation of reality, including value judgements and bias. 2) The experience of having a mind could be illusory. You can't observe other peoples minds, only your own. When the brain is damaged, your mind is also impacted, and when the brain is destroyed, so is the mind. The brain could be giving us the hallucination of having a mind, which would mean it doesn't exist like pond scum, but rather doesn't exist at all. Or we could think of it like you say, and posit that brains create minds and that minds are metaphysical. I don't actually know the answer to this, but for the sake of this argument I'm fine with assuming your version is true so long as we acknowledge that minds are fundamentally linked to physics, and cannot exist without the physics. Taking into account our definition of sex and assuming your understanding of the mind is true, I actually agree with your summary (points 1&2) that you made in your first post, with a few small but necessary edits for accuracy. First, with our established definition of male, saying that I'm biologically male is more misleading than saying sexually male. If the word biologically is meant to simply describe the biological nature of sex, then it's redundant because that's already included in the definition of sex. And, if the word is meant to define me as a physical whole, then it's contradictory because our definitions of sex don't include the physical whole, but are limited to those specific functions involving reproduction. Saying I'm metaphysically female however, is entirely correct, as is the description of transition being about making my phenotype match that metaphysical identity. What modern science is showing us however, is that this identity is not something that arises through socialization but as manifestation of something physical and unchangeable about our brain structure. We can simplify this by calling it gender, and as trans and certain cases of intersex people demonstrate, gender can exist independent or opposite of sex. This is a much more narrow, focused definition of gender than we're used to using, and this is why researchers have proposed to make even further distinctions using the term "gender expression" to refer to the manner in which that identity is expressed through masculine/feminine behavior and preferences. In this way you can understand the differences between someone with a male sex, male gender, and feminine gender expression, from a person with male sex, female gender, and feminine gender expression. I'll quote the bits of your post that I'm editing down below so that you can easily reference the exact words. Quote (1) Biologically you're male. Biology is a hard science and science is not in doubt that human beings with XY chromosomes are male by definition. Your natural phenotypal expression further confirms this. (2) Metaphysically you're female. You're responding to the feminine archetype as you see it incarnated in the society around you and you say to yourself, "That's reflecting what I am inside." Your transition is about making your phenotype match your metaphysical identity, which you have learned about by observing the heterosexual dynamic all around you. 3) This is a weak comparison. We don't even know why the child is experiencing depression. Also depression is the wrong word to use here because someone who's depressed isn't necessarily suffering so badly that death is preferable to life. Knowing nothing about the causes of the child's suffering, it's unreasonable to assume that death is the cure. Gender dysphoria is entirely different. We have enough data to make informed decisions about it, and the data shows that it's reasonable to assume gender dysphoria will not simply cease on its own without transitioning. 4) Of course there is. We are free to sacrifice our own well-being for the sake of others if we choose, and having this mindset is even beneficial to our own well-being in the long term because it creates a wonderful society to live in. What I'm saying is that we are not obligated to do so in all circumstances, especially when those circumstances are extremely detrimental to one's individual well-being while only superficially beneficial to the well-being of others. If you're destitute, don't give your money to charity. And we shouldn't be encouraging trans people to suffer a lifetime of dysphoria without transitioning merely because it might inconvenience or irritate the prejudices of others in their lives. This is what I believe your analogy is ultimately working toward in relation to the topic.
Donnadogsoth Posted October 24, 2017 Posted October 24, 2017 2 hours ago, JamiMacki said: 1.(a) Blonde hair isn't significant enough in terms of effect on society to merit a pronoun. Male and female represent significant psychological differences associated with behavioural expressions. If we must we can assume a third pronoun for in-between people, but most people, even most transsexuals, don't wish to transcend the heterosexual order, but merely realign themselves within it. (b) Just as gay people can be “questioning” so can transsexuals: confused. If they are not expressing the full panoply of characteristics which biology indicates naturally associates with their “gamete production” type, they are malfunctioning. That is science. Morality is to not mock people with missing limbs, or facial disfigurements, or other malfunctions or defects. It is not wicked to notice defects, it is wicked to use them as an excuse to treat an innocent person as less than human. 2.Illusory for whom? An illusion by definition needs a perceiver. Sound of falling trees and all that. ***I'm afraid I can't continue with the Damoclean sword of my nonexistence hanging over me. Either I prove to myself I exist or else I am uninterested in bandying assumptions. Any suggestions?***
JamiMacki Posted October 27, 2017 Author Posted October 27, 2017 On 10/23/2017 at 5:48 PM, Donnadogsoth said: 1.(a) Blonde hair isn't significant enough in terms of effect on society to merit a pronoun. Male and female represent significant psychological differences associated with behavioural expressions. If we must we can assume a third pronoun for in-between people, but most people, even most transsexuals, don't wish to transcend the heterosexual order, but merely realign themselves within it. (b) Just as gay people can be “questioning” so can transsexuals: confused. If they are not expressing the full panoply of characteristics which biology indicates naturally associates with their “gamete production” type, they are malfunctioning. That is science. Morality is to not mock people with missing limbs, or facial disfigurements, or other malfunctions or defects. It is not wicked to notice defects, it is wicked to use them as an excuse to treat an innocent person as less than human. 2.Illusory for whom? An illusion by definition needs a perceiver. Sound of falling trees and all that. ***I'm afraid I can't continue with the Damoclean sword of my nonexistence hanging over me. Either I prove to myself I exist or else I am uninterested in bandying assumptions. Any suggestions?*** 1. (a) Myself included. (b) After taking a second look at how defects and malfunctions are defined, I agree with you. You changed my mind on this. Kudos to you. 2. It'd be a shame if this conversation got hung up on the nature of existence. In the scenario I was bringing up, you still exist, but without a mind. Rather, you would be a brain causing itself to hallucinate the experience of being a mind. Really the only reason I'm bugging you about this is because I've been listening to Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett's views on this topic and it's left me confused about the nature of the self. I'm not saying I believe this is true, more playing devil's advocate, but I think it's a possibility. As far as I'm aware, there isn't any way to counter this using reason alone. It's not illogical or paradoxical, and seems like something that will inevitably be proven or disproved by neuroscience in the future. I'm willing to assume your view is true because I don't know what's true, but the assumption bandying need not extend to you. If you're certain about the nature of the mind then great, you might have knowledge that I don't. I only bring it up to explain why I'm not 100% sold by your metaphysical argument.
Excel Kidneystone Posted October 27, 2017 Posted October 27, 2017 Regarding anti-trans arguments, There are generally two kinds of people who dislike this transgenderism trend: 1. Real fascists/nazis, whose ideology inherently disagrees with such things, not because there is any logical argument against it, but because in their worldview it is "degenerate, unethical, etc." 2. Libertarians anarchists, but the reason is very different. They (also me, or probably most people on this forum) don't care one bit what you do with your own body, you can live a healthy life or ruin yourself with drugs, smoking, alcohol, etc. But there are two things that I really disagree with: When I have to use the right pronoun or I'll be fined or be sent to jail. You can call yourself whatever you want but you cannot compel other people to agree with you. When it is the taxpayer who has to pay for such operations (same opinion regarding abortion). You have the freedom to modify your body in any way you want but again you cannot compel other people to finance these things for you.
JamiMacki Posted October 27, 2017 Author Posted October 27, 2017 1 hour ago, Excel Kidneystone said: Regarding anti-trans arguments, There are generally two kinds of people who dislike this transgenderism trend: 1. Real fascists/nazis, whose ideology inherently disagrees with such things, not because there is any logical argument against it, but because in their worldview it is "degenerate, unethical, etc." 2. Libertarians anarchists, but the reason is very different. They (also me, or probably most people on this forum) don't care one bit what you do with your own body, you can live a healthy life or ruin yourself with drugs, smoking, alcohol, etc. But there are two things that I really disagree with: When I have to use the right pronoun or I'll be fined or be sent to jail. You can call yourself whatever you want but you cannot compel other people to agree with you. When it is the taxpayer who has to pay for such operations (same opinion regarding abortion). You have the freedom to modify your body in any way you want but again you cannot compel other people to finance these things for you. The "we don't care what you do with your body" thing is just a cop out. A way to answer the question without actually saying anything. What you're actually saying is you don't care about me, because you don't know me. If it were a member of your close family, a best friend, or one of your own children wanting to transition, I'm sure suddenly the topic would be of great interest to you, and your opinions on whether gender transition is leading to a healthy life or ruining yourself would come into play. It's not as if libertarians and ancaps all have the same views on transgenderism, and at least the ones that are anti-trans would have the decency not to use government to forcibly sterilize me, control my gender assignment, or exterminate me if they were in charge, as the fascists would. 1. As to your point about pronouns, I don't want to see you thrown in jail for refusing to call me she, whether directly or through tertiary means (refusal to pay fine > resisting arrest > jail). If someone is being a tremendous jerk(not being able to swear on this board is difficult), lets say going around spouting racial slurs and publicly professing their love for slavery, we can generally rely on social consequences being levied on this person, and it's usually satisfactory to leave it at that. The unresolved issue that's driving the pronoun debate is that it still isn't considered socially unacceptable to use pronouns to harass and verbally abuse trans people in many places. If you're a trans person and someone is proudly misgendering you and throwing all the buzzawords in the transphobic toolkit at you (mutilated, mentally ill, the various slurs, etc), it can be extremely psychologically damaging when you also add that nobody in your community is willing to defend you, and this jerk can say this garbage with no social consequence. My preferred solution is to convince you that you are being a tremendous jerk when doing this, and you should be calling your friends out when they do this sort of thing. When you stop being an indifferent bystander, there will no longer be any need for a law. 2. Nobody except the most hardcore, free healthcare for all type of socialist is suggesting that you should have to pay for all trans medical procedures. Everyone else is only concerned with the extremely poor. If you live in a western country, the fact is that our culture has democratically decided to use tax money to pay the medical bills of people who can't afford them. Nowhere in our system is it allowed for an individual to pick and choose the specifics of how their tax money is spent. If you agree with the concept in general of your tax money going to help the poor pay for their medical procedures, then some ill-conceived notion of excluding trans HRT or surgeries you've constructed is irrelevant. The views of medical professionals is that HRT and surgeries are sometimes necessary, and if elected representatives heed this advice, then your complains about a specific use of your tax dollars don't hold water. If you want to get rid of health benefits for the poor entirely, sure you can have that discussion, but then you're not talking about trans people specifically. Otherwise you need an actual argument to counter what the medical professionals are saying. In the example of abortion, the argument is pretty clear. Anti-abortionists claim that a fetus is a human being and that terminating it is murder, which is illegal. I've heard all the anti-trans arguments in the book and none of them hold any water, and I'd say none of them come anywhere close to the level of coherence and weight that the abortion argument has.
Donnadogsoth Posted October 31, 2017 Posted October 31, 2017 On 10/27/2017 at 4:56 AM, JamiMacki said: 2.(a) Existence can't not exist, because absolute nothingness is incoherent. Absolute nothingness would necessarily be equal to itself, meaning the principle of A=A would apply, meaning there was not absolutely nothing but nothing + the principle of A=A. (b) The principle of sufficient reason (psr) states that everything is the way it is for a reason and not for no reason. Does the psr have a sufficient reason to exist? Suppose one thing in the universe lacked sufficient reason, that would make it irrational. Except the universe by definition is one thing, with everything reflecting everything else. Gravity, e.g., doesn't end at a certain distance, it merely becomes extremely weak. So if one particle of the universe is irrational, the entire universe is irrational. What does irrationality look like? Well, take a mallot and squash an orange on your kitchen counter. You've made that orange less rational-looking, haven't you? In other words, you've reduced the order and increased the chaos. But, microscopic analysis of the squashed orange would show it still had amazing levels of order in it, structure, rationality. So, the purely irrational would be the minimum of structure, which would mean nothing. Except we already debunked absolute nothingness in step (a), which means that the universe necessarily has sufficient reason, which means the psr has sufficient reason to exist. (c) If a brain existed without a mind, it would be absolute nothingness inside, which as stated cannot exist. Therefore, everything which is real must have experience or psyche. Given the observed structural sophistication of the human nervous system compared to, say, a piece of sandstone, we find sufficient reason for the existence of the human mind as we experience it. On “biologically” versus “sexually” male, I think “biologically male” fits because it refers to your comprehensive natural state, aside from your metaphysical condition. Without artificial intervention you would exhibit a male phenotype and without gene surgery you retain a male genotype. 3.I'm not sure where you draw the line on when someone should be given an assisted suicide. How sad does a teenager have to be and for how long, before we let a doctor kill her? Same with a transsexual who is barred from transitioning for whatever reason. 4) A relevant passage: Mark 12:41-44 (NIV) The Widow’s Offering 41 Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42 But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents. 43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”
Recommended Posts