JamiMacki Posted October 31, 2017 Author Posted October 31, 2017 18 hours ago, Donnadogsoth said: I would like to challenge you to explain why we should use my comprehensive natural state over my observable morphology to justify your use of the world "biologically". One exists only as potential, while the other is objective and tangible. I should also point out that I would only agree to the use of the world comprehensively in its loose form, meaning "mostly" rather than "complete". 3) If I'm drawing the line somewhere in the realm of events unlikely to ever occur in reality, does it matter where specifically it's drawn? What's the point you're trying to make with this comparison? For someone with gender dysphoria, it may be possible to go through life without ending up suicidal and miserable without transitioning. I'm sure I wouldn't mind it so much if I did heroin every day, or perhaps I could become a Buddhist monk and detach from the idea of self entirely, to name a few possible examples. But not all solutions are equal, and we can look at the data and see objectively that transition is currently the best option for a trans person in terms of well-being by reducing dysphoria. The more pertinent question is why is the transsexual person being barred from transition? If the reason is something natural and beyond our means of control, then that is simply unfortunate. But that's not very common. What is very common is bigotry. Stopping someone from transitioning is like preventing someone who's bleeding from bandaging themselves, simply because you dislike the aesthetic of the cloth. 4) The words of Jesus here seem like they can be interpreted in multiple ways. I'm guessing if a widow gives her last few pennies to charity, skimps on food for the week as a consequence, gets sick from the resulting poor nutrition, and then dies, you wouldn't be so keen to bring out this passage to praise her decision.
Donnadogsoth Posted November 1, 2017 Posted November 1, 2017 23 hours ago, JamiMacki said: Quote I would like to challenge you to explain why we should use my comprehensive natural state over my observable morphology to justify your use of the world "biologically". One exists only as potential, while the other is objective and tangible. I should also point out that I would only agree to the use of the world comprehensively in its loose form, meaning "mostly" rather than "complete". Because your comprehensive state is what your body wants to do. Your mind wants to transition; your body absent that will very happily continue expressing a male phenotype based on male genetics. It's tricksy and somewhat disturbing to try and erase this and start defining away biology for the sake of having more political punch. Quote 3) If I'm drawing the line somewhere in the realm of events unlikely to ever occur in reality, does it matter where specifically it's drawn? What's the point you're trying to make with this comparison? For someone with gender dysphoria, it may be possible to go through life without ending up suicidal and miserable without transitioning. I'm sure I wouldn't mind it so much if I did heroin every day, or perhaps I could become a Buddhist monk and detach from the idea of self entirely, to name a few possible examples. But not all solutions are equal, and we can look at the data and see objectively that transition is currently the best option for a trans person in terms of well-being by reducing dysphoria. The more pertinent question is why is the transsexual person being barred from transition? If the reason is something natural and beyond our means of control, then that is simply unfortunate. But that's not very common. What is very common is bigotry. Stopping someone from transitioning is like preventing someone who's bleeding from bandaging themselves, simply because you dislike the aesthetic of the cloth. Given the advances that the pro-suicide camp has made recently (e.g., Canada), I think it's certainly not an event “unlikely to ever occur in reality” to have a teenager or even a child that the authorities are or soon will be weighing whether to kill or not. Part of the bigotry you're seeing comes from people concerned about the decline of the West, something that concerns one or two people on this board. Transsexuals have faced bigotry for a long time, but now there is the sense that transsexualism is one more weight on the scale of the anti-traditional against the traditional. You're smart, you should be able to see that the West is in major decline, and the anti-traditionalists, which includes rainbow people, nonwhite immigrants, Muslims, Marxists, postmodernists, and feministicised women, are also associated with transsexuals, whether transsexuals want to be a part of that or not. You've already said you want to be a part of tradition, not in opposition to it (except insofar as tradition stops you from participating in it). Do you see what I'm getting at? That this anti-traditional association the transsexuals have is a source of the modern “bigotry” that traditionalists harbour? Quote 4) The words of Jesus here seem like they can be interpreted in multiple ways. I'm guessing if a widow gives her last few pennies to charity, skimps on food for the week as a consequence, gets sick from the resulting poor nutrition, and then dies, you wouldn't be so keen to bring out this passage to praise her decision. Jesus is referring to putting all one has as a person into having faith in God. We are free to do what we wish, but we ought to put God first. In the parable, the rich gave some, the poor widow gave all. This is a parable, it does not mean everyone should donate everything to the Church and be in penury. It means we should live our lives for God's sake.
meetjoeblack Posted November 3, 2017 Posted November 3, 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! I listen to Stefan's podcast and I agree with 99% of what he advocates (usually). I disagree with his claim that dating younger is "creepy." If someone gave him a weak claim he would declare it not an argument. I disagree with him here in that, women more my age have spent 20s "finding themselves" which equates to, being a booty call, and IG ass pics, and now, bitter as fuck plus seeking the ring now alphas stop calling. I do agree that a huge gap likely has a correlation with divorce but, that could be based upon 'sloot gonna sloot' history.
River Posted November 6, 2017 Posted November 6, 2017 On 10/16/2017 at 11:23 PM, 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 JamiMacki, I have no specific anti-trans arguments, but I do have questions about being a transwoman. 1) How have you dealt/currently deal with ritualistic introductions to family members of someone you are in a relationship with? Have you had to answer uncomfortable questions or had to deal with transphobic parents or siblings? The expectations and judgements that family members have on people's boyfriends/girlfriends is already bad enough, so I'm just curious about your personal experience with that. 2) Because of your unique perspective into being perceived (and potentially socialized) as both a man and a woman, which gender do you think suffers the most amount of social difficulty? In other words, is it more difficult to be a boy or a girl these days? And, how do you propose that be fixed? Also, am I wrong to assume that you were socialized as a boy growing up? 3) How do you deal with fear of getting hurt/hurting yourself? There are some horrifying statistics out there regarding transpeople. Suicide and homicide rates are astonishingly high. This hits close to home. I've been in a homosexual relationship before and dealt with occasional harassment. It was enough to make me hesitate to hold hands and show affection in public for fear of provoking the wrong reaction. How do you deal with fears regarding your safety? 4) Why do you think there are so many young people (18-22 year olds) jumping on the non-binary/queer bandwagon? Has it really become trendy for some people? 5) What are your thoughts on having a family? Because I am partly identified with the gay community, I have trouble reconciling with knowing that there are reasonable conventions to live up to. Two parents- preferably maternal and fraternal figures. And biological children - for better bonding-potential. My understanding is that hrt basically sterilizes you. And, I'm not sure how being trans might effect the motherly/fatherly dynamic. I'm sure that depends on whether or not you are hetero?
JamiMacki Posted November 6, 2017 Author Posted November 6, 2017 On 11/1/2017 at 2:47 PM, Donnadogsoth said: On 11/1/2017 at 2:47 PM, Donnadogsoth said: Because your comprehensive state is what your body wants to do. Your mind wants to transition; your body absent that will very happily continue expressing a male phenotype based on male genetics. It's tricksy and somewhat disturbing to try and erase this and start defining away biology for the sake of having more political punch. For me, this has nothing to do with political punch and everything to do with what makes rational sense. You haven't actually made an argument here or explained a position. Morphology is a branch of biology that you seem to be dismissing on the basis that it's partially artificially sustained. But why exactly? It is still biology that we're talking about. Taking this into account, it seems there's no other reason to use the phrase 'biologically male' to describe a transwoman than propaganda, because so many people associate biology with what is real. I'm not accusing you of having that intent, but regardless of intent that is the effect of using that phrase. On 11/1/2017 at 2:47 PM, Donnadogsoth said: Given the advances that the pro-suicide camp has made recently (e.g., Canada), I think it's certainly not an event “unlikely to ever occur in reality” to have a teenager or even a child that the authorities are or soon will be weighing whether to kill or not. You're misunderstanding me. I'm talking about where I'm drawing the moral line, not where Canada is drawing it. I don't agree with the concept of assisted suicide being implemented in any system, for reasons I've already discussed. As to your following point, traditions change and evolve over time. They don't always change for the better, but giving into the nostalgic desire to return to better times is a dangerous temptation. There is no turning back the clock on culture or freezing it in place. History shows us this. Transition as a concept and the reevaluation of gender are deviations away from tradition, but please understand that these deviations are a response to old traditions becoming stifling and causing harm. When this happens, change is not only needful but inevitable. The change or decline of a culture if that's how you perceive it does not excuse bigotry. You are correct in that in that the 'anti-traditionalist' camp is associated with transsexuals, but who is really to blame for that if not the traditionalists themselves and the bigotry they cling to? Inability to compromise is a weakness. 38 minutes ago, River said: Hello JamiMacki, I have no specific anti-trans arguments, but I do have questions about being a transwoman. 1) How have you dealt/currently deal with ritualistic introductions to family members of someone you are in a relationship with? Have you had to answer uncomfortable questions or had to deal with transphobic parents or siblings? The expectations and judgements that family members have on people's boyfriends/girlfriends is already bad enough, so I'm just curious about your personal experience with that. 2) Because of your unique perspective into being perceived (and potentially socialized) as both a man and a woman, which gender do you think suffers the most amount of social difficulty? In other words, is it more difficult to be a boy or a girl these days? And, how do you propose that be fixed? Also, am I wrong to assume that you were socialized as a boy growing up? 3) How do you deal with fear of getting hurt/hurting yourself? There are some horrifying statistics out there regarding transpeople. Suicide and homicide rates are astonishingly high. This hits close to home. I've been in a homosexual relationship before and dealt with occasional harassment. It was enough to make me hesitate to hold hands and show affection in public for fear of provoking the wrong reaction. How do you deal with fears regarding your safety? 4) Why do you think there are so many young people (18-22 year olds) jumping on the non-binary/queer bandwagon? Has it really become trendy for some people? 5) What are your thoughts on having a family? Because I am partly identified with the gay community, I have trouble reconciling with knowing that there are reasonable conventions to live up to. Two parents- preferably maternal and fraternal figures. And biological children - for better bonding-potential. My understanding is that hrt basically sterilizes you. And, I'm not sure how being trans might effect the motherly/fatherly dynamic. I'm sure that depends on whether or not you are hetero? 1) It hasn't come up for me personally yet. I have encountered guys that are attracted to me, but are afraid of the looming transphobic opinions of their parents, and I do consider that an issue. Family can be important. I'm fortunate enough to be decently 'passing', so the parents probably wouldn't know I'm trans unless they were told directly, but that is nonetheless something I would want to lay on the table, come what may. Ultimately I would have to leave it up to my partner to decide how much they value their parents approval or disapproval. 2) People use gender to treat each other like garbage and it's hard to say which gets the worst of it. Before transition I had people telling me "man up" in situations where it ended up being nothing but psychological abuse pressuring me to suppress any negative feelings. Now I have people assuming I'm stupid before I even open my mouth simply because they see me as a woman, and end up being unabashedly condescending toward me. I don't see any simple solution, but I have noticed that most sexism comes from people that have no idea they are even being sexist. I do think we need to have a serious cultural discussion about sexism as an egalitarian issue for us to move forward. Modern feminists are trying hard to do this but perhaps not in the most effective way, and I think the anti-feminist/conservatives are doing an equally poor job at listening and critiquing constructively. 3) Even at my most miserable points I've never actually attempted suicide or made plans or anything, and my general emotional state has only improved since transition so I'm not too worried about that. The fear of violence against me is something very real though. Perhaps not where I live currently, but for example there are many places both within the US and outside that I'd like to visit, but being trans means there's extra impetus to do thorough research to avoid putting myself in a dangerous situation. I've never personally been threatened but I do have a friend that was stabbed for being gay in rural Utah (actually bisexual but bigots don't tend to care for details), and hearing stories like these are deeply unsettling. I don't really know how to deal with this to be frank. I just sincerely hope to go through life unstabbed, and try to limit myself to situations where I'm least likely to be stabbed. 4) The holes in our society's common conception of sex and gender are becoming increasingly obvious, and people at that age range are always finding those holes and digging at them. I think the non-binary/queer trends are an attempt at resolving the inconsistencies and solve problems present in the old ideas of gender, and while I'm not sure whether or not they're hitting their intended mark, I'm supportive of their experimentation. And yes I would say it's fairly trendy in some places, though in the same way that goth or punk has been trendy in terms of numbers. I don't really see it ever taking over the mainstream, but I may be wrong. That said, there's a huge difference between being transgender and being gender noncomforming. The trendiness is heavily weighted toward the noncomforming part. 5) The general consensus among trans people is that in order to be safe, if you want to have children you should assume HRT will make you infertile, and if you don't want kids you should assume that it wont. Because there's no guarontee either way and it's a hard thing to test since it can change spontaneously. So yes, it's a safe assumption that I'm sterile and it was an extremely important thing to consider, but consider it I did and here I am anyway. I've entertained fantasy-land notions of finding a single dad and falling in love with both him and his child, and having that full family experience despite my situation, but I'm not actively seeking it and avoid factoring it into my relationship considerations. More likely I think I'll try and end up modeling my relationship after my Aunt, who is not trans but is nonetheless unable to have children, yet has enjoyed a long and healthy marriage despite this. I'm very confident in being able to live a wholesome and productive life with a strong relationship without having kids. Now, there is the question of whether an infertile couple in a stable relationship is morally obligated to adopt, since there's never any shortage of orphans and they would suffer far less in a loving family home than in an orphanage, which is something I'm wrestling with and don't have an answer for yet. But fortunately deciding on that can wait, since I'm not in any kind of stable long term relationship just yet. Thanks for these questions! They were fun to answer and a nice break from arguing about definitions like in the rest of this thread
Donnadogsoth Posted November 7, 2017 Posted November 7, 2017 For me, this has nothing to do with political punch and everything to do with what makes rational sense. You haven't actually made an argument here or explained a position. Morphology is a branch of biology that you seem to be dismissing on the basis that it's partially artificially sustained. But why exactly? It is still biology that we're talking about. Taking this into account, it seems there's no other reason to use the phrase 'biologically male' to describe a transwoman than propaganda, because so many people associate biology with what is real. I'm not accusing you of having that intent, but regardless of intent that is the effect of using that phrase. The fact you're trying to change an obvious truth like genetically derived phenotypes being the definitive markers of the biological really irritates me. Yes we can sew an extra couple of heads on (which is medically possible) and start barking on all fours and declaring our profound inner feelings, that does not make us biological Cerberuses. Stop trying to change the damned language. If you want to claim your metaphysical identity and dress and act accordingly, so be it, but I'll not have my words taken away from me. As to your following point, traditions change and evolve over time. They don't always change for the better, but giving into the nostalgic desire to return to better times is a dangerous temptation. There is no turning back the clock on culture or freezing it in place. History shows us this. Transition as a concept and the reevaluation of gender are deviations away from tradition, but please understand that these deviations are a response to old traditions becoming stifling and causing harm. When this happens, change is not only needful but inevitable. The change or decline of a culture if that's how you perceive it does not excuse bigotry. You are correct in that in that the 'anti-traditionalist' camp is associated with transsexuals, but who is really to blame for that if not the traditionalists themselves and the bigotry they cling to? Inability to compromise is a weakness. I don't believe you. We might revert to monarchies one day, or dictators. Liberal democracy with its increasing tolerance of, even appetite for, anti-traditionalist weirdness of every description is not necessarily the last word in politics or culture. Suppressed cultures can be revived—Confucianism is returning to China. Cultures can be frozen in time for thousands of years—look at Chinese history. And authoritarian governments like Russia can indeed “turn back the clock”.
JamiMacki Posted November 7, 2017 Author Posted November 7, 2017 3 hours ago, Donnadogsoth said: The fact you're trying to change an obvious truth like genetically derived phenotypes being the definitive markers of the biological really irritates me. Yes we can sew an extra couple of heads on (which is medically possible) and start barking on all fours and declaring our profound inner feelings, that does not make us biological Cerberuses. Stop trying to change the damned language. If you want to claim your metaphysical identity and dress and act accordingly, so be it, but I'll not have my words taken away from me. If you're getting irritated, it's probably time to change course or end the conversation. You're starting to assume my intentions and set me up as an ideological enemy, but I'm not taking words away from you or changing obvious truths. I think I understand why you're getting upset. You see something about the nature of biology that seems obvious to you, and are expecting that it should be equally obvious to me, so it's frustrating to be asked to explain this thing that you feel shouldn't need explaining. But I'd remind you that obviousness is subjective, and knowing this should mean there's really no cause to be upset. The reason I'm skeptical of the things you hold to be true is that to me, they seem to be stuck in the version of biology outlined in 1911. Is Richard Dawkins also changing obvious truths and taking away words by proposing the extended phenotype theory? Your cerberus example doesn't really hold water. The differences between stitching on an extra head and using hormones to activate body structure development already encoded in our genes is significant, especially if you consider the purpose of this being to match an already present aspect of biology in the brain of a trans person. 5 hours ago, Donnadogsoth said: I don't believe you. We might revert to monarchies one day, or dictators. Liberal democracy with its increasing tolerance of, even appetite for, anti-traditionalist weirdness of every description is not necessarily the last word in politics or culture. Suppressed cultures can be revived—Confucianism is returning to China. Cultures can be frozen in time for thousands of years—look at Chinese history. And authoritarian governments like Russia can indeed “turn back the clock”. Systems of politics and religion can be dug up and reused, but culture at large doesn't stay the same, and Chinese culture has never been frozen in time. The culture and traditions of the Song Dynasty for example are radically different from any period in B.C. China. Christian traditions might see a revival in the U.S. though do you really expect it will be the same as it was in the past? How far in the past? Will tolerance of slavery return with it as in biblical times? Will it come back with the medieval idea of divine right? Of course not. If it happens, it will be something new, made from the pieces of something old, influenced by modern thinking. And if part of that package comes with intolerance and oppression of deviants, then I reject it on moral grounds. A people can be judged by how they treat their freaks. I don't want to be put on a pedestal, which is where some on the left would place me, but it's far worse to be pushed to the fringes of society and outcasted, which is where the right is driving me based on ideas similar to your own. You have the causation backwards. The bigotry is not caused by trans people's association with the left. Rather, trans people are pushed to the left by the existence of right wing bigotry in the first place. It's self preservation.
Donnadogsoth Posted November 7, 2017 Posted November 7, 2017 Quote If you're getting irritated, it's probably time to change course or end the conversation. You're starting to assume my intentions and set me up as an ideological enemy, but I'm not taking words away from you or changing obvious truths. I think I understand why you're getting upset. You see something about the nature of biology that seems obvious to you, and are expecting that it should be equally obvious to me, so it's frustrating to be asked to explain this thing that you feel shouldn't need explaining. But I'd remind you that obviousness is subjective, and knowing this should mean there's really no cause to be upset. The reason I'm skeptical of the things you hold to be true is that to me, they seem to be stuck in the version of biology outlined in 1911. Is Richard Dawkins also changing obvious truths and taking away words by proposing the extended phenotype theory? Your cerberus example doesn't really hold water. The differences between stitching on an extra head and using hormones to activate body structure development already encoded in our genes is significant, especially if you consider the purpose of this being to match an already present aspect of biology in the brain of a trans person. Cerberus can have dog hormones to make it more doglike. It can have hormones to give it fur, and have ear and tooth and muzzle surgery to give it proper canines and the right profile. And a tail of course, that can be added. And then, it can have gene surgery to add dog-genes! It can even have brain surgery to remove its prefrontal cortices so it even thinks like a dog. Then it will be really biologically cerberusian, will it not? Systems of politics and religion can be dug up and reused, but culture at large doesn't stay the same, and Chinese culture has never been frozen in time. The culture and traditions of the Song Dynasty for example are radically different from any period in B.C. China. Christian traditions might see a revival in the U.S. though do you really expect it will be the same as it was in the past? How far in the past? Will tolerance of slavery return with it as in biblical times? Will it come back with the medieval idea of divine right? Of course not. If it happens, it will be something new, made from the pieces of something old, influenced by modern thinking. And if part of that package comes with intolerance and oppression of deviants, then I reject it on moral grounds. A people can be judged by how they treat their freaks. I don't want to be put on a pedestal, which is where some on the left would place me, but it's far worse to be pushed to the fringes of society and outcasted, which is where the right is driving me based on ideas similar to your own. You have the causation backwards. The bigotry is not caused by trans people's association with the left. Rather, trans people are pushed to the left by the existence of right wing bigotry in the first place. It's self preservation. Except you weren't talking about what dialect they spoke or the types of necklaces they wore at feast days or what colour they dyed their eggs, you're talking about that culture's response to deviants and freaks, as if that response cannot be “turned back” which of course it can. If rainbow people want to fit in and minimise the chances of a reactionary traditionalist backlash that will turn back the clock on society's toleration of them, they ought to find whatever it is that defines Western society (not democracy, not tolerance, not gender studies) and defend that. Make common cause with everyone they can to defend that thing, instead of joining with the hysterically anti-traditionalist liberal socialist Left, even if they are just joining by default. They should be smarter than that and avoid having the Right look at them and go “see, they're all pinkos after all.”
JamiMacki Posted November 7, 2017 Author Posted November 7, 2017 3 hours ago, Donnadogsoth said: Cerberus can have dog hormones to make it more doglike. It can have hormones to give it fur, and have ear and tooth and muzzle surgery to give it proper canines and the right profile. And a tail of course, that can be added. And then, it can have gene surgery to add dog-genes! It can even have brain surgery to remove its prefrontal cortices so it even thinks like a dog. Then it will be really biologically cerberusian, will it not? Let's dial back a bit and let me ask you this: For something to be biological, must is also be natural? Are these things synonymous? If I create a duck in a lab from scratch, is it not biologically a duck because it wasn't birthed naturally? 4 hours ago, Donnadogsoth said: If rainbow people want to fit in and minimise the chances of a reactionary traditionalist backlash that will turn back the clock on society's toleration of them, they ought to find whatever it is that defines Western society (not democracy, not tolerance, not gender studies) and defend that. Make common cause with everyone they can to defend that thing, instead of joining with the hysterically anti-traditionalist liberal socialist Left, even if they are just joining by default. They should be smarter than that and avoid having the Right look at them and go “see, they're all pinkos after all.” Have I made a mistake in assuming tyranny was off the table in this discussion? I suppose I should rephrase. What I meant to say was that you can't turn back the clock on culture in a free society. I've assumed our common cause was defending freedom from tyranny and oppression. In other words, your commitment to a free society should be of greater importance than your commitment to tradition, and if so, you must accept that what yesterday was deviant may become acceptable today. Talking about returning to a time when things were better and restoring tradition might seem quaint and appealing to some, namely white men, but for people like me and other minorities it's a threat. For lgbt, racial minorities, and women who value their personal liberty and equality, there is no time in western history we can look back on that's better than now.
Donnadogsoth Posted November 7, 2017 Posted November 7, 2017 49 minutes ago, JamiMacki said: Let's dial back a bit and let me ask you this: For something to be biological, must is also be natural? Are these things synonymous? If I create a duck in a lab from scratch, is it not biologically a duck because it wasn't birthed naturally? Have I made a mistake in assuming tyranny was off the table in this discussion? I suppose I should rephrase. What I meant to say was that you can't turn back the clock on culture in a free society. I've assumed our common cause was defending freedom from tyranny and oppression. In other words, your commitment to a free society should be of greater importance than your commitment to tradition, and if so, you must accept that what yesterday was deviant may become acceptable today. Talking about returning to a time when things were better and restoring tradition might seem quaint and appealing to some, namely white men, but for people like me and other minorities it's a threat. For lgbt, racial minorities, and women who value their personal liberty and equality, there is no time in western history we can look back on that's better than now. No, if we switch to "natural" you'll start saying that "human interference in the world is natural, too!" and so we need yet another word. There's always another word-change. Biological suffices to distinguish in this context from altered. Everybody knows what we mean. Interestingly enough there's no other place in the world where lgbt, racial minorities, and women would rather be than in the West. Why is that? The West has been extraordinarily generous in liberating these groups. Now instead of joining the goddamn to-hell-with-tradition Left with its history of culture wrecking and ignoring the megadeaths it is responsible for in the Twentieth Century, I encourage you, again, to ask what is it that defines Western civilization and defend that. If that is not defended, we will merely be bickering over which part of the corpse is the most succulent.
Siegfried von Walheim Posted November 7, 2017 Posted November 7, 2017 1 hour ago, JamiMacki said: Let's dial back a bit and let me ask you this: For something to be biological, must is also be natural? Are these things synonymous? If I create a duck in a lab from scratch, is it not biologically a duck because it wasn't birthed naturally? Have I made a mistake in assuming tyranny was off the table in this discussion? I suppose I should rephrase. What I meant to say was that you can't turn back the clock on culture in a free society. I've assumed our common cause was defending freedom from tyranny and oppression. In other words, your commitment to a free society should be of greater importance than your commitment to tradition, and if so, you must accept that what yesterday was deviant may become acceptable today. Talking about returning to a time when things were better and restoring tradition might seem quaint and appealing to some, namely white men, but for people like me and other minorities it's a threat. For lgbt, racial minorities, and women who value their personal liberty and equality, there is no time in western history we can look back on that's better than now. Historically women were the dominant force in the West; who raised the men of war, men of labor, and men of creation? Who said yea or nay to breeding with them? Even in the Ottoman Empire women ruled for centuries under the so-called "Rule of the Women" that lasted from the death of Sultan Suleiman "the Great" to...just about the fall of the Sultanate, I think. And that won't ever change. Society is built and sustained by mothers. Bad mothers make a bad society; good mothers a good society. Men are important too, but less so because they generally don't raise their own children much nor are they usually the ones that choose the women. The main and practical argument I have against transgenderism is that it makes it impossible to build and sustain a family; no woman desires a false man; nor man a false women; and those that do cannot breed with them. Therefore a man who struggles with his identity must realize he is and always will be a man. He can make himself less of a man or more of a man but a man nonetheless. Culturally I am a fence sitter; on one hand I understand the slippery slope, on the other I understand in a Free Society these deviancies are naturally punished because they cannot breed. Adopting counts only if there is abuse since abuse victims tend to make the majority of LGBTs for some reason. I think anyone who is against LGBT ought to know it is by suppressing LGBT that LGBT can genetically survive because they'd be compelled to "act normal", while if they act themselves they'd eventually run out. Personally and morally I only care insofar as how it affects the children of today and the future as well as the culture of today and tomorrow. I think so long as a man doesn't violate the NAP or UPB, he can do whatever he wants to himself and with consenting adults. I don't have anything against you, I don't mean to come off in any kind of negative way, I am simply stating what I believe and also my strong suggestion that you rethink what you are doing because practically speaking it is suicide. And also that I am annoyed by modern folks' underestimation of the historical power of women that used to be understood before feminism decided to white-wash it and pretend the patriarchy means anything other than "society ran by smart women who respect men". ADDED: I am personally interested in your experiences. On one hand I see them as a warning of what not to do, while on the other they might provide practical solutions to those that have crossed the Rubicon. I wouldn't be so confident that cultural attitudes will remain in stasis (or more precisely develop in the same pattern), nor would I call it "turning back the clock" should reactionary precepts become dominant again since technically speaking nothing new is under the Sun (culturally) since the Roman Empire had a similar thing go on albeit in slow motion. The best thing that can happen is that people recognize the past and make history instead of repeating it. I think the best thing for transfolks is to recognize the anti-evolutionary situation they're in and try to become healthy. Failing that, recognize the abnormality and transience of their situation and help those that appear to be going their path to go the better path of self-knowledge, therapy, and growth. To be clear, as I do not wish to be misunderstood as a bigot or whatever, I see you as having a mental disorder not as being evil or damned. You may have crossed the Rubicon but you can still do good for yourself and others' should you desire to (nor am I even sure I know what is best. Frankly I don't care enough to consider too hard but I do care enough to warn transfolk against imploding themselves like sheep off a cliff).
JamiMacki Posted November 8, 2017 Author Posted November 8, 2017 1 hour ago, Donnadogsoth said: Biological suffices to distinguish in this context from altered. Everybody knows what we mean. It doesn't suffice because in this case it's tautology. What is the purpose in saying my biological sex is biologically my sex? What a useless statement. My point is that everybody doesn't know what you mean by this, and it's not unreasonable to assume you are using the word biologically to instead mean what is real or actual. 1 hour ago, Donnadogsoth said: Interestingly enough there's no other place in the world where lgbt, racial minorities, and women would rather be than in the West. Why is that? The West has been extraordinarily generous in liberating these groups. Now instead of joining the goddamn to-hell-with-tradition Left with its history of culture wrecking and ignoring the megadeaths it is responsible for in the Twentieth Century, I encourage you, again, to ask what is it that defines Western civilization and defend that. If that is not defended, we will merely be bickering over which part of the corpse is the most succulent. We want to be in the west because of safety and freedom. The reasons we have safety and freedom are due to a mix of ideas from the left and the right. You have a strange use of the word generous here. Is allowing me to exist without targeted oppression based on my gender expression really "extraordinarily generous"? I'd simply call it moral progress. Are you trying to say that some aspect of right wing tradition must be vitally upheld above moral progress? What exactly is this cornerstone of Western Society that needs to be defended above all else? There's hardly any real consensus on the right. Ask people and you'll get different answers, such as the two parent family, the white race, the working class, Christian values, secularism, the constitution, capitalist prosperity, and on and on.
Donnadogsoth Posted November 8, 2017 Posted November 8, 2017 3 hours ago, JamiMacki said: It doesn't suffice because in this case it's tautology. What is the purpose in saying my biological sex is biologically my sex? What a useless statement. My point is that everybody doesn't know what you mean by this, and it's not unreasonable to assume you are using the word biologically to instead mean what is real or actual. We want to be in the west because of safety and freedom. The reasons we have safety and freedom are due to a mix of ideas from the left and the right. You have a strange use of the word generous here. Is allowing me to exist without targeted oppression based on my gender expression really "extraordinarily generous"? I'd simply call it moral progress. Are you trying to say that some aspect of right wing tradition must be vitally upheld above moral progress? What exactly is this cornerstone of Western Society that needs to be defended above all else? There's hardly any real consensus on the right. Ask people and you'll get different answers, such as the two parent family, the white race, the working class, Christian values, secularism, the constitution, capitalist prosperity, and on and on. Say to anyone "I know so-and-so, they're a transsexual. Their biological sex is male but their adopted sex is female." See if anyone doesn't know what you mean. What are safety and freedom based on? Presuming I am capable of living comfortably without either being the norm in my society, why should I promote "safety and freedom"?
JamiMacki Posted November 8, 2017 Author Posted November 8, 2017 21 minutes ago, Donnadogsoth said: Say to anyone "I know so-and-so, they're a transsexual. Their biological sex is male but their adopted sex is female." See if anyone doesn't know what you mean. What are safety and freedom based on? Presuming I am capable of living comfortably without either being the norm in my society, why should I promote "safety and freedom"? The splitting of sex and gender seems like a more elegant way of describing it with less problems, but ultimately those kind of semantics aren't worth arguing about further because I think ultimately you and I mean the same thing. What worries me is the consequences of the language you're using, and the emotional attachment that you seem to hold to these definitions. Namely, fueling the fire of trans hatred and validating the rejection of our identity. Danica Roem, a transwoman, just won an office seat in VA, and I encourage you to open your ears to what people are commenting on most frequently about it. There's very little political discussion and almost no objection to her actual politics, but a whole lot of rage and vitriol with people outraged over news articles referring to her as "she". If you were to say your quote to these people, they're going to understand it as they are just their biological sex, and perceive "adopted sex" as some bs you just made up. It's ripe for the confusion of replacing the word biological with actual or real. The safety and freedom I'm referring to is a very specific kind, which you are for some reason ignoring to pose this question, but I'll try and give you an answer regardless. Safety and freedom as vague concepts don't need to be promoted directly, but rather they are manifestations of a basic collective moral value. In my specific case, the west has had the groundbreaking moral epiphany that maybe it might be wrong to murder someone for being trans, and is even waking up to the idea that it might be morally questionable to try and force a trans person to conform, or to make their lives so miserable via ostracization and stigmatization that they'd rather just kill themselves than continue living. This makes the west the best place on earth to live in, such as it is, but even here there are many who would want to take the latter away from us, and some even want to take away the former.
Donnadogsoth Posted November 8, 2017 Posted November 8, 2017 15 hours ago, JamiMacki said: The splitting of sex and gender seems like a more elegant way of describing it with less problems, but ultimately those kind of semantics aren't worth arguing about further because I think ultimately you and I mean the same thing. What worries me is the consequences of the language you're using, and the emotional attachment that you seem to hold to these definitions. Namely, fueling the fire of trans hatred and validating the rejection of our identity. Danica Roem, a transwoman, just won an office seat in VA, and I encourage you to open your ears to what people are commenting on most frequently about it. There's very little political discussion and almost no objection to her actual politics, but a whole lot of rage and vitriol with people outraged over news articles referring to her as "she". If you were to say your quote to these people, they're going to understand it as they are just their biological sex, and perceive "adopted sex" as some bs you just made up. It's ripe for the confusion of replacing the word biological with actual or real. The safety and freedom I'm referring to is a very specific kind, which you are for some reason ignoring to pose this question, but I'll try and give you an answer regardless. Safety and freedom as vague concepts don't need to be promoted directly, but rather they are manifestations of a basic collective moral value. In my specific case, the west has had the groundbreaking moral epiphany that maybe it might be wrong to murder someone for being trans, and is even waking up to the idea that it might be morally questionable to try and force a trans person to conform, or to make their lives so miserable via ostracization and stigmatization that they'd rather just kill themselves than continue living. This makes the west the best place on earth to live in, such as it is, but even here there are many who would want to take the latter away from us, and some even want to take away the former. The danger here I think lies in people unable to think in metaphysical terms. You're describing people who view transsexualism as part of an existential threat. How can we get people thinking in metaphysical terms? The same with your preference of freedom and safety: nice, but is it metaphysically necessary? Bill Warner talks about how the West is built on two core beliefs: critical thought and the golden rule. Critical thought comes from classical Greece. The Golden Rule comes from the ancient Hebrews. Both were united in Christianity whereby Christ as Logos ("idea, word, reason") embodied man made in the image of God, imago viva Dei, from whom the Holy Spirit flowed (agape, divine love, love of humanity). So men were called to be like Christ: reasonable and agapic, and the mode of this substance of being was developed with increasing fidelity through critical thought and the golden rule. From this we get the goal of happiness for all men, which is expressed in terms of freedom and safety. Would you agree with all this or, if not, how would you correct it? I think it is of capital importance to get the foundations of the West down before we can worry about the merits of the complaints of threats towards any particular group, or even of the majority attempting to identify a threat against itself from the percolating minorities.
JamiMacki Posted November 9, 2017 Author Posted November 9, 2017 On 11/7/2017 at 2:27 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said: Historically women were the dominant force in the West; who raised the men of war, men of labor, and men of creation? Who said yea or nay to breeding with them? Even in the Ottoman Empire women ruled for centuries under the so-called "Rule of the Women" that lasted from the death of Sultan Suleiman "the Great" to...just about the fall of the Sultanate, I think. And that won't ever change. Society is built and sustained by mothers. Bad mothers make a bad society; good mothers a good society. Men are important too, but less so because they generally don't raise their own children much nor are they usually the ones that choose the women. The main and practical argument I have against transgenderism is that it makes it impossible to build and sustain a family; no woman desires a false man; nor man a false women; and those that do cannot breed with them. Therefore a man who struggles with his identity must realize he is and always will be a man. He can make himself less of a man or more of a man but a man nonetheless. Culturally I am a fence sitter; on one hand I understand the slippery slope, on the other I understand in a Free Society these deviancies are naturally punished because they cannot breed. Adopting counts only if there is abuse since abuse victims tend to make the majority of LGBTs for some reason. I think anyone who is against LGBT ought to know it is by suppressing LGBT that LGBT can genetically survive because they'd be compelled to "act normal", while if they act themselves they'd eventually run out. Personally and morally I only care insofar as how it affects the children of today and the future as well as the culture of today and tomorrow. I think so long as a man doesn't violate the NAP or UPB, he can do whatever he wants to himself and with consenting adults. I don't have anything against you, I don't mean to come off in any kind of negative way, I am simply stating what I believe and also my strong suggestion that you rethink what you are doing because practically speaking it is suicide. And also that I am annoyed by modern folks' underestimation of the historical power of women that used to be understood before feminism decided to white-wash it and pretend the patriarchy means anything other than "society ran by smart women who respect men". ADDED: I am personally interested in your experiences. On one hand I see them as a warning of what not to do, while on the other they might provide practical solutions to those that have crossed the Rubicon. I wouldn't be so confident that cultural attitudes will remain in stasis (or more precisely develop in the same pattern), nor would I call it "turning back the clock" should reactionary precepts become dominant again since technically speaking nothing new is under the Sun (culturally) since the Roman Empire had a similar thing go on albeit in slow motion. The best thing that can happen is that people recognize the past and make history instead of repeating it. I think the best thing for transfolks is to recognize the anti-evolutionary situation they're in and try to become healthy. Failing that, recognize the abnormality and transience of their situation and help those that appear to be going their path to go the better path of self-knowledge, therapy, and growth. To be clear, as I do not wish to be misunderstood as a bigot or whatever, I see you as having a mental disorder not as being evil or damned. You may have crossed the Rubicon but you can still do good for yourself and others' should you desire to (nor am I even sure I know what is best. Frankly I don't care enough to consider too hard but I do care enough to warn transfolk against imploding themselves like sheep off a cliff). I see in just about every line of what you've said something that's factually false, uninformed, misguided, or potentially harmful. It makes it very difficult to unpack since explaining the folly of something often takes much greater effort than it does to state the folly. I'll do my best to focus on the most important bits. About the fall of Rome and bad mothering: Your view seems to mirror Stefan's pretty precisely so a response to his seems like a sufficient response to yours. I'll present the lovely Shaun and Jen on youtube to counter that more thoroughly than I could in this format. On 11/7/2017 at 2:27 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said: The main and practical argument I have against transgenderism is that it makes it impossible to build and sustain a family; no woman desires a false man; nor man a false women; and those that do cannot breed with them. Therefore a man who struggles with his identity must realize he is and always will be a man. He can make himself less of a man or more of a man but a man nonetheless. Since this is apparently your main argument I'll focus on this. You seem to be making a false assumption that being transgender is something you do, when it's something you are. The "false man/woman" description is nothing more than your opinion, and idea that it's impossible to sustain a family as a transgender person is simply nonsensical, and will inevitably lead you to the no true Scotsman fallacy in trying to defend it, because you're simply redefining family to suit your purposes. To your last point, how can someone be always a man while at the same time be able to become less or more of one? Is there some kind of point system to manhood that you've created? Your entire argument here is invalid because all of your premises are either false, or simply your preferences for how these words should be defined. On 11/7/2017 at 2:27 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said: Culturally I am a fence sitter; on one hand I understand the slippery slope, on the other I understand in a Free Society these deviancies are naturally punished because they cannot breed. Adopting counts only if there is abuse since abuse victims tend to make the majority of LGBTs for some reason. I'd just like to point out it's very likely you are imagining the causality backwards. "For some reason" LGBT people are abuse victims more often than the general population. Are you considering the possibility that it simply means people are more likely to abuse someone who's LGBT? I have seen studies that deal with this topic but I'm too short on time at the moment to go searching for it. If I find one I'll edit this post and put it here. On 11/7/2017 at 2:27 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said: I don't have anything against you, I don't mean to come off in any kind of negative way, I am simply stating what I believe and also my strong suggestion that you rethink what you are doing because practically speaking it is suicide. I consider your views here and the rest of your comments the result of a breeding obsessed headspace. Just because you consider the passing on of one's genes the highest purpose, doesn't mean it must be for everyone else. Some people are infertile, and some fertile people simply choose not to reproduce. Calling this suicide is just dishonest wordplay. If human beings are individuals, then the idea of living on through your offspring is fanciful and comforting, yet false. Have as many children as you like, but at the end of our lives you and I will be just as dead as the other. As for having anything against me, I don't believe you. I think you're probably a kind hearted person and may have some amount of compassion for me or empathy, but that amounts to very little when the ideas you hold are harmful and destructive. Intent does matter and I appreciate your compassion, but consequences matter more. You recognize that there is an issue, and are critiquing my solution without offering a viable alternative. And not only that, you're talking favorably about people like me being eliminated from the gene pool. The main reason you can come up with in support of my transition is that it means I'll likely die without proliferating my genes? Really? If down the road, circumstances changed for the worse and eugenics was once again on the table, why should I trust that someone who thinks like you wouldn't be fully permissive of my being tossed in a gas chamber?
Siegfried von Walheim Posted November 11, 2017 Posted November 11, 2017 (edited) On 11/9/2017 at 5:21 PM, JamiMacki said: I see in just about every line of what you've said something that's factually false, uninformed, misguided, or potentially harmful. It makes it very difficult to unpack since explaining the folly of something often takes much greater effort than it does to state the folly. I'll do my best to focus on the most important bits. Please specify. Quote About the fall of Rome and bad mothering: Your view seems to mirror Stefan's pretty precisely so a response to his seems like a sufficient response to yours. I'll present the lovely Shaun and Jen on youtube to counter that more thoroughly than I could in this format. I'll be sure to at least watch a little. I didn't before making this response; I apologize, I was tired when i first read this and forgot. EDIT: I've listened to the first 3 minutes: he's already mis-characterizing Stefpai and mis-characterizing his arguments. I'll keep listening and re-listen to the Fall of Rome, but keep in mind I'm already skeptical of his criticism of the Big Stefpai-sama. EDIT 2: 10 minutes in. Finally some critiquing although mis-characterizations and character assassinations (can a brother get a "taken out of context"???) make me highly suspicious. I suspect he intends, as he stated he does not intend, to mislead the audience. "Who am I kidding..." he said afterwards. I'll keep listening but to say I'm suspicious of his intent and character is an understatement. EDIT 3: This was a rather long hit piece that was pedantic--focused on either mis-characterizing Stefpai or focusing on small bits where he may have mixed a word with another in a sentence, to downright bashing him as a "woman hater"... among other things. I won't bother trying to critique a bad critique. Anyone who wants to listen can click the link above. Post Watching: what's the point of the video? It hasn't discredited Stefpai's argument that moral decay was a huge problem for Rome. While I have used him to cite the rise of women (in a bad sense) on occassion, I think it should be obvious that women have always ruled civilized society because... who raises the warriors, the talkers, the thinkers, the laborers, and the creators? Good women generally make good men and more good women; bad women the reverse. Quote Since this is apparently your main argument I'll focus on this. You seem to be making a false assumption that being transgender is something you do, when it's something you are. The "false man/woman" description is nothing more than your opinion, and idea that it's impossible to sustain a family as a transgender person is simply nonsensical, and will inevitably lead you to the no true Scotsman fallacy in trying to defend it, because you're simply redefining family to suit your purposes. To your last point, how can someone be always a man while at the same time be able to become less or more of one? Is there some kind of point system to manhood that you've created? Your entire argument here is invalid because all of your premises are either false, or simply your preferences for how these words should be defined. Well, we are free to act. If I felt or thought myself a woman, I am free to choose what I do from that point on. Manhood: Penis-wielder. Womanhood: vagina-wielder. Masculine: brave, integral, forthright. Feminine: caring, empathetic, composed. Some overlap as well as some subjectivity, but I don't think it matters to my argument since I don't care to define man or woman because the genitals between our legs suffice. I do not deny the possibility of a man with a womanly brain or mindset; just that a man could become a woman. Especially a biologically functional (i.e. reproductive) woman. If he could, then a sex change could actually be treated as a true changing of the gender. Otherwise it's merely bodily mutilation. Quote I'd just like to point out it's very likely you are imagining the causality backwards. "For some reason" LGBT people are abuse victims more often than the general population. Are you considering the possibility that it simply means people are more likely to abuse someone who's LGBT? I have seen studies that deal with this topic but I'm too short on time at the moment to go searching for it. If I find one I'll edit this post and put it here. I dunno. Maybe some LGBTers were "that way" and were abused for being "that way" while others became "that way" as a result of abuse. The order of causality is not unimportant, just beyond my knowledge. On one hand I know abuse tends to repeat, on the other someone must trigger the inclination to abuse in the first place. Of course free will is what establishes and breaks the cycle. Quote I consider your views here and the rest of your comments the result of a breeding obsessed headspace. Just because you consider the passing on of one's genes the highest purpose, doesn't mean it must be for everyone else. Some people are infertile, and some fertile people simply choose not to reproduce. Calling this suicide is just dishonest wordplay. If human beings are individuals, then the idea of living on through your offspring is fanciful and comforting, yet false. Have as many children as you like, but at the end of our lives you and I will be just as dead as the other. Well if a man isn't having kids he's practically a waste of space. I mean, there's not much pointing to living beyond mere bodily pleasures without the intention of making babies to both enjoy the good aspects of life as well as inherit the accumulated wealth of knowledge and materials of myself and my future wife. I don't care if a man does XYZ so long as he doesn't harm others, in particular future or existing children. Therefore if a gay man wishes to never have children, I simply do not factor him in any political or moral decision because he'll cease to be a factor upon death. Quote As for having anything against me, I don't believe you. I think you're probably a kind hearted person and may have some amount of compassion for me or empathy, but that amounts to very little when the ideas you hold are harmful and destructive. Intent does matter and I appreciate your compassion, but consequences matter more. You recognize that there is an issue, and are critiquing my solution without offering a viable alternative... My solution is to either: (for someone before the Rubicon) seek therapy and attempt to become a good father/mother in spite of being born or made crippled (or perhaps work with the altering--like if a man has a truly feminine brain, then perhaps he should act as the mother and a masculine woman should be the father--I don't know but I think someone involved ought to learn this for himself), or if past the Rubicon, seek to warn others from crossing and spend your life either in the clergy helping people, or doing as you please so long as you don't harm anyone. Quote ...And not only that, you're talking favorably about people like me being eliminated from the gene pool. The main reason you can come up with in support of my transition is that it means I'll likely die without proliferating my genes? Really? If down the road, circumstances changed for the worse and eugenics was once again on the table... Quote Well genetically you are crippled. I obviously want people to be born healthy. I don't care about homosexuality or other forms of mild disability (well mild is subjective--blindness, nearsightedness, or frailty is much easier I imagine to work with than being totally unattracted to the opposite sex but either way you're still a fully functional human being) but I do recognize it as a disadvantage, therefore the less the better. However I am not in support of you self-mutilating and self-harming. It's not evil since you aren't harming anyone (else), however it is hardly kind to support someone stabbing himself. Therefore if LGBTs decide to embrace their LGBTs and cut themselves off from the future, then they are a non-factor doomed to self-extinction. On the other hand if they seek help and try to actually invest in the future beyond themselves their genes will live on but they'll be productive members of society. I have said I am fence-sitter. Largely because I think from the outside it's a self-correcting problem. From the inside it's obviously much more difficult. Quote ... why should I trust that someone who thinks like you wouldn't be fully permissive of my being tossed in a gas chamber? Because I'd be thrown in with you for not being radically against you. I'm a fence-sitter, not a left-wing extremist. I appreciate being called kind-hearted and good-intended, however I'd rather you actually take my warnings and solutions seriously instead of simply as antagonistic or oppositional. However, I repeat, I am ambivalent. I care only so far as it affects me and my children's' future. Edited November 11, 2017 by Siegfried von Walheim Worried about losing progress therefore posted prematurely
JamiMacki Posted November 14, 2017 Author Posted November 14, 2017 On 11/10/2017 at 4:33 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said: Post Watching: what's the point of the video? It hasn't discredited Stefpai's argument that moral decay was a huge problem for Rome. While I have used him to cite the rise of women (in a bad sense) on occassion, I think it should be obvious that women have always ruled civilized society because... who raises the warriors, the talkers, the thinkers, the laborers, and the creators? Good women generally make good men and more good women; bad women the reverse. His main point was that if you ignore the vast time span that the Roman empire existed within, and the complexity that entails, you can cherry pick just about anything as the cause of Rome's fall and they're all equally valid. The fall of Rome is not reducible to any one factor. About moral decline specifically, Shaun describes how there is no point in Roman history that you can point to and say, "Ah yes, at this time period Rome was moral". Rather, Rome at many points of its history had people exactly like you, who complain of moral decline and point backward to some time when things were better, but this time never truly existed. It's just the power of nostalgia. On 11/10/2017 at 4:33 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said: Well, we are free to act. If I felt or thought myself a woman, I am free to choose what I do from that point on. Manhood: Penis-wielder. Womanhood: vagina-wielder. Masculine: brave, integral, forthright. Feminine: caring, empathetic, composed. Some overlap as well as some subjectivity, but I don't think it matters to my argument since I don't care to define man or woman because the genitals between our legs suffice. I do not deny the possibility of a man with a womanly brain or mindset; just that a man could become a woman. Especially a biologically functional (i.e. reproductive) woman. If he could, then a sex change could actually be treated as a true changing of the gender. Otherwise it's merely bodily mutilation. What is mutilation? Piercing your ears? Getting a tattoo? Removing a tumor? The way you're using it is just pointless hyperbole. I've already discussed the nature of sex and gender at length with Donnadogsoth in this thread. A more full explanation is in that conversation, but here is something to consider: In having the brain structure that I do, I'm a transgender woman. Whether or not I transition or live as a man changes nothing about what I am in that regard. In the formation of a metaphysical identity, what do you suppose has a greater impact? A penis or the brain? On 11/10/2017 at 4:33 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said: Well if a man isn't having kids he's practically a waste of space. I mean, there's not much pointing to living beyond mere bodily pleasures without the intention of making babies to both enjoy the good aspects of life as well as inherit the accumulated wealth of knowledge and materials of myself and my future wife. I don't care if a man does XYZ so long as he doesn't harm others, in particular future or existing children. Therefore if a gay man wishes to never have children, I simply do not factor him in any political or moral decision because he'll cease to be a factor upon death. Isaac Newton, George Washington, Beethoven, Vivaldi? Wastes of space all of them, apparently. You are simply proving my point about a breeding obsessed mindset. You apparently cannot imagine a world with purpose outside of parenthood, but that doesn't mean the rest of us can't. And what does it mean when you say you don't factor in a childless man (or gay man as you put it, though I'm not sure why the specificity) in moral decisions? You are starting to sound like a dangerously immoral individual. This is no excuse to factor someone out of morality. On 11/10/2017 at 4:33 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said: My solution is to either: (for someone before the Rubicon) seek therapy and attempt to become a good father/mother in spite of being born or made crippled (or perhaps work with the altering--like if a man has a truly feminine brain, then perhaps he should act as the mother and a masculine woman should be the father--I don't know but I think someone involved ought to learn this for himself), or if past the Rubicon, seek to warn others from crossing and spend your life either in the clergy helping people, or doing as you please so long as you don't harm anyone. I'm assuming by Rubicon you mean transition? Your solution is like recommending sugar pills in place of antibiotics when someone is dying of an infection. I'm assuming you aren't trans and don't really have a stake in this issue, so I wouldn't expect you to be aware of the data/research on this topic. But I would expect you to be aware of your own ignorance and avoid telling people what to do without having a clue what outcome your advice would lead to. Here is some evidence in favor of transition. Where is yours? On 11/10/2017 at 4:33 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said: Well genetically you are crippled. I obviously want people to be born healthy. I don't care about homosexuality or other forms of mild disability (well mild is subjective--blindness, nearsightedness, or frailty is much easier I imagine to work with than being totally unattracted to the opposite sex but either way you're still a fully functional human being) but I do recognize it as a disadvantage, therefore the less the better. However I am not in support of you self-mutilating and self-harming. It's not evil since you aren't harming anyone (else), however it is hardly kind to support someone stabbing himself. Therefore if LGBTs decide to embrace their LGBTs and cut themselves off from the future, then they are a non-factor doomed to self-extinction. On the other hand if they seek help and try to actually invest in the future beyond themselves their genes will live on but they'll be productive members of society. I have said I am fence-sitter. Largely because I think from the outside it's a self-correcting problem. From the inside it's obviously much more difficult. You are not a fence sitter if you're advocating your position to be the truth. You've hurled yourself a hundred feet opposite the fence to me. Unless you're talking about fence sitting on the issue of whether or not I should be forced to conform/exterminated or allowed to live as I choose. If that's the fence you're sitting on then let me know and I'll end this conversation. The rest of what you've said here is really nothing more than reiterating your belief that proliferating your individual genes is the only worthwhile purpose in this world, and I don't want to spend any more time on this. This is a completely subjective assertion. You do you. On 11/10/2017 at 4:33 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said: Because I'd be thrown in with you for not being radically against you. I'm a fence-sitter, not a left-wing extremist. I appreciate being called kind-hearted and good-intended, however I'd rather you actually take my warnings and solutions seriously instead of simply as antagonistic or oppositional. However, I repeat, I am ambivalent. I care only so far as it affects me and my children's' future. Did you mean right-wing extremist? Or do you think it's the left-wing radicals most likely to roll out the gas chambers for trans people? That's fairly amusing. Whether you realize it or not, you are being antagonistic by recommending something that would be blatantly harmful to me. I'm better off now as a result of transition, so my own experience invalidates your claims, and the data invalidates your solutions as well. If your wife had cancer and a man came to her trying to convince her that she should buy into homeopathic quackery instead of modern medicine, you should rightly accuse this person of being a morally reprehensible and dangerous charlatan. It doesn't matter if he has good intentions and believes 100% that his cures work. They don't, and if your wife believes him and ends up suffering for it, then he does take a lion's share of the blame. How do you think you would respond to the charlatan if that happened? On 11/8/2017 at 8:26 AM, Donnadogsoth said: The danger here I think lies in people unable to think in metaphysical terms. You're describing people who view transsexualism as part of an existential threat. How can we get people thinking in metaphysical terms? The same with your preference of freedom and safety: nice, but is it metaphysically necessary? Bill Warner talks about how the West is built on two core beliefs: critical thought and the golden rule. Critical thought comes from classical Greece. The Golden Rule comes from the ancient Hebrews. Both were united in Christianity whereby Christ as Logos ("idea, word, reason") embodied man made in the image of God, imago viva Dei, from whom the Holy Spirit flowed (agape, divine love, love of humanity). So men were called to be like Christ: reasonable and agapic, and the mode of this substance of being was developed with increasing fidelity through critical thought and the golden rule. From this we get the goal of happiness for all men, which is expressed in terms of freedom and safety. Would you agree with all this or, if not, how would you correct it? I think it is of capital importance to get the foundations of the West down before we can worry about the merits of the complaints of threats towards any particular group, or even of the majority attempting to identify a threat against itself from the percolating minorities. I'm skeptical of any attempts to reduce an entire culture to any two specific beliefs, but I don't know. I looked up Bill Warner and tried to find where he discussed the things you're talking about so I can get a better understanding where you're coming from, but I couldn't find it. Just a lot of anti-islamic arguments and books. The belief that all life has value in western thought does seem to have its origins with Hebrew and Christian thinkers, but these groups are far from the only one's to have come up with this idea. Is the difference in the west in combining this with Greek critical thought? I don't know, maybe? It would be a very difficult thing to prove or falsify. Why is this different from selecting any other combination of things that only the west seems to have?
Donnadogsoth Posted November 14, 2017 Posted November 14, 2017 33 minutes ago, JamiMacki said: I'm skeptical of any attempts to reduce an entire culture to any two specific beliefs, but I don't know. I looked up Bill Warner and tried to find where he discussed the things you're talking about so I can get a better understanding where you're coming from, but I couldn't find it. Just a lot of anti-islamic arguments and books. The belief that all life has value in western thought does seem to have its origins with Hebrew and Christian thinkers, but these groups are far from the only one's to have come up with this idea. Is the difference in the west in combining this with Greek critical thought? I don't know, maybe? It would be a very difficult thing to prove or falsify. Why is this different from selecting any other combination of things that only the west seems to have? Nevertheless, the West is defined by Christ as Logos and the Holy Spirit flowing from him. In other words, Christianity assimilating Greek thought was no accident, but was where the Logos found its more full expression. Logos and Agape are the glories of the West. Other civilisations partake of them, because all people have them to some degree, they form the inner conscience and the faculty of discovery, but the West put these ideas into practice like no other through their relatively high degree of assimilation of Christianity. Minus Logos and Agape and we are not worthy to exist, and Providence will soon erase us. Bill Warner PhD: A Civilizational Manifesto
Siegfried von Walheim Posted November 15, 2017 Posted November 15, 2017 3 hours ago, JamiMacki said: His main point was that if you ignore the vast time span that the Roman empire existed within, and the complexity that entails, you can cherry pick just about anything as the cause of Rome's fall and they're all equally valid. The fall of Rome is not reducible to any one factor. About moral decline specifically, Shaun describes how there is no point in Roman history that you can point to and say, "Ah yes, at this time period Rome was moral". Rather, Rome at many points of its history had people exactly like you, who complain of moral decline and point backward to some time when things were better, but this time never truly existed. It's just the power of nostalgia. Except Stefpai didn't pinpoint only 1 or 2 causes but rather a whole mess of them coalescing at once to cause a slow breakdown over time. In every time in every place, the deeds of men remain the same. A motto for the anime Legend of the Galactic Heroes, and a very true one in many ways. The problems may change, but no age is truly and perfectly golden. A problem will always exist, most likely. I'd prefer to have to worry about X than Y, but I have Y to deal with at the moment and the Y that Stefpai focuses on is worse, I think, than the X that some other countries have to worry about. However they may both be trumped by the historical Z. 3 hours ago, JamiMacki said: What is mutilation? Piercing your ears? Getting a tattoo? Removing a tumor? The way you're using it is just pointless hyperbole. Castration is a pretty good example. 3 hours ago, JamiMacki said: I've already discussed the nature of sex and gender at length with Donnadogsoth in this thread. A more full explanation is in that conversation, but here is something to consider: In having the brain structure that I do, I'm a transgender woman. Whether or not I transition or live as a man changes nothing about what I am in that regard. In the formation of a metaphysical identity, what do you suppose has a greater impact? A penis or the brain? Do you mean what has a greater impact in determining what someone thinks they are? I guess the brain since it can be deluded to think just about anything. I don't care about perceived identity though; I care about what is true and what isn't. 3 hours ago, JamiMacki said: Isaac Newton, George Washington, Beethoven, Vivaldi? Wastes of space all of them, apparently. You are simply proving my point about a breeding obsessed mindset. You apparently cannot imagine a world with purpose outside of parenthood, but that doesn't mean the rest of us can't. George Washington is horrible man. For more I suggest Stef's Truth About George Washington. I don't know about the others, beyond one being a scientist, one musician, and...I don't know who Vivaldi is. In the long term culture is made of people, and the people of tomorrow are made by the people of today. I don't know what this "breeding obsessed mindset" comment is supposed to mean since it sounds like you are mis-characterizing me. I know people tend to be best when raised well; and bad when raised bad. Since I am a libertarian of sorts, I only care about people's private affairs when their affect either me or my progeny. Most homosexuals that are true to themselves won't be raising children and therefore don't matter in the long run. They won't be alive to vote on whether my future grandson fights some pointless war in the Middle East, for example. They could influence the culture negatively, but that's not a result of their sexuality but of their...well, their preaching, their arguments, their actions. That I'd have a problem with if they're bad. Ideas transcend time. 3 hours ago, JamiMacki said: And what does it mean when you say you don't factor in a childless man (or gay man as you put it, though I'm not sure why the specificity) in moral decisions? You are starting to sound like a dangerously immoral individual. This is no excuse to factor someone out of morality. Because unless he was an influential intellectual, speaker, or whatever of sorts he won't have any influence in the long run. I don't factor the r selected in what society will look like when in an environment of scarcity/K-dom for example because they won't breed much and therefore have the power to significantly influence it. I said gay man because gay men can't have kids unless they force themselves too. Childless counts too I suppose. Maybe the context in which I said it was with a gay man involved as an example. However the point is mainly in terms of culture and political power; if you don't exist, you don't matter. People cease to exist after death unless they left behind a powerful idea or have descendants to carry their standards. I don't care much about LGBT because it'll cease to exist once everyone who is LGBT stops breeding and raising children. ...However I think this has more to do with politics than morality. Morality is morality. Being gay doesn't exclude someone from being protected/obligated to morality, it just means they'll cease to be a factor upon death whereas those that are remembered or have kids will have a strong influence on the coming generations. Especially in a voting society. 3 hours ago, JamiMacki said: I'm assuming by Rubicon you mean transition? Your solution is like recommending sugar pills in place of antibiotics when someone is dying of an infection. I'm assuming you aren't trans and don't really have a stake in this issue, so I wouldn't expect you to be aware of the data/research on this topic. But I would expect you to be aware of your own ignorance and avoid telling people what to do without having a clue what outcome your advice would lead to. Here is some evidence in favor of transition. Where is yours? I don't care enough. I read something to do with "wellness" but as Donna said--would a doctor recommend sawing off a leg or an arm if it improved the "wellness" of the patient? If so, then he's an immoral quack. My solution is recognizing what is true from what is flattery and appeasement. What can be practically done versus what can be indulged to simulate having one's impossible desires met. 3 hours ago, JamiMacki said: You are not a fence sitter if you're advocating your position to be the truth. You've hurled yourself a hundred feet opposite the fence to me. Unless you're talking about fence sitting on the issue of whether or not I should be forced to conform/exterminated or allowed to live as I choose. If that's the fence you're sitting on then let me know and I'll end this conversation. The fence is between whether you and other LGBTs are crazy beyond redemption (and therefore cannot be treated as moral agents and require carers like the retarded and the elderly) or whether LGBTs are like normal people but with special kinks (in which case LGBT pursuing identity politics is like me pursuing Albino Lovers Pride--special snowflake syndrome, unless of course there are legitimate threats like death or physical pain or threats thereoff in which case it makes sense to identify those that actually are threatening people for being abnormal and mentally sick rather than tolerant or considerate of them). 3 hours ago, JamiMacki said: The rest of what you've said here is really nothing more than reiterating your belief that proliferating your individual genes is the only worthwhile purpose in this world, and I don't want to spend any more time on this. This is a completely subjective assertion. You do you. Did you mean right-wing extremist? Or do you think it's the left-wing radicals most likely to roll out the gas chambers for trans people? That's fairly amusing. National Socialism ? Fascism, which is an outgrowth of Socialism? Considering how similar they are to the Communists, they are best characterized as Leftists just like them. The Far Right are AnCaps and Libertarians--the pro-individual and pro-free will against the anti-individual and deterministic. 3 hours ago, JamiMacki said: Whether you realize it or not, you are being antagonistic by recommending something that would be blatantly harmful to me. What is harmful about recognizing you are ill and seeking help? Maybe to your preconceptions but not to yourself. 3 hours ago, JamiMacki said: I'm better off now as a result of transition, so my own experience invalidates your claims, and the data invalidates your solutions as well. How do you measure being "better off"? You're completely sterile and marriageable. It's like me saying I'm better off for having my arms and legs lopped off! 3 hours ago, JamiMacki said: If your wife had cancer and a man came to her trying to convince her that she should buy into homeopathic quackery instead of modern medicine, you should rightly accuse this person of being a morally reprehensible and dangerous charlatan. It doesn't matter if he has good intentions and believes 100% that his cures work. They don't, and if your wife believes him and ends up suffering for it, then he does take a lion's share of the blame. How do you think you would respond to the charlatan if that happened? Are you comparing your penis to cancer? Or a tumor? I doubt I'll be able to convince you how far gone you've gotten but I hope the conversations between you-me and you-Donna illuminate people on how some LGBTs think of their disorder.
JamiMacki Posted November 16, 2017 Author Posted November 16, 2017 23 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said: Are you comparing your penis to cancer? Or a tumor? The specific comparison is unimportant. Replace cancer with anything that reduces well-being. The point that you are evading here is that you are like the charlatan in this story, providing recommendations that impact peoples well-being from a place of ignorance. You know no more about this topic than a homeopathic shaman knows about pharmacology, and the real world results of your suggestion has similar efficacy, so it's utter madness to believe you have all the answers for what a trans person ought to do. Would it surprise you to learn that I consider my physical transition more or less complete without a single surgery? The last stats I saw, only about 1/3 of trans people have any intention of ever getting genital surgery. So, while it's helpful for some, it's not a crucial aspect of transition in any regard. But I digress. 23 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said: I don't care enough. I read something to do with "wellness" but as Donna said--would a doctor recommend sawing off a leg or an arm if it improved the "wellness" of the patient? If so, then he's an immoral quack. My solution is recognizing what is true from what is flattery and appeasement. What can be practically done versus what can be indulged to simulate having one's impossible desires met. I think with this said, It's best if I check out of this conversation, because it isn't one. If you're just going to ignore any data I present and sidestep any points I make because you don't care then we aren't conversing, you're just preaching. I'll leave you with a final point about LGBT individuals dying out from the gene pool because we don't breed as much. Fat chance. It exists in many species today, and may well have existed throughout the history of mammalian evolution and even far beyond. If natural selection hasn't eliminated it from the gene pool by now, how many more generations do you think it'll take? Even if it's much more recent than I'm proposing, the amount of time it would take would still be enormous, to the point where humanity would have advanced so far into the future that it would barely be comprehensible to us. That's assuming there is a gay gene or trans gene at all, and the causes aren't something more complex. If that's the case, then it's possible natural selection may never have any impact on it. No matter what, we're going to be around for your entire life at minimum, and it's preferable that we learn to live with each other. Which unfortunately seems like you staying away from me and visa versa. I can only hope your future children aren't gay or gender dysphoric.
Worlok Posted November 16, 2017 Posted November 16, 2017 Trans people are moronic because... Men and women are scientifically defined by the purpose of their separate parts. This 'not all' nonsense is based on the idea that if one of your parts is broken or not working as designed, then you are't defined as having that part. Like saying a car isn't a care because you slashed the tires or shot a hole in the engine. There are only two sexes in science. You can be one or both. Male, female, hermaphrodite. If you don't know which you are, you can refer to all the scientific aspects that define that and you WILL come to a conclusion of one of them. Transgenderism has to do with identity. As anybody making a complete joke out of trans people has shown, nobody at all cares how you identify and identifying as an attack helicopter doesn't mean you can fly... Not all attack helicopters? Anyway... Free speech. I can call a woman "bro," "dude," or "sir." If I know she dislikes it, that makes me a jerk, but I still have that right. If you prefer a certain pronoun, let people know. They will call you that pronoun out of respect for you. OR they have no respect for what they consider absurd and it has nothing to do with respect. Then you have the option to respect their opinion of trans pronouns. Communication is key to communication. You shouldn't be offended by somebody using the wrong pronoun unless they explicitly express that they are disrespecting you and not your absurd ideas. But then, people tend to get offended when you dislike something that they like as if it were a personal attack. If you want to... You can cut off your junk and get surgery. Get some fake boobs. Your money, your doctor, your body, your life. It doesn't change you sex. You just identify with stuff that isn't real.
JamiMacki Posted November 17, 2017 Author Posted November 17, 2017 On 11/14/2017 at 1:41 PM, Donnadogsoth said: Nevertheless, the West is defined by Christ as Logos and the Holy Spirit flowing from him. In other words, Christianity assimilating Greek thought was no accident, but was where the Logos found its more full expression. Logos and Agape are the glories of the West. Other civilisations partake of them, because all people have them to some degree, they form the inner conscience and the faculty of discovery, but the West put these ideas into practice like no other through their relatively high degree of assimilation of Christianity. Minus Logos and Agape and we are not worthy to exist, and Providence will soon erase us. Bill Warner PhD: A Civilizational Manifesto I can tell by the language you're using that this is something you're passionate about, but I think a bit more clarity and less aphorism would serve us better here. So if you'll allow me to paraphrase: The critical thinking methods that Socrates laid the foundations for, coupled with the belief that all life has value are the primary basic principles we should each submit to before having a conversation. Is this fair? How would you edit this into your own words? As is, this is something I can embrace. And having done so, what impact does this have on our conversation? Have I said anything that is now inconsistent with these basic principles?
Donnadogsoth Posted November 18, 2017 Posted November 18, 2017 On 11/16/2017 at 7:37 PM, JamiMacki said: I can tell by the language you're using that this is something you're passionate about, but I think a bit more clarity and less aphorism would serve us better here. So if you'll allow me to paraphrase: The critical thinking methods that Socrates laid the foundations for, coupled with the belief that all life has value are the primary basic principles we should each submit to before having a conversation. Is this fair? How would you edit this into your own words? As is, this is something I can embrace. And having done so, what impact does this have on our conversation? Have I said anything that is now inconsistent with these basic principles? I would have to emphasise that man is made in the mental image of God in a very real sense. It's not a metaphor. The Creative Potency that generated the Universe generated us, generated the principles we work with, and we are capable of following in Its footsteps, to “think God's thoughts after him” as Kepler once said. It's important to think of it this way in order to give us the proper sense of self-importance and dignity we merit, the reason reason and caring matters other than just being an animal reflex. We are the Gods on this planet, to the degree that we (a) reason in terms of principle, and (b) care for other human beings as sacred. So reason and agape are sacred in this sense. Through this we discover the universal principles by which we reorganise the world into being a more nurturing environment for ourselves, preventing collapse, war, and other ills. If we're dealing with people who don't want to reason such and/or don't care so, we're facing dangerous people—the morally insane! The morally insane can't be reasoned with because either they don't understand or they use the occasion for flippancy or the sadism of the kind common to Internet and other political discussions. Such people should be minimally contacted, just given the odd barb of wit where possible, but always playing for the undetermined audience, not with the intent of earnestly trying to convert the crazies. So, yes, it's wise to establish, or learn to detect, when people are principled in this way, before engaging them. Not always easy to do, sometimes it's tempting to just make a display of principled thought for the sake of “representing” in a battle, again, for the sake of the undetermined audience, in the hopes of irradiating them with rationality/agape. If we agree on the (a) and (b) given above, then the matter turns on the specific principle directly relevant to the issue of transsexuality: the principle of heterosexuality as such. Now, there are problems with this, because it's an ill-defined, hitherto “intuitively” defined thing in society, that few have questioned, but, now we're at the stage of questioning it because of certain anomalies that appear embedded in it, such as transsexualism and homosexuality, and so the question revolves around the question of whether or not these things are going to dissolve heterosexuality as the basis for the basic reproductive unit. In this you appear to agree that heterosexuality is a good, and that you wish to fit within it rather than destroy it. And not having transsexuals killing themselves or otherwise be wasted is a good thing. But, I'm not convinced the “movement” associated with transsexuals and other sexual and other minorities is not dead-opposed to the heterosexual paradigm and is dragging transsexuals along with it or brainwashing them into thinking their best interest lies in this movement to destroy Tradition—to destroy whiteness, to destroy Christianity, to destroy masculinity and heterosexuality, and to pervert, vandalise, destroy and scatter to the winds all the culture associated with these groups. This is a total culture war we're in and I would like to have the transsexuals on the right side of it. So, that's my reservation, that transsexualism as co-opted by the general cultural Marxist movement leads to things like this: https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/trans-man-believes-heterosexual-males-who-reject-him-sexually-are-prejudice
JamiMacki Posted November 18, 2017 Author Posted November 18, 2017 On 11/15/2017 at 6:17 PM, Worlok said: Trans people are moronic because... Men and women are scientifically defined by the purpose of their separate parts. This 'not all' nonsense is based on the idea that if one of your parts is broken or not working as designed, then you are't defined as having that part. Like saying a car isn't a care because you slashed the tires or shot a hole in the engine. There are only two sexes in science. You can be one or both. Male, female, hermaphrodite. If you don't know which you are, you can refer to all the scientific aspects that define that and you WILL come to a conclusion of one of them. Transgenderism has to do with identity. As anybody making a complete joke out of trans people has shown, nobody at all cares how you identify and identifying as an attack helicopter doesn't mean you can fly... Not all attack helicopters? Anyway... Free speech. I can call a woman "bro," "dude," or "sir." If I know she dislikes it, that makes me a jerk, but I still have that right. If you prefer a certain pronoun, let people know. They will call you that pronoun out of respect for you. OR they have no respect for what they consider absurd and it has nothing to do with respect. Then you have the option to respect their opinion of trans pronouns. Communication is key to communication. You shouldn't be offended by somebody using the wrong pronoun unless they explicitly express that they are disrespecting you and not your absurd ideas. But then, people tend to get offended when you dislike something that they like as if it were a personal attack. If you want to... You can cut off your junk and get surgery. Get some fake boobs. Your money, your doctor, your body, your life. It doesn't change you sex. You just identify with stuff that isn't real. Straight away calling me a moron is pretty bad form. As is using the phrase "nobody cares" in an argument for anything that people obviously care about. You're also writing this in the form of a response, but you haven't made it clear what arguments specifically that you're responding to, and it seems like you're tackling a strawman that you've built based on listening to the way people ridicule trans people. Is it too much to ask to allow yourself to be open to the possibility that you're wrong, rather than beginning by thinking you already have all the answers? If we both accept that mentality, then we can have a meaningful engagement of ideas where in the end everyone wins, because then we're both simply trying to figure out what's true, not who is right. I'm far from perfect but I'm honestly attempting to maintain this mentality, but I don't see the same effort from you, or many others in this thread. I do appreciate that you seem to respect science at least generally, but I think if you truly had a respect for it you'd be open to looking at what modern science is saying, instead of only the 30+ year old science that fits your world view. Your use of the word hermaphrodite betrays a terribly outdated concept of what sex is. A more up to date view recognizes that sex itself is somewhat nebulous and without any clear boundaries. Instead of two sexes and a hermaphrodite, we have two general trends and a huge amount of variance and overlap which make perfectly consistent categorization impossible. But I'll leave the exploration of that at your discretion. I'm not claiming to be sexually female. Although I would argue that changing some of the components of what defines a sex category (sex characteristics in my case), is actually changing your sex by logical necessity. I'm not changing my sex to female as such, rather more female-like, but it is changing nonetheless. Identity is what I'm more concerned about though. Again lets look at science, and this time I'll actually put in some leg-work for you. There's actually very strong evidence of a biological origin of gender identity. "Gender identity, sexual orientation ... are programmed into our brain during early development. There is no evidence that postnatal social environments have any crucial effect on gender identity or sexual orientation." (Swaab, Bao, 2013) "Gender-dependent differentiation of the brain has been detected at every level of organization -- morphological, neurochemical, and functional -- and has been shown to be primarily controlled by sex differences in gonadal steroid hormone levels during perinatal development." (Chung, Auger, 2013) "There is strong evidence that high concentrations of androgens lead to more male-typical behavior and that this also influences gender identity." ( Jürgensen, et al ) In summary, gender identity is an emergent property of the brain, and it's predictable based on how certain structures are formed. We know these structures are formed in the womb, and are controlled by androgen concentrations. We have no evidence to suggest this is something that can be changed later in life. Once developed it is set. In the case of a transgender person, there seems to be a genuine mismatch between primary sex characteristics and neurological phenotype. Those are the facts. If you still want to talk about identifying as an attack helicopter, please show me your rotary blades and missiles and then we can talk about that as a valid comparison to gender. We are left with the question of what this means and why is it important. Surely you're thinking, even if I have this female neurology the rest of me (the majority) is anatomically and genetically male, so I'm a man right? Only if you define man as a person having majority male sex characteristics. But this doesn't accurately represent reality. The brain has a much greater impact on what you are, and by you I mean you: that which has the experience of consciousness and is aware. Whatever that truly is. So if I'm sexually male and neurologically female, the purpose of transition comes from acknowledging that the metaphysical manifestation of gender established by neurology is meaningful and can't be changed by any means we know of, that having a gender and sex that matches is a preferable state of existence, and so we change the things that can be changed to bring us closer to that point of harmony. Free speech and the pronoun situation is on a lower order of concern for me, because I think it resolves itself if we as a society come to a consensus on what is actually true about sex and gender, so that's what I prefer to focus on. Basically, by preferring to be called she, I'm not trying to deny any biological realities, manipulate, or fool you into anything, because I don't take it to mean that I'm sexually female. So don't be so damn pedantic about it.
Worlok Posted November 18, 2017 Posted November 18, 2017 1 hour ago, JamiMacki said: Straight away calling me a moron is pretty bad form. As is using the phrase "nobody cares" in an argument for anything that people obviously care about. You're also writing this in the form of a response, but you haven't made it clear what arguments specifically that you're responding to, and it seems like you're tackling a strawman that you've built based on listening to the way people ridicule trans people. Is it too much to ask to allow yourself to be open to the possibility that you're wrong, rather than beginning by thinking you already have all the answers? If we both accept that mentality, then we can have a meaningful engagement of ideas where in the end everyone wins, because then we're both simply trying to figure out what's true, not who is right. I'm far from perfect but I'm honestly attempting to maintain this mentality, but I don't see the same effort from you, or many others in this thread. I do appreciate that you seem to respect science at least generally, but I think if you truly had a respect for it you'd be open to looking at what modern science is saying, instead of only the 30+ year old science that fits your world view. Your use of the word hermaphrodite betrays a terribly outdated concept of what sex is. A more up to date view recognizes that sex itself is somewhat nebulous and without any clear boundaries. Instead of two sexes and a hermaphrodite, we have two general trends and a huge amount of variance and overlap which make perfectly consistent categorization impossible. But I'll leave the exploration of that at your discretion. I'm not claiming to be sexually female. Although I would argue that changing some of the components of what defines a sex category (sex characteristics in my case), is actually changing your sex by logical necessity. I'm not changing my sex to female as such, rather more female-like, but it is changing nonetheless. Identity is what I'm more concerned about though. Again lets look at science, and this time I'll actually put in some leg-work for you. There's actually very strong evidence of a biological origin of gender identity. "Gender identity, sexual orientation ... are programmed into our brain during early development. There is no evidence that postnatal social environments have any crucial effect on gender identity or sexual orientation." (Swaab, Bao, 2013) "Gender-dependent differentiation of the brain has been detected at every level of organization -- morphological, neurochemical, and functional -- and has been shown to be primarily controlled by sex differences in gonadal steroid hormone levels during perinatal development." (Chung, Auger, 2013) "There is strong evidence that high concentrations of androgens lead to more male-typical behavior and that this also influences gender identity." ( Jürgensen, et al ) In summary, gender identity is an emergent property of the brain, and it's predictable based on how certain structures are formed. We know these structures are formed in the womb, and are controlled by androgen concentrations. We have no evidence to suggest this is something that can be changed later in life. Once developed it is set. In the case of a transgender person, there seems to be a genuine mismatch between primary sex characteristics and neurological phenotype. Those are the facts. If you still want to talk about identifying as an attack helicopter, please show me your rotary blades and missiles and then we can talk about that as a valid comparison to gender. We are left with the question of what this means and why is it important. Surely you're thinking, even if I have this female neurology the rest of me (the majority) is anatomically and genetically male, so I'm a man right? Only if you define man as a person having majority male sex characteristics. But this doesn't accurately represent reality. The brain has a much greater impact on what you are, and by you I mean you: that which has the experience of consciousness and is aware. Whatever that truly is. So if I'm sexually male and neurologically female, the purpose of transition comes from acknowledging that the metaphysical manifestation of gender established by neurology is meaningful and can't be changed by any means we know of, that having a gender and sex that matches is a preferable state of existence, and so we change the things that can be changed to bring us closer to that point of harmony. Free speech and the pronoun situation is on a lower order of concern for me, because I think it resolves itself if we as a society come to a consensus on what is actually true about sex and gender, so that's what I prefer to focus on. Basically, by preferring to be called she, I'm not trying to deny any biological realities, manipulate, or fool you into anything, because I don't take it to mean that I'm sexually female. So don't be so damn pedantic about it. I said "moronic," not "moron." Everybody is moronic, and I was just explaining why trans people making this argument are. Not all trans people make the argument. Some make the argument that they "feel" like the opposite gender and identify with it, so they dress and act the way that they believe that gender. Just as a trans person can be trans without thinking that they literally are a different sex, a trans person can be extremely moronic with the opposite argument. I pointed out basic logic. There is nothing wrong about that. Has a penis or doesn't have a penis. Is/kind of is/is not. The current science that you like to pay attention to is different than other science that says otherwise. you pick and choose to suit yourself. You also like to make up bullcrap to suit your illusion. Sex is not complex and can be easily categorized. It is entirely an issue regarding how a species reproduces. In humans, and basically every other advanced species known to exist, there is the egg and the fertilizer. Humans are basically designed that a female has eggs and a male must fertilize said eggs. Some species are male and female and do both. Other species simply duplicate themselves in one of a bagillion different ways. Human reproduction is designed to function in one specific way. Male/female. Anything else is not a magical special gender. It is a screw up. Nature shat the bed. Tell me, what percentage of trans gender people are actually not within those two categories? What trans male or trans female doesn't have 99% of the design and functions of that sex? Is it 1%? 10%? Sex is entirely defined as a set of systems for the purpose of reproduction. Your brain does not fucking matter. It never has. You are trying to change the definitions to suit how you would like things to be. There is sex and there is gender. You are trying to suggest that there is no word to define what the sexes classically are defined as. Let's say that you are right about the definition of sex. Well, the only part that matters is the sex organs part. So, What is a person that has male sex organs. He isn't a man or male or whatever, What magical new bullshit word would you like to apply to define that person? This is literally newspeak. Like calling a leftist "liberal" or "progressive." Sex suddenly doesn't refer to sex, but to gender roles. Sex is not gender. If you want to argue gender roles, you can go tell all women to get back into the kitchen. Clearly, we are beyond gender roles. Women can do 10% of anything men can do (it's a partially a joke.) A female can want to shoot guns, and race monster trucks and all that, but she is still designed to have eggs and carry a baby. Sex is not WHO you are. Sex will never be who you are. Gender is who you are and who you perceive yourself to be. Instead of redefining sex and gender as two sides of the same coin, we can just stick with two coins because they have literally no dependence on one another. Women - have female sex organs 99.9999% of the time. Female sex organs and eggs function 99.999% of the time. Your brain does not affect you having female sex organs or if they function as designed. Men - Have male sex organs 99.9999% of the time. Male sex organs and sperm function 99.999% of the time. If you can't get an erection, you are still a man. If your sperm don't work, you are still a man. If your balls got chopped off because of testicular cancer, you are still a man. Your brain does not affect you having male sex organs or if they function as designed. Hermaphrodite - Has both or some sort of amalgamation of male and female sex organs that may or may not function properly and make up a retardedly low percentage of the population. Your brain does not affect your having whatever sex organs or if they function as designed. I used the words "hermaphrodite" and "retard." They are both offensive, but both have a clear definition and aren't magically untrue just because they offend you. I haven't found any explanations that might suggest they are wrong. Only newspeak and people's feelings. "Nobody cares" Anybody that isn't a moron or trying to pretend they don't know exactly what a person means when they say it... Virtually nobody cares. If a guy wants to wear a dress, virtually nobody cares. If you want to get a sex change, virtually nobody cares. The only people that really care are a small minority of bigots and people that entirely define their existence by superficial crap like genitalia or sexuality. "We're here, we're queer" - "Nobody cares, get out of the road." Trans people have a hard time because.... Wait for it.... They don't accept themselves for who they are. They are self hating and project that onto other people. Other people don't care. We aren't judging you. So long as you have the bits and pieces that we want to diddle, we don't care. People purposely change things about themselves that they don't like and thus find inferior to other options or things that they simply find inferior to other options. black girls wear weaves, women wear heels, people lose weight, people get education, people develop skills. All because they found that they can be better than they were. The issue is that some of this is constructive and healthy, while some of it is plain self-hate. We don't hate you. We don't think that you need to change. Trans people, gay people, minorities, etc. They project their own problems onto everybody else when the only people that have a problem with who they are are themselves. Get over yourself. Everybody else has. I pity people that do that stuff and I truly wish they would stop. What genitals do you have? Male, female or parts of both. I mean penis/testicles/sperm and vagina/uterus/ovaries/eggs. Which of those do you have? If you have an amalgamation of those 7, then you are a hermaphrodite because that's the definition. If you have parts, but not whole or all of one of those sets, you are still that sex. None of that has to do with who you are. It just has to do with which of the two only sexes are you.
JamiMacki Posted November 22, 2017 Author Posted November 22, 2017 On 11/18/2017 at 11:56 AM, Donnadogsoth said: I would have to emphasise that man is made in the mental image of God in a very real sense. It's not a metaphor. The Creative Potency that generated the Universe generated us, generated the principles we work with, and we are capable of following in Its footsteps, to “think God's thoughts after him” as Kepler once said. It's important to think of it this way in order to give us the proper sense of self-importance and dignity we merit, the reason reason and caring matters other than just being an animal reflex. We are the Gods on this planet, to the degree that we (a) reason in terms of principle, and (b) care for other human beings as sacred. So reason and agape are sacred in this sense. Through this we discover the universal principles by which we reorganise the world into being a more nurturing environment for ourselves, preventing collapse, war, and other ills. If we're dealing with people who don't want to reason such and/or don't care so, we're facing dangerous people—the morally insane! The morally insane can't be reasoned with because either they don't understand or they use the occasion for flippancy or the sadism of the kind common to Internet and other political discussions. Such people should be minimally contacted, just given the odd barb of wit where possible, but always playing for the undetermined audience, not with the intent of earnestly trying to convert the crazies. So, yes, it's wise to establish, or learn to detect, when people are principled in this way, before engaging them. Not always easy to do, sometimes it's tempting to just make a display of principled thought for the sake of “representing” in a battle, again, for the sake of the undetermined audience, in the hopes of irradiating them with rationality/agape. If we agree on the (a) and (b) given above, then the matter turns on the specific principle directly relevant to the issue of transsexuality: the principle of heterosexuality as such. Now, there are problems with this, because it's an ill-defined, hitherto “intuitively” defined thing in society, that few have questioned, but, now we're at the stage of questioning it because of certain anomalies that appear embedded in it, such as transsexualism and homosexuality, and so the question revolves around the question of whether or not these things are going to dissolve heterosexuality as the basis for the basic reproductive unit. In this you appear to agree that heterosexuality is a good, and that you wish to fit within it rather than destroy it. And not having transsexuals killing themselves or otherwise be wasted is a good thing. But, I'm not convinced the “movement” associated with transsexuals and other sexual and other minorities is not dead-opposed to the heterosexual paradigm and is dragging transsexuals along with it or brainwashing them into thinking their best interest lies in this movement to destroy Tradition—to destroy whiteness, to destroy Christianity, to destroy masculinity and heterosexuality, and to pervert, vandalise, destroy and scatter to the winds all the culture associated with these groups. This is a total culture war we're in and I would like to have the transsexuals on the right side of it. So, that's my reservation, that transsexualism as co-opted by the general cultural Marxist movement leads to things like this: https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/trans-man-believes-heterosexual-males-who-reject-him-sexually-are-prejudice I can't really agree that heterosexuality should ever be called a principle. I find the idea that homosexuality and transgender identity have the ability to dissolve the basic heterosexual reproductive unit completely absurd. In total, the entire LGBT spectrum makes up less than 2% of the population. A large portion of that is bisexual people who are still potentially suited for a heterosexual coupling, which leaves the rest of us even less than that. And it's very well documented at this point that sexual preference and trans identity are both innate properties of the individual based on biological makeup. The actual numbers are likely a bit higher than that, since there are still a decent amount of homosexual or trans people that are in denial and would lie on a survey, but I can't anticipate that being too high a number. Sheer numbers means heterosexuality will always be the dominant trend. Further, I don't believe that heterosexuality is "a good" since that would imply that all those who engage in it would be doing good, and that's simply untrue. A gay man and a trans woman would both make poor fathers if forced to take on the typical heterosexual male gender role in a family, and that is a real situation that occurs due to an excess in rigidity within the very tradition you're advocating I should defend. I'm an advocate for the western heteronormative tradition for heterosexual cisgender people. Which is LGBT lingo meaning a straight person who isn't trans ought to recognize the value in the nuclear family, and the traditions which make this possible such as the marriage pact, etc. What I feel the need to warn against is the tendency for members of a dominant tradition to ram said tradition down any and all nonconforming throats. As I said, the heterosexual western/Christian lifestyle does not suit a minority of people for reasons beyond their control, and attempting to exert pressure or force the issue is counter-intuitive and detrimental to the very tradition you're trying to promote. Effectively, wailing transphobic or homophobic vitriol makes you look like a fool, and don't think people don't notice which traditions the fools are citing to justify their bigotry. I'm not saying the left is in any better state. The most horrifying part about this LGBT debate between the Left and Right, is that the winner will be decided by whichever side manages to destroy itself first, not by which side has the best arguments. Here is the crucial thing that I wish the moderates and the right wing would understand. The only reason an LGBT "movement" exists is due to anti-lgbt hatefulness. In a vacuum, trans people and homosexuals have nowhere near enough in common to form a political group at all, even with just trans people by ourselves. The only reason we're together is that the hateful in our society are so ignorant that most of them can't even tell us apart, and therefore hate us equally and for the same reasons. The political right is constantly trying to pass laws and promote a culture that makes our lives a living hell, knowingly and deliberately. The day this stops is the day the LGBT movement collapses and splits in half, because fundamentally both homosexuality and transgender identity are apolitical qualities. Nothing more than biology, not ideology. If the right wants trans people on their side, the way to do that should be obvious. People like Siegfried Von Walheim and Worlok in this thread are evidence showing how difficult that will be though. From a viewing point without prejudice and even the slightest appreciation for the biological sciences of the past 20 years, they appear just as delusional if not more so than Zinnia Jones at her worst. And because I'm vaguely familiar with Zinnia I feel like I should defend her here even though I find myself disagreeing with her more often than not, because I can't really abide blatant transphobic hit pieces like that article you linked. I could go on about all the unscientific armchair psychology the author is doing but that would take a while and isn't the main point so I'll skip over that. If you agree with the author here, then it's likely you haven't considered the origins of this viewpoint. This claim that straight men who don't want to have sex with a trans woman with a dick are bigoted and transphobic is nothing but a strawman. A strawman unfortunately created originally by trans women themselves, who took a legitimate point and exploited it for vindictive purposes as a form of revenge against people who turned them down. And now people like your article author have spun it up and overblown it, happy to leave the original point undressed. I think it's somewhat important so I'll break it down. A man is free to reject a trans woman because she's transgender, and there are good reasons to do so. If the trans woman has a penis and the man has a sexual preference for vaginas, or if a man is simply looking for a wife to start a family with and desires biological children, that's completely understandable and it's not those kinds of men we're talking about. If you find yourself attracted to a woman and then are suddenly no longer attracted after learning that she's transgender, it is worth taking a look in the mirror and honestly attempting to examine why that is. If you look inside yourself and truly find that it's one of the above reasons I mentioned or something similar, then you're golden. But more often than not the most dominant reason is that you simply find us disgusting. Not the individual obviously, since in this situation you found them quite attractive before, but knowing they are trans invokes an earlier prejudice that triggers a disgust response. This is the very definition of transphobia. It's a useful and very revealing thought experiment, especially considering the most common response is for the transphobic person to simply recite exactly their prejudices and try to pass them off as reality (which is always how prejudice is justified). As a side note, I'm extremely appreciative of your continued conversation and civility. Your perspective is an interesting one and very different from mine. I'm an atheist who's long been disillusioned with Christianity but who's been recently turned back onto it by Jordan Peterson. Not in the sense of believing literally in a supernatural divine entity or virgin births and resurrection (Nietzsche described how the nail ended up in that particular coffin), but in valuing at least most of its teachings and traditions as wisdom. Though I think to embrace it as a whole unquestioningly is simply madness, and there's simply no other rational way to take it than by looking at each piece of tradition and moral value critically on a case by case basis, which is quite a monumental task. I still have a few hangups about it, namely that the traditions seem to lead directly to the mistreatment of homosexuals and to misogyny/sexism, and by the combination of these things we get transphobia. On 11/18/2017 at 3:24 PM, Worlok said: Trans people have a hard time because.... Wait for it.... They don't accept themselves for who they are. They are self hating and project that onto other people. Other people don't care. We aren't judging you. So long as you have the bits and pieces that we want to diddle, we don't care. People purposely change things about themselves that they don't like and thus find inferior to other options or things that they simply find inferior to other options. black girls wear weaves, women wear heels, people lose weight, people get education, people develop skills. All because they found that they can be better than they were. The issue is that some of this is constructive and healthy, while some of it is plain self-hate. We don't hate you. We don't think that you need to change. Trans people, gay people, minorities, etc. They project their own problems onto everybody else when the only people that have a problem with who they are are themselves. Get over yourself. Everybody else has. I pity people that do that stuff and I truly wish they would stop. I don't hate you. I don't hate myself either. I think that you are prejudiced, uninformed about this topic, and have a tendency to go on incoherent rants only tangentially related to any arguments I've made, which makes you somewhat of a chore to have a conversation with, but I'm not angry about any of that or saying so out of some kind of spite. It's just an observation. I'm not actually sure if you're trying to speak to me directly or if you're simply speaking to the ether, because almost nothing about what you're saying makes any sense in the context of my initial reply or anything else I've said in this thread. Really the only point of disagreement that you've presented that can be intelligently discussed is your insistence that my brain doesn't matter. But you haven't presented any evidence to demonstrate this or any sort of coherent argument. I'm here to be challenged and have productive conversation and this is neither challenging nor productive. I'd be glad to discuss this further if you can provide some grain of evidence suggesting that gender identity doesn't exist or doesn't matter, but otherwise I'm out.
Donnadogsoth Posted November 23, 2017 Posted November 23, 2017 21 hours ago, JamiMacki said: I don't see why you would disagree with heterosexuality as a principle. The idea of complementary bodies and complementary minds marrying and producing offspring seems just about the pinnacle of creation. Is there any nobler pursuit? Pure mathematics maybe? Noting the existence of homosexuals, we should remove from their number the number of homosexuals who break down into a kind of pseudo-hetero pairing; the “butch and femme” stereotype which I think is a stereotype for a reason. And also remove the transsexuals who attempt to adhere as closely as possible to the hetero mould. So, heterosexuality is just about a universal concept, even down to most people not wanting to marry a clone (or a sibling) but someone somewhat different from themselves, and the existence of marriage as an institution which is based on the idea of a fruitful hetero union. I wouldn't be so sure that rainbow sexuality can't damage heterosexuality. Much of the homosexual interaction is toxic, for example the whole “cruise culture” and VD rates. Heteros are being “converted” to this kind of thing through computer “hook ups” and porn. From a distance the one scene looks very much like the other: entropic. Part of this comes from what the Catholic Church calls the “intrinsically disordered” nature of homosexual congress; the Sexual Revolution wasn't just a movement against prudishness, it represents a war on Nature—wait for surgical-grafting of multiple organs, incest, necrophilia, etc etc. The Traditionalism I have mentioned, though even most people involved in its defence don't know this, revolves around the principles that includes heterosexuality. Heterosexuality is a good in the way that blood is a good. Spill someone's blood and that blood isn't good anymore. All that said, there seems to be a popular view that rainbow people can be “talked out of it”. The best the Catholic Church can offer (as an alternative to suicide, we might imagine) is celibacy, to view the condition as a cross one must bear, in the hopes of glory in the next life. We are rather deep in the Fall at this point for this option to appeal to any more than a tiny minority. The fake conservative-Right, well, the sooner that implodes the better, just as the sooner the Left implodes the better. So, I'm hoping it all self-destructs and real conservatism wins, but an enlightened conservatism that is willing to not “make life hell” for the rainbow people. Pipe dreams? I'm not really interested in where the article was hosted or what the author says so much as Ms. Jones damning herself with her own words. The Sexual Revolution is not over by a mile, and it leads to Marcuse's “polymorphous perversity” including everything that is currently considered perverse being tolerated-then-normalised-then customary (how many young women are giving in to their pseuo-boyfriends' demands for anal sex in return for a hug or whatever?). We're dealing with the magnified spectre of De Sade, of total freedom, as the fallen human organism seeks total rejection of God. We're headed towards Sodom, in other words, and atheists or not we will feel the wrath of the Universe as it obliterates that which it has no need of. I can envison a time when heterosexuality is illegal, just as I can imagine a time when cisracialism (strictly marrying only within one's race) will be illegal. First these things will be marginalised, then condemned. Given the crap that's come down the pipe these past several decades, I put nothing past society, it is capable of anything, and history bears that out. So one day hetero men and women will be told it's politically correct to “examine” their sexuality and “question” and “experiment” and anyone who doesn't will be ostracised. I've noticed a toggle effect with transsexual visages. I've seen well-formed androgynous faces and when I think of one as a woman, I'm attracted, and when I think of that same one as a man, I'm repelled. This is very simple: I'm not just attracted to bodies as found objects but to the whole package of body and mind, a natural body and a natural mind. Odds are that won't be good enough for the Leftists, no way José. The disgust felt by the conservatives, including Leftists and Centrists who simply breathe through a straw while submerged in the dominant ideology, strikes me as arising from the idea of mutilation. Mutilation is disgusting: someone missing an ear or a nose or a hand is repulsive on that count, no matter how well we try to hide our disgust. Homosexuals are people with a mutilated sexuality, and transsexuals either mutilate the dress code or else themselves through transition surgery. This doesn't give us an excuse for beating them up or insulting them, but does explain the persistent antipathy they face that can mutate into hatred. The wounded animal is often prey. Is this fear? Fear of disease to self, disease to the tribe. And as forestated, this isn't an unfounded, irrational fear. I too appreciate the engagement; you must find the Internet as hostile as I do. I would recommend Jordan Peterson to anyone interested in religion, he's a positive force and brave, too. Taking Christianity bit by bit might be a bit misleading, through. One should look for the big Idea that the Bible and its associated works is trying to convey, something typified by how difficult Jesus's words were to collate and mentally grapple with. The sense that there is a Story being told, rather than just debating how snappy any given one-liner from Jesus is, has lead me to consider there are really two different Christianities, the literal one and the metaphorical one. I lead towards the latter (and hopefully I don't fall off the latter). This approach views the different Christian sects not as defining Christianity but as representing different disciplines of Christianity. Homosexuals, Bureaucrats And bullyboys Increase before Each fall into darkness --Frank Herbert
JamiMacki Posted November 25, 2017 Author Posted November 25, 2017 On 11/22/2017 at 8:14 PM, Donnadogsoth said: The most basic definition of heterosexuality is the attraction to people of the opposite sex, and you can extend that to encompass behaviors and traditions that manifest as an expression of that union, but to then call it a principle you are stretching the definition even further. You don't decide to be heterosexual, it's simply something you are. We've run into another issue of having two separate definitions, so I'll need you to define what you mean by heterosexuality. It seems as if you are equating heterosexuality to monogamous traditions and homosexuality to promiscuity and polyamory, but I'm fairly sure this is a mistake. The expression of heterosexual desires in their most natural form doesn't lead to the kind of monogamous relationships that you value, but rather it favors a kind of hierarchical polygamy with the most dominant male gathering many females as we see in the wild. By instituting marriage pacts and family values we aren't applying a heterosexual principle to our lives, but rather suppressing chaotic, instinctual desires through establishing a social order. I don't know what "cruise culture" is or what you mean by VD rates, but I can only assume it's related to promiscuity and lack of formal structure to relationships. As with most things, understanding the causes is important. Does homosexual attraction lead to this sort of behavior all on its own? Or is what we're seeing in the rainbow community simply a reflection of what human sexuality is like in chaos, without tradition and structure? I don't know for sure and I suspect it may be a mixture of both, yet vastly more weighted toward the latter. And if it is the latter, let's not discount how they ended up in that chaos. Inflexible and ornery traditionalists refuse to allow them to participate in tradition because a homosexual mimicry of the marriage covenant isn't "pure" enough for them, and so they are in chaos, and this is what you end up with. Anyways, back to the issue of principle. I don't think you should be using heterosexuality as the word for the principle you are espousing, because that word already has another meaning that's incompatible with what you want. The actual principle we're talking about is a kind of order, or sexual structure. On 11/22/2017 at 8:14 PM, Donnadogsoth said: All that said, there seems to be a popular view that rainbow people can be “talked out of it”. The best the Catholic Church can offer (as an alternative to suicide, we might imagine) is celibacy, to view the condition as a cross one must bear, in the hopes of glory in the next life. We are rather deep in the Fall at this point for this option to appeal to any more than a tiny minority. There are two ways to examine the idea of bearing a burden for gory in the next life. One is what I believe an ego-related belief that your consciousness will somehow persist after death in any meaningful way, which is insane and destructive, and another where we are living and suffering in order to build a better world for the next lives, the next generations of humans. I'm not a biblical scholar but I'm hoping the original intent of the bible was to impress upon us this latter desire. On 11/22/2017 at 8:14 PM, Donnadogsoth said: I'm not really interested in where the article was hosted or what the author says so much as Ms. Jones damning herself with her own words. I can't let you weasel away out of the sourcing issues so easily. If you want to critique her words directly you should do so directly, because when you view them in a framework like this you lose their proper context and replace them with an opposing, hostile one, and then you're prone to making mistakes in reasoning where you otherwise wouldn't. If you want to hold Zinnia up as an example of an ideological proponent of polymorphous perversity then provide a proper citation of her doing so. I don't see an example of this in the article you linked, because all she's done there is exactly what I just did in my previous post; encourage introspection. Your example of noticing a toggle effect may not be so simple as it first appears to you. There may be much left unexplored, and I suspect this because sexuality itself is very complex. For example, your summary hinges on the word natural. Do you believe the concept of naturalist sexual development has an innate, instinctual sway over your sexual preference? Or is this response informed by some kind of value or belief? The androgynous face is a good starting point for consideration but what about a situation where you have two identical female bodies that you consider attractive, and the mind is the same. One body developed naturally and the other required intervention such as hormones processed from soy. This isn't a situation where you are comparing a trans women to a more attractive cis woman, but one thing to a different version of itself, nearly identical in qualities aside from the process in which those qualities emerged. On 11/22/2017 at 8:14 PM, Donnadogsoth said: The disgust felt by the conservatives, including Leftists and Centrists who simply breathe through a straw while submerged in the dominant ideology, strikes me as arising from the idea of mutilation. Mutilation is disgusting: someone missing an ear or a nose or a hand is repulsive on that count, no matter how well we try to hide our disgust. Homosexuals are people with a mutilated sexuality, and transsexuals either mutilate the dress code or else themselves through transition surgery. This doesn't give us an excuse for beating them up or insulting them, but does explain the persistent antipathy they face that can mutate into hatred. The wounded animal is often prey. Is this fear? Fear of disease to self, disease to the tribe. And as forestated, this isn't an unfounded, irrational fear. This is plausible for some but it does run into the issue of inconsistency with what is and isn't considered mutilation. If a teenage cis girl has a hormone imbalance that's causing a stalled breast development, and HRT is used to kickstart her puberty, this draws many parallels to the situation of a trans girl but I've never seen it described as mutilation in the same way. This idea of trans people and homosexuals mutilating dress codes and sexuality seems far too abstract to be uninfluenced by belief structure. The question to be asked is why are these considered mutilations? This may be explained by the feminist idea of transmisogyny, which is the concept that there is an idea rooted in our belief systems that femaleness and femininity are of a lower hierarchical order to maleness and masculinity, and the former exists for the benefit of the latter. If you'd like to see an example of this rooted in tradition, simply go read Corinthians 14:34-35 If we accept that this is something that influences our thinking as culture, then the equation of transition to mutilation would be naturally rooted in this system. It would also explain why the outrage is so centered on trans women, while trans men are mostly ignored by the public at large. If you view gender through this lens and you view me as a man, then it follows that my transition toward femininity and femaleness is repulsive to you because I am lowering myself on a hierarchy instead of raising myself up. Conversely, the transition of a trans man is less upsetting, because it stands to reason that a female would want to be more male-like. I'm not discounting the subtle instinctual comparisons from surgery to wounds, from HRT to poison or disease. These are the things that make transphobia such a visceral experience, but I think these comparisons stem from belief structure, and the evidence of this is that once you change the belief structure, the visceral experience tends to vanish. On 11/22/2017 at 8:14 PM, Donnadogsoth said: Taking Christianity bit by bit might be a bit misleading, through. One should look for the big Idea that the Bible and its associated works is trying to convey, something typified by how difficult Jesus's words were to collate and mentally grapple with. The sense that there is a Story being told, rather than just debating how snappy any given one-liner from Jesus is, has lead me to consider there are really two different Christianities, the literal one and the metaphorical one. I lead towards the latter (and hopefully I don't fall off the latter). This approach views the different Christian sects not as defining Christianity but as representing different disciplines of Christianity. That's a good a point and I certainly agree we shouldn't be nitpicking quips and one-liners from Jesus and Moses. My Corinthians citation that I gave earlier is an example of exactly why we shouldn't engage in this. Though I think embracing the main idea, and embracing the bible as a whole are two separate things. We can view the big idea of it as one point, and the many specific pieces which our traditions are based on as other bits. I also think the big idea encompasses much more than the bible, but goes all the way back to the Akkadians/Sumerians/Assyrians and probably even further into pre-history. Lastly I want to address your portrayal of a war on nature as a bad thing. The context you used it in was in relation to your prediction of acceptance of deviant sexual practices, which makes me think of this is another example of an improper use of wording, as this is more accurately a war on order. Conversely, a war on nature is the essence of human progression, and this becomes clear if you recognize evolution via natural selection as the defining process in which our reality is based, and start applying that to thought processing. This leads us to the understanding that the natural world is one of endless death and horror, where creatures live in a near constant state of chaos and fear. The construction of our civilization is our race's greatest achievement, and the state of comfort it allows us where we can sit and have a discussion like this together is extremely unnatural. Certain branches of Judaism and Christianity take the concept of hell to simply mean a state of living without God, and I think this is a mind blowingly profound insight.
DustyOne Posted December 1, 2017 Posted December 1, 2017 How about a little science? What if it was discovered that most transgenderism is directly related to exposure to environmental contaminants? The BBC documentary is a bit more comprehensive. The Disappearing Male And this BBC Documentary from 1996. Assault on the Male
Donnadogsoth Posted December 3, 2017 Posted December 3, 2017 On 11/25/2017 at 2:34 PM, JamiMacki said: Suppressing chaos is what principles do. The general welfare principle suppresses the criminal chaos of the government existing for its own benefit. The principle of beauty suppresses the chaos of modern art. The principle of the star-map suppresses the chaos of the ocean as we find we are no longer lost. We discover these things, which are akin to Platonic forms, and we use them to reorder society. Hierarchical polygamy is the natural state of man as beast; monogamous heterosexuality is the natural state of man as man. Just as we have overcome slavery, so should we overcome polygamy. Promiscuity, lack of formal relational structure, yes, and this is most common in homosexual men. Lesbians tend to go the other way. This is the result of men being men; if women were as willing to have sex with men as men are with women, heterosexuals would be as promiscuous as homosexual man, and if men were as unwilling to have sex with women as women are with men, heterosexuals would be as sexually conservative as Lesbians. Your point about sexuality without tradition is taken. Yet the differences between men and women, regardless of sexuality, impose themselves on homosexual relationships causing disruption. Another example of this is in homosexual culture as such, which has the following problem. Heterosexuals can, if they choose, migrate to a social group of the same sex, which is mostly free of sexual tension. If they want to experience sexual tension they must enter a mixed sex or opposite sex group. Generally speaking, homosexuals cannot “hang out” with each other outside of sexual tension. If a homosexual wants a tensionless group he must hang out with women, but this has the problem that only one homosexual can attend, because the moment there are two or more, the tension returns. Homosexuals probably envy the heterosexuals' ability to easily move in social circles free of sexual tension, yet among their own sex. Quote There are two ways to examine the idea of bearing a burden for gory in the next life. One is what I believe an ego-related belief that your consciousness will somehow persist after death in any meaningful way, which is insane and destructive, and another where we are living and suffering in order to build a better world for the next lives, the next generations of humans. I'm not a biblical scholar but I'm hoping the original intent of the bible was to impress upon us this latter desire. You have nicely summed up the division in Christianity and in all religions and philosophies, one that causes me some trouble. The problem with dispensing with your first way, is that with it goes all hope of mercy and justice. If all there is is helping the future, then those lives lived in misery will never obtain recompense. Similarly, those crimes committed with impunity will never obtain vengeance. This is a demoralising loss to humanity, to think so, don't you think? Quote I can't let you weasel away out of the sourcing issues so easily. If you want to critique her words directly you should do so directly, because when you view them in a framework like this you lose their proper context and replace them with an opposing, hostile one, and then you're prone to making mistakes in reasoning where you otherwise wouldn't. If you want to hold Zinnia up as an example of an ideological proponent of polymorphous perversity then provide a proper citation of her doing so. I don't see an example of this in the article you linked, because all she's done there is exactly what I just did in my previous post; encourage introspection. As you like it: Zinni Jones in her glory Not just polymorphous perversity but sexual bullying by trying to induce heterosexual men into having relations with transsexual women. Quote Your example of noticing a toggle effect may not be so simple as it first appears to you. There may be much left unexplored, and I suspect this because sexuality itself is very complex. For example, your summary hinges on the word natural. Do you believe the concept of naturalist sexual development has an innate, instinctual sway over your sexual preference? Or is this response informed by some kind of value or belief?. . . Quote I'd have to say the latter, in that it allows me to recognise that which fits with the aforementioned Platonic form, and that which doesn't. Outside of that I could be tempted by what I might call “copies of copies”--an individual who is a copy of someone who conforms to the Form, but in the end I would resist as I would not be happy, anymore than if I were to fall for a biological girl who lacked the qualities of mind, more or less, that would unite us felicitously. Quote . . . The androgynous face is a good starting point for consideration but what about a situation where you have two identical female bodies that you consider attractive, and the mind is the same. One body developed naturally and the other required intervention such as hormones processed from soy. This isn't a situation where you are comparing a trans women to a more attractive cis woman, but one thing to a different version of itself, nearly identical in qualities aside from the process in which those qualities emerged. Or a thin girl versus a fat girl become thin? If in your example they're both biological females with a virtually identical mind, then it's a toss up. I'm not against orthodontics or plastic surgery, in principle. he disgust felt by the conservatives, including Leftists and Centrists who simply breathe through a straw while submerged in the dominant ideology, strikes me as arising from the idea of mutilation. Mutilation is disgusting: someone missing an ear or a nose or a hand is repulsive on that count, no matter how well we try to hide our disgust. Homosexuals are people with a mutilated sexuality, and transsexuals either mutilate the dress code or else themselves through transition surgery. This doesn't give us an excuse for beating them up or insulting them, but does explain the persistent antipathy they face that can mutate into hatred. The wounded animal is often prey. Is this fear? Fear of disease to self, disease to the tribe. And as forestated, this isn't an unfounded, irrational fear. Quote This is plausible for some but it does run into the issue of inconsistency with what is and isn't considered mutilation. If a teenage cis girl has a hormone imbalance that's causing a stalled breast development, and HRT is used to kickstart her puberty, this draws many parallels to the situation of a trans girl but I've never seen it described as mutilation in the same way. This idea of trans people and homosexuals mutilating dress codes and sexuality seems far too abstract to be uninfluenced by belief structure. The question to be asked is why are these considered mutilations? This may be explained by the feminist idea of transmisogyny, which is the concept that there is an idea rooted in our belief systems that femaleness and femininity are of a lower hierarchical order to maleness and masculinity, and the former exists for the benefit of the latter. If you'd like to see an example of this rooted in tradition, simply go read Corinthians 14:34-35 It doesn't matter whether it's a remedial therapy or not, it's what it looks like. Giving a biological girl breasts is like giving her braces. Similarly, administering chemotherapy to someone may (arguably) be helping them, but that “help” still looks like mutilation with hair falling out and horribly sick. A transsexual woman is defying the biology built into her body; her entire body is in a sense the enemy that needs to be wrestled into submission with medical procedures and drugs. That's a world away from helping a girl grow breasts. On men and women and hierarchies, the question isn't whether men are more dominant than women, it's what our response to that natural fact should be. The feminist response is to, depending on whether the given feminist is a pawn or a queen, either abolish the hierarchy or invert it. Their friends the Muslims would reinforce it and add polygamy back in. The conservative position would be the acknowledgement that men and women are different, that creating equality of opportunity is good but creating equality of outcome is not. This leads us to a situation such as I've heard about in Scandinavia, the most gender-equal place on Earth, where men still overwhelmingly make up engineering classes and women still overwhelmingly make up nursing classes. Quote If we accept that this is something that influences our thinking as culture, then the equation of transition to mutilation would be naturally rooted in this system. It would also explain why the outrage is so centered on trans women, while trans men are mostly ignored by the public at large. If you view gender through this lens and you view me as a man, then it follows that my transition toward femininity and femaleness is repulsive to you because I am lowering myself on a hierarchy instead of raising myself up. Conversely, the transition of a trans man is less upsetting, because it stands to reason that a female would want to be more male-like. Bingo. Emphasis added. I would not describe the hierarchy as being a better/worse, but just active/passive. A transwoman is taking on, symbolically, here, a passive persona, seen in impractical clothing choices like high heels or what have you, she's symbolically (and perhaps literally) depleting the tribe's warrior-base. Quote I'm not discounting the subtle instinctual comparisons from surgery to wounds, from HRT to poison or disease. These are the things that make transphobia such a visceral experience, but I think these comparisons stem from belief structure, and the evidence of this is that once you change the belief structure, the visceral experience tends to vanish. I think the great advantage transsexual have here is not feminism's critique of the sexual hierarchy, something which I think exists for natural reasons AND has a Platonic principles foundation to it that will and should resist attempts to sweep it away in favour of feminist New Soviet Man, but rather the medicalisation and bionic augmentation of the human body. As long as the heterosexual paradigm continues to define society, transsexualism will be seen as just another procedure, oh I'm taking drugs for this what are you taking drugs for?, oh I had my transition last year, does it show?, no, I'd've never guessed, keen, would you like some blue apple?, my husband raves about it. . . Quote That's a good a point and I certainly agree we shouldn't be nitpicking quips and one-liners from Jesus and Moses. My Corinthians citation that I gave earlier is an example of exactly why we shouldn't engage in this. Though I think embracing the main idea, and embracing the bible as a whole are two separate things. We can view the big idea of it as one point, and the many specific pieces which our traditions are based on as other bits. I also think the big idea encompasses much more than the bible, but goes all the way back to the Akkadians/Sumerians/Assyrians and probably even further into pre-history. But it's written in the starsAnd every line in your palmWe are fools to make warOn our brothers in arms Quote Lastly I want to address your portrayal of a war on nature as a bad thing. The context you used it in was in relation to your prediction of acceptance of deviant sexual practices, which makes me think of this is another example of an improper use of wording, as this is more accurately a war on order. Conversely, a war on nature is the essence of human progression, and this becomes clear if you recognize evolution via natural selection as the defining process in which our reality is based, and start applying that to thought processing. This leads us to the understanding that the natural world is one of endless death and horror, where creatures live in a near constant state of chaos and fear. The construction of our civilization is our race's greatest achievement, and the state of comfort it allows us where we can sit and have a discussion like this together is extremely unnatural. Certain branches of Judaism and Christianity take the concept of hell to simply mean a state of living without God, and I think this is a mind blowingly profound insight. Of course we are at war with the entire Universe, which wants to degrade us and kills us, so yes we are at war with what Vladimir I. Vernasky called the Lithosphere, and the Biosphere which has supplanted it. Humanity's proper mission is to build and expand the Noösphere, the sphere of human cybernetic interaction which can and should extend infinitely into Outer Space. But this idea is taken by the so-called transhumanists to think that we should deform ourselves beyond all recognition in a quest for higher IQ and longer lifespans. This is where it gets dangerous, just as genetically modifying our food supply is dangerous. I don't believe we should have blue apples, for example, though we might have red apples with Vitamin B, or something. We should strive to preserve as much of the principled order as possible, including heterosexuality. We should not land on Mars and have three arms. I have a friend with whom I disagree about transsexuality. He thinks transsexuals are “delusional” about their mental sex, and I think they are metaphysically true. My question in general is, if transsexuals were correct in what they think they are, how could they possibly prove it more than they already do by acting and talking as they do?
JamiMacki Posted December 6, 2017 Author Posted December 6, 2017 On 12/1/2017 at 1:23 PM, DustyOne said: How about a little science? What if it was discovered that most transgenderism is directly related to exposure to environmental contaminants? The BBC documentary is a bit more comprehensive. The Disappearing Male And this BBC Documentary from 1996. Assault on the Male I've been insanely busy lately and I'm not sure when or if I can find the time to watch two full documentaries and hunt down the sources for each. I can say in the moment that I've heard people claim that transgenderism is caused by modern hormone treatments given to mothers during pregnancy, that it's caused by diet or chemicals in the water supply. But I've never seen any real evidence for this, only conjecture. If you wanna talk science I think you could save time by linking to peer reviewed research directly. Additionally, even if we could demonstrate one environmental cause, we haven't proven that it's the only cause. We already have a good idea of what biological conditions must be present to create a transgender person, but it seems likely there are a vast number of causes for these conditions. And though I haven't watched your videos, I'm wondering about the titles. Why are they "male" focused? There are just as many female-to-male trans people as the other way around. Your theory would need to account for both kinds to have much value. On 12/2/2017 at 4:33 PM, Donnadogsoth said: Your point about sexuality without tradition is taken. Yet the differences between men and women, regardless of sexuality, impose themselves on homosexual relationships causing disruption. Another example of this is in homosexual culture as such, which has the following problem. Heterosexuals can, if they choose, migrate to a social group of the same sex, which is mostly free of sexual tension. If they want to experience sexual tension they must enter a mixed sex or opposite sex group. Generally speaking, homosexuals cannot “hang out” with each other outside of sexual tension. If a homosexual wants a tensionless group he must hang out with women, but this has the problem that only one homosexual can attend, because the moment there are two or more, the tension returns. Homosexuals probably envy the heterosexuals' ability to easily move in social circles free of sexual tension, yet among their own sex. This seems plausible but I would need to see some data on this to accept it as fact. I don't personally have much of a problem with sexual tension despite some degree of bisexual attraction. My tendency is to fixate on one man, a boyfriend or potential boyfriend, and once that happens my desires for people who aren't that man are very diminished, my desire to appear attractive isn't as strong when he isn't involved, and flirtations from other sources just make me think of him. I never really thought of this as a gendered experience but more of a personality type that both men and women are capable of having. There should obviously be at least some cis homosexual men that share this mindset, just as there should be homosexual women who are ravenous and promiscuous. The trends you mention may exist but I do wonder to what extent. Are we talking about a case of 90% or 60%? The difference is meaningful. On 12/2/2017 at 4:33 PM, Donnadogsoth said: You have nicely summed up the division in Christianity and in all religions and philosophies, one that causes me some trouble. The problem with dispensing with your first way, is that with it goes all hope of mercy and justice. If all there is is helping the future, then those lives lived in misery will never obtain recompense. Similarly, those crimes committed with impunity will never obtain vengeance. This is a demoralising loss to humanity, to think so, don't you think? Absolutely, it's demoralizing. But if it is reality that lives lived in misery will never see justice, then it's something we have to accept. Once you adopt a logical framework of thinking and start using empiricism and skepticism, the only choice we have is to either accept these things or abandon reason. For example: try your absolute hardest to truly believe that the spirit of your great grandfather is standing invisibly next to you right now. So long as you remain logical and skeptical, it should be impossible. It's the same with the concept of afterlife and divine justice. On 12/2/2017 at 4:33 PM, Donnadogsoth said: Zinni Jones in her glory The link appears to be broken. On 12/2/2017 at 4:33 PM, Donnadogsoth said: Or a thin girl versus a fat girl become thin? If in your example they're both biological females with a virtually identical mind, then it's a toss up. I'm not against orthodontics or plastic surgery, in principle.... ...A transsexual woman is defying the biology built into her body; her entire body is in a sense the enemy that needs to be wrestled into submission with medical procedures and drugs. That's a world away from helping a girl grow breasts I don't see trans women as being significantly different enough from cis women that this comparison does not also apply to us to some extent. A cis woman trying to cure hirsuteness, stunted breasts, and imbalanced hormones is defying the biology built into her body ; these conditions are an enemy to be wrestled into submission with medicine and drugs. It is only a world away from a trans woman undergoing affirming care according to subjective perspective. It isn't the entire body either. If you took me pre-transition and lined me up next to a cis women with very slightly masculine features, then censored the breast and crotch areas, I believe you would find it quite the challenge to tell which is which. On 12/2/2017 at 4:33 PM, Donnadogsoth said: Bingo. Emphasis added. I would not describe the hierarchy as being a better/worse, but just active/passive. A transwoman is taking on, symbolically, here, a passive persona, seen in impractical clothing choices like high heels or what have you, she's symbolically (and perhaps literally) depleting the tribe's warrior-base. I accept your point. The equation is naturally rooted to a system that arose as a reflection of our natural tendencies. My issue is that it's irrational and undesirable, and should therefore be overcome, not embraced. Just as we attempt to do with rape, slavery, and all the other naturally coercive evils that cause harm and suffering in our society. On 12/2/2017 at 4:33 PM, Donnadogsoth said: On men and women and hierarchies, the question isn't whether men are more dominant than women, it's what our response to that natural fact should be. The feminist response is to, depending on whether the given feminist is a pawn or a queen, either abolish the hierarchy or invert it. Their friends the Muslims would reinforce it and add polygamy back in. The conservative position would be the acknowledgement that men and women are different, that creating equality of opportunity is good but creating equality of outcome is not. The issue is that all three positions tend to land at extreme points and all three are just as wrong as the other two. You might balk at this and say that your conservative position is the most reasonable, and it is, but I would argue that while this may be what you and many conservatives say, it is not the position that those that call themselves conservative act out in reality. I do wonder if and to what extent equality of opportunity can truly exist alongside a mindset of gendered superiority. That said, I don't believe our situation is quite as dire as most feminists claim. Evidence: here's a quote from an interesting meta-review study. "recent meta-analysis suggests that claims of gender bias in peer review “are no longer valid” (Ceci & Williams, 2011, p. 3,157). For example, if there is gender bias in review, we would expect double-blind conditions to increase acceptance rates for female authors. However, this is not the case (Blank, 1991). Nor are manuscripts by female authors disproportionately rejected at single-blind review journals such as Journal of Biogeography (Whittaker, 2008), Journal of the American Medical Association (Gilbert, Williams, & Lundberg, 1994), Nature Neuroscience (Nature Neuroscience, 2006), and Cortex (Valkonen & Brooks, 2011). Even when the quality of submissions is controlled for, manuscripts authored by women do not appear to be rejected at a higher rate than those authored by men (Borsuk et al., 2009)." On 12/2/2017 at 4:33 PM, Donnadogsoth said: I think the great advantage transsexual have here is not feminism's critique of the sexual hierarchy, something which I think exists for natural reasons AND has a Platonic principles foundation to it that will and should resist attempts to sweep it away in favour of feminist New Soviet Man, but rather the medicalisation and bionic augmentation of the human body. As long as the heterosexual paradigm continues to define society, transsexualism will be seen as just another procedure I'd be happy if this was one day the case. On the topic of transhumanism, I do think the study of gender dysphoria and gender identity is very pertinent and somewhat concerning to those ideas. If a female mind experiences significant discomfort in a male-developed body and visa versa, might we also expect significant discomfort with a human mind in a non-human body? Seeing that gender identity is not something we even notice that we have until it becomes mismatched, it seems very possible that there exists a similar need for a humans to have a perceptively human body, and that we wont feel the full effects of it until the mismatch exists. But this is just a worry. It doesn't logically follow that both circumstances must be the same necessarily, and I think if the technology does one day exist, it's inevitable that people will try it.
Donnadogsoth Posted December 9, 2017 Posted December 9, 2017 On 12/6/2017 at 3:44 PM, JamiMacki said: This seems plausible but I would need to see some data on this to accept it as fact. I don't personally have much of a problem with sexual tension despite some degree of bisexual attraction. My tendency is to fixate on one man, a boyfriend or potential boyfriend, and once that happens my desires for people who aren't that man are very diminished, my desire to appear attractive isn't as strong when he isn't involved, and flirtations from other sources just make me think of him. I never really thought of this as a gendered experience but more of a personality type that both men and women are capable of having. There should obviously be at least some cis homosexual men that share this mindset, just as there should be homosexual women who are ravenous and promiscuous. The trends you mention may exist but I do wonder to what extent. Are we talking about a case of 90% or 60%? The difference is meaningful. I mean that this tension must exist in general. I don't have any sociological statistics on it, but I'm confident it exists. Absolutely, it's demoralizing. But if it is reality that lives lived in misery will never see justice, then it's something we have to accept. Once you adopt a logical framework of thinking and start using empiricism and skepticism, the only choice we have is to either accept these things or abandon reason. For example: try your absolute hardest to truly believe that the spirit of your great grandfather is standing invisibly next to you right now. So long as you remain logical and skeptical, it should be impossible. It's the same with the concept of afterlife and divine justice. I disagree. Given than the mind enfolds the body and not vice versa, it is the mind that is primary, not the body. The body and other physical experiences are just elements in the mind. Which means that we are “standing invisibly” next to everyone that ever lived. Without ultimate justice and mercy my concern for man flags. If it all ends in death anyway then what was the point. . . The link appears to be broken. https://twitter.com/ZJemptv/status/881284028548173824?ref_src=twsrc^tfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitchy.com%2Fgregp-3534%2F2017%2F07%2F02%2Fits-part-of-her-body-trans-activist-tells-straight-guys-to-start-dating-trans-women%2F I don't see trans women as being significantly different enough from cis women that this comparison does not also apply to us to some extent. A cis woman trying to cure hirsuteness, stunted breasts, and imbalanced hormones is defying the biology built into her body ; these conditions are an enemy to be wrestled into submission with medicine and drugs. It is only a world away from a trans woman undergoing affirming care according to subjective perspective. It isn't the entire body either. If you took me pre-transition and lined me up next to a cis women with very slightly masculine features, then censored the breast and crotch areas, I believe you would find it quite the challenge to tell which is which. Defying her entire genetic code in terms of her ability to bear children and change it over to that of a begetter? Huge difference. It's more like a 90 year old trying to look 15. I accept your point. The equation is naturally rooted to a system that arose as a reflection of our natural tendencies. My issue is that it's irrational and undesirable, and should therefore be overcome, not embraced. Just as we attempt to do with rape, slavery, and all the other naturally coercive evils that cause harm and suffering in our society. Why is heterosexuality a coercive evil? You're telling me that males in traditional male roles and females in traditional female roles is equivalent to rape and slavery? The issue is that all three positions tend to land at extreme points and all three are just as wrong as the other two. You might balk at this and say that your conservative position is the most reasonable, and it is, but I would argue that while this may be what you and many conservatives say, it is not the position that those that call themselves conservative act out in reality. I do wonder if and to what extent equality of opportunity can truly exist alongside a mindset of gendered superiority. That said, I don't believe our situation is quite as dire as most feminists claim. Evidence: here's a quote from an interesting meta-review study. "recent meta-analysis suggests that claims of gender bias in peer review “are no longer valid” (Ceci & Williams, 2011, p. 3,157). For example, if there is gender bias in review, we would expect double-blind conditions to increase acceptance rates for female authors. However, this is not the case (Blank, 1991). Nor are manuscripts by female authors disproportionately rejected at single-blind review journals such as Journal of Biogeography(Whittaker, 2008), Journal of the American Medical Association (Gilbert, Williams, & Lundberg, 1994), Nature Neuroscience (Nature Neuroscience, 2006), and Cortex (Valkonen & Brooks, 2011). Even when the quality of submissions is controlled for, manuscripts authored by women do not appear to be rejected at a higher rate than those authored by men (Borsuk et al., 2009)." “Conservative” is a misleading word. Whenever someone identifies as a conservative, always ask them what they're conserving. The answer is usually nothing. I recall Camille Paglia talking about how in Italy a hundred years ago the men ruled their world and the women ruled their world and the two only slightly overlapped. I would hypothesise similarly that men and women a hundred years ago were happier (especially the women) than they are now. Do women REALLY want to be “just like men” and have the same responsibilities as men? Look at hookup culture, that sick and sorry thing, women today are treated like trash. Women like being used for sex and then dumped, it seems. Then they turn their embitterment back on men through more feminism. The further women get from heterosexuality as an active principle in their lives the more they will depend on government to sustain them and fight their battles for them. Is Daddy government a better solution to women's woes than Hubby? I'd be happy if this was one day the case. On the topic of transhumanism, I do think the study of gender dysphoria and gender identity is very pertinent and somewhat concerning to those ideas. If a female mind experiences significant discomfort in a male-developed body and visa versa, might we also expect significant discomfort with a human mind in a non-human body? Seeing that gender identity is not something we even notice that we have until it becomes mismatched, it seems very possible that there exists a similar need for a humans to have a perceptively human body, and that we wont feel the full effects of it until the mismatch exists. But this is just a worry. It doesn't logically follow that both circumstances must be the same necessarily, and I think if the technology does one day exist, it's inevitable that people will try it. A friend of mine talks about “transcendental degeneration,” the concept that the human body is the perfect form in the universe and that all other forms descend from or are degenerations of the human form. Man did not rise from ape, metaphysically speaking, ape descended from man. In this Platonic sense then the human mind is ideally adapted to the human body, though in some cases this isn't a perfect connection. Still it gives us the inkling of a “divine human form” that should not be deformed or mutilated.
DustyOne Posted December 10, 2017 Posted December 10, 2017 On 12/6/2017 at 2:44 PM, JamiMacki said: On 12/1/2017 at 2:23 PM, DustyOne said: How about a little science? What if it was discovered that most transgenderism is directly related to exposure to environmental contaminants? The BBC documentary is a bit more comprehensive. The Disappearing Male And this BBC Documentary from 1996. Assault on the Male I've been insanely busy lately and I'm not sure when or if I can find the time to watch two full documentaries and hunt down the sources for each. I can say in the moment that I've heard people claim that transgenderism is caused by modern hormone treatments given to mothers during pregnancy, that it's caused by diet or chemicals in the water supply. But I've never seen any real evidence for this, only conjecture. If you wanna talk science I think you could save time by linking to peer reviewed research directly. Additionally, even if we could demonstrate one environmental cause, we haven't proven that it's the only cause. We already have a good idea of what biological conditions must be present to create a transgender person, but it seems likely there are a vast number of causes for these conditions. And though I haven't watched your videos, I'm wondering about the titles. Why are they "male" focused? There are just as many female-to-male trans people as the other way around. Your theory would need to account for both kinds to have much value. The documentaries are pretty clear as to the sources. The "male focused" Titles are about the science and testing they were preforming at the time not with concern to the social ramifications of certain sexual demographics. I am sure there was a bit of hyperbole in the title creations for effect, though I am confident that similar conclusions for females could very well hold true. The documentaries do cover females with regards to increased cancer rates and obesity. My post was more about the 'what-if'. Would it change any choices you would make if you found that a high percentage of male feminization in current human biology was the direct result of specific environmental contaminants (estrogen mimickers)? I know for me that it's something I would definitely want to know before making any major life changing choices.
Recommended Posts