So, have we had the discussion as to whether the mindset of trans folks could be classified as a mental disorder? The Caitlyn Jenner thing makes this as good a time as any to bring it up, I suppose, if it hasn't been brought up before.
My cards on the table: I don't believe it is a mental disorder, in fact I'm arguing about it on Twitter with Gavin "King Douchebag" McInnis right now, but I started realizing I don't have any really solid reasons that I don't believe that, apart from wanting to support people I know are already in a tremendous amount of pain, and persecuted by so many. Also, I know seriously little about psychology in general. So, I'm not really a terrific person to be arguing this matter, but I'm doing it anyway, because I'm like that.
So... what are people's takes on this matter? And if this has been discussed, mods please either merge with the correct thread or delete as needed.
I don't have strong opinions about this because it's not really my place to have strong opinions about it, but since gender is a social construct it's impossible for a gender/sex mismatch to be a mental disorder, IMO.
I do think that the popular idea that some people are born into the "wrong" body is entirely socially programmed; you would have to believe in a soul or spirit that is generated separately from our material existence in order to think that one could innately have been misplaced into the wrong kind of body, and I don't believe in that (Cartesian duality, as our old friend what's-his-name would have pointed out). The mind is an emergent property of the body, and therefore the body you HAVE generated the mind you have. That said, people may be born with all kinds of physical traits or limitations that they find undesirable, and in general I am in no way opposed to surgery to alter those. I am simply opposed to our current social system which requires surgery and/or hormone treatment to alter sex before acknowledging a person as the gender they identify as.
It would be better if we could take a step or two back and formally recognize that sex and gender are not linked in any way beyond the link we have created with our collective imaginations and social structure, allowing people to treat sex and gender as two separate conditions.
That's entirely reasonable.
Nothing more to add than the implication that calling Trans* a mental disorder puts every other "long tail" behavior on the social construct scale in the same catagory. Which either stigmatizes everything not generally considered "normal", or renders the term "mental disorder" irrelevant.
A disorder? Maybe, using the actual definition of the word "disorder".
An illness? No.
I have also known people who have psychological disorders, particularly those which are typified by personality instability (ie. lacking a strong sense of "self"), who jumped on the idea that being transgender explained all their problems, and then becoming very, very bitter when transitioning did not solve them.
Keeping it classified as a disorder of some kind makes it easier for people who feel the need for a physical transition to pay for that. Don't really have opinions otherwise.
The disorder lays in the social relationship to the condition. I'm thinking it's similar to left-handedness in that regard. Always going to be a pain in the butt simply because most people aren't. But it can be a serious mess in a world that insists it's something that needs fixed.
I was discussing this with my mentor recently... what can be more brutal than mutilating your genitals?... for sure theres a very intense feeling or passion at play... castration on one hand has a lot at play with men with relation to family relationships (ever heard of castration compkex and oedipus?) and virilization of women i dont even know...
We concluded that its a hugely complex phenomena that can only be approached clinically, that is to say, on a case by case basis on a deep level... i wonder if there has been research like this? about said groupality
I think trans is kinda BS because I don't believe in sociological gender as something that has any value, only in physical sex whose relevance though minimal and limited in time is nonetheless there.
Ultimately it's equivalent to thinking that you're Napoleon.
That said, I don't care who someone thinks they are as long they don't try to coerce me to play along
Quote from: The Johnny on June 03, 2015, 05:54:11 PM
I was discussing this with my mentor recently... what can be more brutal than mutilating your genitals?... for sure theres a very intense feeling or passion at play... castration on one hand has a lot at play with men with relation to family relationships (ever heard of castration compkex and oedipus?) and virilization of women i dont even know...
We concluded that its a hugely complex phenomena that can only be approached clinically, that is to say, on a case by case basis on a deep level... i wonder if there has been research like this? about said groupality
When you talk about mutilating genitals, ie. surgery, you are talking about changing the physical appearance of sex, not about gender.
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 03, 2015, 06:29:43 PM
I think trans is kinda BS because I don't believe in sociological gender as something that has any value, only in physical sex whose relevance though minimal and limited in time is nonetheless there.
Ultimately it's equivalent to thinking that you're Napoleon.
That said, I don't care who someone thinks they are as long they don't try to coerce me to play along
So you think that gender pronouns and roles should be done away with altogether?
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 03, 2015, 06:34:32 PM
Quote from: The Johnny on June 03, 2015, 05:54:11 PM
I was discussing this with my mentor recently... what can be more brutal than mutilating your genitals?... for sure theres a very intense feeling or passion at play... castration on one hand has a lot at play with men with relation to family relationships (ever heard of castration compkex and oedipus?) and virilization of women i dont even know...
We concluded that its a hugely complex phenomena that can only be approached clinically, that is to say, on a case by case basis on a deep level... i wonder if there has been research like this? about said groupality
When you talk about mutilating genitals, ie. surgery, you are talking about changing the physical appearance of sex, not about gender.
Yeah i was talking about transexuals... i need to read more about ops original case, since i assumed it was transexual not transgender... bbl rereading thread.
Gender is an illusion of the mind, (and to a lesser extent a lie told by society). Not transgenderism mind you, gender itself as distinguished from sex.
Quote from: The Johnny on June 03, 2015, 06:40:13 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 03, 2015, 06:34:32 PM
Quote from: The Johnny on June 03, 2015, 05:54:11 PM
I was discussing this with my mentor recently... what can be more brutal than mutilating your genitals?... for sure theres a very intense feeling or passion at play... castration on one hand has a lot at play with men with relation to family relationships (ever heard of castration compkex and oedipus?) and virilization of women i dont even know...
We concluded that its a hugely complex phenomena that can only be approached clinically, that is to say, on a case by case basis on a deep level... i wonder if there has been research like this? about said groupality
When you talk about mutilating genitals, ie. surgery, you are talking about changing the physical appearance of sex, not about gender.
Yeah i was talking about transexuals... i need to read more about ops original case, since i assumed it was transexual not transgender... bbl rereading thread.
Transsexual at this point is kind of an outdated term. Transgender can mean people who have altered their body physically (through surgery or hormones or both) and those who haven't.
I'm definitely in the same boat as Nigel, and the more I thought about it the more I realized how fucked up it is to "require" that someone go through a surgical (or even hormonal, honestly) transition to be considered legitimate.
Everyone has pretty much said what I would've said, but I did just want to remind everyone of the time Mark Ames wounded Gavin McInnes' inner child (http://exiledonline.com/jim-goad-begs-mark-ames-answer-me-please-jim-goads-mother-responds-in-an-exiled-exclusive/):
QuoteI'm truly sorry that a 50-year-old theater-trained Confederate such as yourself has to run crying to a Canadian fashionista like Gavin McInnes, the biggest chickenshit who ever called himself a "white power" Confederate that Canada ever produced. Not sure if anyone remembers, but back in 2003, when Gavin was at the peak of his career, the New York Times quoted Gavin playing the "white power" hipster. And like the bad-assed "white power" Confederate Gavin is, the second his hipster stance turned into real controversy, a giant yellow stripe ran up his Canadian back as Gavin squealed "I'm just a hipster poseur! I didn't mean that white power stuff! I love The Nation magazine just as much as I love Pat Buchanan! I swear I'm just a fashion chickenshit who doesn't mean a single thing I say! I'm a pussy and a poseur, c'mon you guys!"
Here's how Gavin portrayed himself to the New York Times:
QuoteHe actually leans much further to the right than the Republican Party. His views are closer to a white supremacist's. "I love being white and I think it's something to be very proud of," he said. "I don't want our culture diluted. We need to close the borders now and let everyone assimilate to a Western, white, English-speaking way of life."
In an interview in The New York Press last year, Mr. McInnes's views came through in the coarse ethnic expressions he used in saying how pleased he was that most Williamsburg hipsters are white. As a result, he became the focus of a letter-writing campaign by a black reader. Vice apologized for Mr. McInnes's comments.
Welp, someone got upset–someone rich, of course, because suckup posers like Gavin only care if rich people don't appreciate his act. So at the first whiff of gunpowder, our Canadian Confederate emailed to the public one of the most shameful, embarassing mea culpas in the history of chickenshits: a long groveling letter to Gawker taking back all the edgy white power things he'd said: "No no no! Wait, I lost a client over saying something edgy! Tell everyone I didn't mean a thing!"
QuoteTHE EXILED PRESENTS: THE GAVIN MCINNES PLAYBOOK OF "WHITE POWER" DO'S & DON'TS!
DO: Shamelessly chicken out when you generate a single iota of real controversy, send a giant rambling knee-chattering letter to gossip site Gawker disowning everything vaguely dangerous you ever may have said that might be construed the wrong way, and to emphasize that you have no convictions or balls, send a self-debasing photo of yourself in a Speedo with your giant pussy backtracking apology letter, so that everyone will think you really are just a harmless poseur Canadian fashionista fraud, too harmless and middle-class to take your White Power stuff seriously;
DON'T: Talk White Power talk if you're just a pussy Canadian fashionista without the balls to follow through on what you started.
Quote from: Cainad (dec.) on June 03, 2015, 09:40:16 PM
I'm definitely in the same boat as Nigel, and the more I thought about it the more I realized how fucked up it is to "require" that someone go through a surgical (or even hormonal, honestly) transition to be considered legitimate.
I agree but not for the same reason. I hold maleness and femaleness (and therefore manhood and womanhood) to be defined solely by gamete production, something which modern medicine is so-far powerless to alter.
EDIT:
And furthermore, if you acknowledge anything beyond that as a salient or meaningful or relevant or worst of all a defining difference between men and women you're a sexist pig.
I don't think we as a society have any business telling people how they should perceive themselves. I get kind of upset for when people start going along the lines of 'so where do we draw the lines of acceptance? pedos?' It's like trans people (and homosexuals as well) seem to hold on to this idea that if it's not something you're born with, it's not valid. I think that line of thinking is a losing game and not even relevant to the situation.
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 03, 2015, 10:25:05 PM
Quote from: Cainad (dec.) on June 03, 2015, 09:40:16 PM
I'm definitely in the same boat as Nigel, and the more I thought about it the more I realized how fucked up it is to "require" that someone go through a surgical (or even hormonal, honestly) transition to be considered legitimate.
I agree but not for the same reason. I hold maleness and femaleness (and therefore manhood and womanhood) to be defined solely by gamete production, something which modern medicine is so-far powerless to alter.
EDIT:
And furthermore, if you acknowledge anything beyond that as a salient or meaningful or relevant or worst of all a defining difference between men and women you're a sexist pig.
I view it this way, e-prime r-prime this is my extremely simplified opinion:
Male =/= man, female =/= woman. Man and Woman are genders, social constructs, and, depending on where you are, loosely embody roles that some people inherently link to those genders. The people who feel like they would be happy in the role of Woman, while being male, are therefore trans, because being Man would suck, and so they want to be called Woman.
You saying that gender and sex are the same thing, and all male are men and all females are women, that point of view is disregarding the wishes of those who want to be Man or Woman despite the sex not matching their gender, and that makes you a dick.
Quote from: Choppas an' Sluggas on June 04, 2015, 12:25:27 AM
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 03, 2015, 10:25:05 PM
Quote from: Cainad (dec.) on June 03, 2015, 09:40:16 PM
I'm definitely in the same boat as Nigel, and the more I thought about it the more I realized how fucked up it is to "require" that someone go through a surgical (or even hormonal, honestly) transition to be considered legitimate.
I agree but not for the same reason. I hold maleness and femaleness (and therefore manhood and womanhood) to be defined solely by gamete production, something which modern medicine is so-far powerless to alter.
EDIT:
And furthermore, if you acknowledge anything beyond that as a salient or meaningful or relevant or worst of all a defining difference between men and women you're a sexist pig.
I view it this way, e-prime r-prime this is my extremely simplified opinion:
Male =/= man, female =/= woman. Man and Woman are genders, social constructs, and, depending on where you are, loosely embody roles that some people inherently link to those genders. The people who feel like they would be happy in the role of Woman, while being male, are therefore trans, because being Man would suck, and so they want to be called Woman.
You saying that gender and sex are the same thing, and all male are men and all females are women, that point of view is disregarding the wishes of those who want to be Man or Woman despite the sex not matching their gender, and that makes you a dick.
No, I'm saying that gender in this sense doesn't exist at all, except in the sense that a hallucinatory image exists. It exists only as a shared delusion. It is, as you said, a social construct, and not even one which serves any extant purpose; rather than allow people to choose their role within it it should instead be phased out entirely (no more men only or women only anything) and relegated to he trash heap of history.
Also, believing that there is such a thing as "the role of a women" and assigning this idea a value that is not zero or negative is indeed a classic hallmark of being a sexist pig.
EDIT:
Also, wishes and desires are irrelevant to reality; totally powerless to change it in any way. That's why they're wishes and not facts.
Holy shit that exiled piece is classic
QuoteAnd I said to Mr. Ames, "Thank you. But there's no point in explaining this to my retarded son Jim Goad."
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 04, 2015, 12:45:34 AM
Quote from: Choppas an' Sluggas on June 04, 2015, 12:25:27 AM
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 03, 2015, 10:25:05 PM
Quote from: Cainad (dec.) on June 03, 2015, 09:40:16 PM
I'm definitely in the same boat as Nigel, and the more I thought about it the more I realized how fucked up it is to "require" that someone go through a surgical (or even hormonal, honestly) transition to be considered legitimate.
I agree but not for the same reason. I hold maleness and femaleness (and therefore manhood and womanhood) to be defined solely by gamete production, something which modern medicine is so-far powerless to alter.
EDIT:
And furthermore, if you acknowledge anything beyond that as a salient or meaningful or relevant or worst of all a defining difference between men and women you're a sexist pig.
I view it this way, e-prime r-prime this is my extremely simplified opinion:
Male =/= man, female =/= woman. Man and Woman are genders, social constructs, and, depending on where you are, loosely embody roles that some people inherently link to those genders. The people who feel like they would be happy in the role of Woman, while being male, are therefore trans, because being Man would suck, and so they want to be called Woman.
You saying that gender and sex are the same thing, and all male are men and all females are women, that point of view is disregarding the wishes of those who want to be Man or Woman despite the sex not matching their gender, and that makes you a dick.
No, I'm saying that gender in this sense doesn't exist at all, except in the sense that a hallucinatory image exists. It exists only as a shared delusion. It is, as you said, a social construct, and not even one which serves any extant purpose; rather than allow people to choose their role within it it should instead be phased out entirely (no more men only or women only anything) and relegated to he trash heap of history.
Also, believing that there is such a thing as "the role of a women" and assigning this idea a value that is not zero or negative is indeed a classic hallmark of being a sexist pig.
EDIT:
Also, wishes and desires are irrelevant to reality; totally powerless to change it in any way. That's why they're wishes and not facts.
You refusing to acknowledge that social constructs are real and have effects on everyone is naiive and misguided at best, and willfully ignorant or lying to yourself at worst. A thing doesn't have to be true to be real, and other people's perception of the world has more impact on everything and everyone than you apparently realize.
For instance, I recently underwent a full on psych eval. One of the tests was a personality thing, can't remember what it was called, but I scored more towards "man"than I did "woman" because I like science and not makeup or gossiping. Is that right, or make any sense at all? Nope. Did it still happen? Yep. It is a real thing, but not a true thing.
Our fucking calendar year is based on imaginary events and ideas lol so go figure about the rest
Quote from: The Johnny on June 04, 2015, 01:44:52 AM
Our fucking calendar year is based on imaginary events and ideas lol so go figure about the rest
I know, right?
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 03, 2015, 04:29:03 PM
I do think that the popular idea that some people are born into the "wrong" body is entirely socially programmed; you would have to believe in a soul or spirit that is generated separately from our material existence in order to think that one could innately have been misplaced into the wrong kind of body, and I don't believe in that (Cartesian duality, as our old friend what's-his-name would have pointed out). The mind is an emergent property of the body, and therefore the body you HAVE generated the mind you have.
That isn't the only way to interpret the vague phrase "born into the wrong body". That's merely a description of people's experience. I think you're reading way too much into it as a bit of a straw man to rationalize your beliefs.
There is no necessary condition of Cartesian dualism to explain the phenomenon. Whether people believe that is what is happening is really besides the point. If trans people all explained their condition in terms of the supernatural, would that in have any bearing on whether there is a genetic, physical cause for their strong need to change their sex organs?
Isn't it conceivable that there is a structure in the brain and body of transgendered individuals that creates this powerful sense of having the wrong sex organs? It's entirely possible for trans people to have physical causes for the need to physically transition that fit within the paradigm of the mind being an emergent property of the body.
Quote from: Choppas an' Sluggas on June 04, 2015, 01:10:00 AM
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 04, 2015, 12:45:34 AM
Quote from: Choppas an' Sluggas on June 04, 2015, 12:25:27 AM
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 03, 2015, 10:25:05 PM
Quote from: Cainad (dec.) on June 03, 2015, 09:40:16 PM
I'm definitely in the same boat as Nigel, and the more I thought about it the more I realized how fucked up it is to "require" that someone go through a surgical (or even hormonal, honestly) transition to be considered legitimate.
I agree but not for the same reason. I hold maleness and femaleness (and therefore manhood and womanhood) to be defined solely by gamete production, something which modern medicine is so-far powerless to alter.
EDIT:
And furthermore, if you acknowledge anything beyond that as a salient or meaningful or relevant or worst of all a defining difference between men and women you're a sexist pig.
I view it this way, e-prime r-prime this is my extremely simplified opinion:
Male =/= man, female =/= woman. Man and Woman are genders, social constructs, and, depending on where you are, loosely embody roles that some people inherently link to those genders. The people who feel like they would be happy in the role of Woman, while being male, are therefore trans, because being Man would suck, and so they want to be called Woman.
You saying that gender and sex are the same thing, and all male are men and all females are women, that point of view is disregarding the wishes of those who want to be Man or Woman despite the sex not matching their gender, and that makes you a dick.
No, I'm saying that gender in this sense doesn't exist at all, except in the sense that a hallucinatory image exists. It exists only as a shared delusion. It is, as you said, a social construct, and not even one which serves any extant purpose; rather than allow people to choose their role within it it should instead be phased out entirely (no more men only or women only anything) and relegated to he trash heap of history.
Also, believing that there is such a thing as "the role of a women" and assigning this idea a value that is not zero or negative is indeed a classic hallmark of being a sexist pig.
EDIT:
Also, wishes and desires are irrelevant to reality; totally powerless to change it in any way. That's why they're wishes and not facts.
You refusing to acknowledge that social constructs are real and have effects on everyone is naiive and misguided at best, and willfully ignorant or lying to yourself at worst. A thing doesn't have to be true to be real, and other people's perception of the world has more impact on everything and everyone than you apparently realize.
For instance, I recently underwent a full on psych eval. One of the tests was a personality thing, can't remember what it was called, but I scored more towards "man"than I did "woman" because I like science and not makeup or gossiping. Is that right, or make any sense at all? Nope. Did it still happen? Yep. It is a real thing, but not a true thing.
Something can affect everyone and not be real. Like what happened in the Salem witch trials; witchcraft sure affected everyone in that town despite the fact that there' no such thing as witches, there's no such thing as witchcraft, there never has been and there never will. Another good example would be Jehovah.
Quote from: N E T on June 04, 2015, 02:44:12 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 03, 2015, 04:29:03 PM
I do think that the popular idea that some people are born into the "wrong" body is entirely socially programmed; you would have to believe in a soul or spirit that is generated separately from our material existence in order to think that one could innately have been misplaced into the wrong kind of body, and I don't believe in that (Cartesian duality, as our old friend what's-his-name would have pointed out). The mind is an emergent property of the body, and therefore the body you HAVE generated the mind you have.
That isn't the only way to interpret the vague phrase "born into the wrong body". That's merely a description of people's experience. I think you're reading way too much into it as a bit of a straw man to rationalize your beliefs.
There is no necessary condition of Cartesian dualism to explain the phenomenon. Whether people believe that is what is happening is really besides the point. If trans people all explained their condition in terms of the supernatural, would that in have any bearing on whether there is a genetic, physical cause for their strong need to change their sex organs?
Isn't it conceivable that there is a structure in the brain and body of transgendered individuals that creates this powerful sense of having the wrong sex organs? It's entirely possible for trans people to have physical causes for the need to physically transition that fit within the paradigm of the mind being an emergent property of the body.
I think you are trivializing the power of cultural context on human experience, in addition to just generally being kind of needlessly insulting.
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 03, 2015, 10:25:05 PM
I hold maleness and femaleness (and therefore manhood and womanhood) to be defined solely by gamete production,
So, voting for Rick Santorum, are we?
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 04, 2015, 03:22:53 AM
Quote from: Choppas an' Sluggas on June 04, 2015, 01:10:00 AM
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 04, 2015, 12:45:34 AM
Quote from: Choppas an' Sluggas on June 04, 2015, 12:25:27 AM
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 03, 2015, 10:25:05 PM
Quote from: Cainad (dec.) on June 03, 2015, 09:40:16 PM
I'm definitely in the same boat as Nigel, and the more I thought about it the more I realized how fucked up it is to "require" that someone go through a surgical (or even hormonal, honestly) transition to be considered legitimate.
I agree but not for the same reason. I hold maleness and femaleness (and therefore manhood and womanhood) to be defined solely by gamete production, something which modern medicine is so-far powerless to alter.
EDIT:
And furthermore, if you acknowledge anything beyond that as a salient or meaningful or relevant or worst of all a defining difference between men and women you're a sexist pig.
I view it this way, e-prime r-prime this is my extremely simplified opinion:
Male =/= man, female =/= woman. Man and Woman are genders, social constructs, and, depending on where you are, loosely embody roles that some people inherently link to those genders. The people who feel like they would be happy in the role of Woman, while being male, are therefore trans, because being Man would suck, and so they want to be called Woman.
You saying that gender and sex are the same thing, and all male are men and all females are women, that point of view is disregarding the wishes of those who want to be Man or Woman despite the sex not matching their gender, and that makes you a dick.
No, I'm saying that gender in this sense doesn't exist at all, except in the sense that a hallucinatory image exists. It exists only as a shared delusion. It is, as you said, a social construct, and not even one which serves any extant purpose; rather than allow people to choose their role within it it should instead be phased out entirely (no more men only or women only anything) and relegated to he trash heap of history.
Also, believing that there is such a thing as "the role of a women" and assigning this idea a value that is not zero or negative is indeed a classic hallmark of being a sexist pig.
EDIT:
Also, wishes and desires are irrelevant to reality; totally powerless to change it in any way. That's why they're wishes and not facts.
You refusing to acknowledge that social constructs are real and have effects on everyone is naiive and misguided at best, and willfully ignorant or lying to yourself at worst. A thing doesn't have to be true to be real, and other people's perception of the world has more impact on everything and everyone than you apparently realize.
For instance, I recently underwent a full on psych eval. One of the tests was a personality thing, can't remember what it was called, but I scored more towards "man"than I did "woman" because I like science and not makeup or gossiping. Is that right, or make any sense at all? Nope. Did it still happen? Yep. It is a real thing, but not a true thing.
Something can affect everyone and not be real. Like what happened in the Salem witch trials; witchcraft sure affected everyone in that town despite the fact that there' no such thing as witches, there's no such thing as witchcraft, there never has been and there never will. Another good example would be Jehovah.
Social constructs are real; language and education and commerce and government are all social constructs.
However, unlike biological constructs, they evolve very rapidly and are subject to purposeful changes within short time spans.
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 04, 2015, 03:22:53 AM
Something can affect everyone and not be real. Like what happened in the Salem witch trials; witchcraft sure affected everyone in that town despite the fact that there' no such thing as witches, there's no such thing as witchcraft, there never has been and there never will. Another good example would be Jehovah.
Police are a social fiction, and they'll kill you dead.
Quote from: N E T on June 04, 2015, 02:44:12 AM
Isn't it conceivable that there is a structure in the brain and body of transgendered individuals that creates this powerful sense of having the wrong sex organs? It's entirely possible for trans people to have physical causes for the need to physically transition that fit within the paradigm of the mind being an emergent property of the body.
I just want to point out that this is absolutely possible. I think it is very doubtful, but possible. If it does turn out to be the case, however, I predict that things will get very very bad for trans people because then there will be a physical, identifiable "disorder" that could be considered "curable". I kind of hope that doesn't happen, for everyone's sake.
Everyone who cares about freedom of gender expression, anyway.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 04, 2015, 04:54:15 AM
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 04, 2015, 03:22:53 AM
Something can affect everyone and not be real. Like what happened in the Salem witch trials; witchcraft sure affected everyone in that town despite the fact that there' no such thing as witches, there's no such thing as witchcraft, there never has been and there never will. Another good example would be Jehovah.
Police are a social fiction, and they'll kill you dead.
But no, you don't get it though, man
He's seen through the veil and everyone else still stuck in The Matrix. All this discussion of trans people or whatever is getting in the way of everyone acknowledging his intellectual breakthrough.
Quote from: Cainad (dec.) on June 04, 2015, 05:12:54 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 04, 2015, 04:54:15 AM
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 04, 2015, 03:22:53 AM
Something can affect everyone and not be real. Like what happened in the Salem witch trials; witchcraft sure affected everyone in that town despite the fact that there' no such thing as witches, there's no such thing as witchcraft, there never has been and there never will. Another good example would be Jehovah.
Police are a social fiction, and they'll kill you dead.
But no, you don't get it though, man
He's seen through the veil and everyone else still stuck in The Matrix. All this discussion of trans people or whatever is getting in the way of everyone acknowledging his intellectual breakthrough.
Yeah, sort of a Brother Nihil, without the Nazi bit.
I mean ot exists, bit it's both useless and largely artificial. I'd say it's about 90% pointless arbitrary cultural inventions, 4.5% obsolete cultural practices, 4.5% evolutionary vestige, and 1% extant evolutionary function that is nonetheless detrimental to society as a whole.
I remember a couple years into that really long acid trip I decided that we're, none of us, male or female or gender or anything. Something, something illusions and the oneness of all the stuff. This woman I know told me, "No. You're a man. I'm a woman. That's actual." I would have argued the point further, but then she tied me to a bed and I knew at once that she was right.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 04, 2015, 04:49:18 AM
Quote from: N E T on June 04, 2015, 02:44:12 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 03, 2015, 04:29:03 PM
I do think that the popular idea that some people are born into the "wrong" body is entirely socially programmed; you would have to believe in a soul or spirit that is generated separately from our material existence in order to think that one could innately have been misplaced into the wrong kind of body, and I don't believe in that (Cartesian duality, as our old friend what's-his-name would have pointed out). The mind is an emergent property of the body, and therefore the body you HAVE generated the mind you have.
That isn't the only way to interpret the vague phrase "born into the wrong body". That's merely a description of people's experience. I think you're reading way too much into it as a bit of a straw man to rationalize your beliefs.
There is no necessary condition of Cartesian dualism to explain the phenomenon. Whether people believe that is what is happening is really besides the point. If trans people all explained their condition in terms of the supernatural, would that in have any bearing on whether there is a genetic, physical cause for their strong need to change their sex organs?
Isn't it conceivable that there is a structure in the brain and body of transgendered individuals that creates this powerful sense of having the wrong sex organs? It's entirely possible for trans people to have physical causes for the need to physically transition that fit within the paradigm of the mind being an emergent property of the body.
I think you are trivializing the power of cultural context on human experience, in addition to just generally being kind of needlessly insulting.
NET is right. It is entirely possible for it to have a physical or genetic basis. Said basis is likely not a random aberration either. It seems to me to be very likely analogous to the sexual mimicry (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_mimicry#Sneaky_Copulation) seen in certain species of animals where some males look, behave, and presumably think in a manner typical of the females of the species. (It should be noted that they are nonetheless still classed as males and that female mimicry even paradoxially assists them in functioning as males)
Quote from: The Johnny on June 04, 2015, 01:44:52 AM
Our fucking calendar year is based on imaginary events and ideas lol so go figure about the rest
No man, we can just dismiss it all with a little hand-waving and POOF!
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on June 04, 2015, 06:08:56 AM
I remember a couple years into that really long acid trip I decided that we're, none of us, male or female or gender or anything. Something, something illusions and the oneness of all the stuff. This woman I know told me, "No. You're a man. I'm a woman. That's actual." I would have argued the point further, but then she tied me to a bed and I knew at once that she was right.
:lulz: A different take on the barstool experiment.
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 04, 2015, 06:24:29 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 04, 2015, 04:49:18 AM
Quote from: N E T on June 04, 2015, 02:44:12 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 03, 2015, 04:29:03 PM
I do think that the popular idea that some people are born into the "wrong" body is entirely socially programmed; you would have to believe in a soul or spirit that is generated separately from our material existence in order to think that one could innately have been misplaced into the wrong kind of body, and I don't believe in that (Cartesian duality, as our old friend what's-his-name would have pointed out). The mind is an emergent property of the body, and therefore the body you HAVE generated the mind you have.
That isn't the only way to interpret the vague phrase "born into the wrong body". That's merely a description of people's experience. I think you're reading way too much into it as a bit of a straw man to rationalize your beliefs.
There is no necessary condition of Cartesian dualism to explain the phenomenon. Whether people believe that is what is happening is really besides the point. If trans people all explained their condition in terms of the supernatural, would that in have any bearing on whether there is a genetic, physical cause for their strong need to change their sex organs?
Isn't it conceivable that there is a structure in the brain and body of transgendered individuals that creates this powerful sense of having the wrong sex organs? It's entirely possible for trans people to have physical causes for the need to physically transition that fit within the paradigm of the mind being an emergent property of the body.
I think you are trivializing the power of cultural context on human experience, in addition to just generally being kind of needlessly insulting.
NET is right. It is entirely possible for it to have a physical or genetic basis. Said basis is likely not a random aberration either. It seems to me to be very likely analogous to the sexual mimicry (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_mimicry#Sneaky_Copulation) seen in certain species of animals where some males look, behave, and presumably think in a manner typical of the females of the species. (It should be noted that they are nonetheless still classed as males and that female mimicry even paradoxially assists them in functioning as males)
Oh my god you are a fucking idiot.
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 04, 2015, 06:06:25 AM
I mean ot exists, bit it's both useless and largely artificial. I'd say it's about 90% pointless arbitrary cultural inventions, 4.5% obsolete cultural practices, 4.5% evolutionary vestige, and 1% extant evolutionary function that is nonetheless detrimental to society as a whole.
Umm, I think most of us get your point, it's just that it's about 99% pointless idealized naval gazing that corresponds to like .001% of the population's current experience of reality (less if you omit those under the influence of psychedelics or hyperspecialized speculative philosophy), 300% boring shit that we've all already had our pseudo-profound WHOA's over, and 2.08 x 10^53% glorious distant utopian fantasy that renders real people in the here and now irrelevant.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 03, 2015, 04:47:48 PM
That's entirely reasonable.
Nothing more to add than the implication that calling Trans* a mental disorder puts every other "long tail" behavior on the social construct scale in the same catagory. Which either stigmatizes everything not generally considered "normal", or renders the term "mental disorder" irrelevant.
Feel the same way.
To fucking clarify for the one or two who seem to have a terribly unclear impression of what I have said so far:
1. Yes, I think the experience of being transgender is real.
2. No, I don't think it's a disorder, outside of the social sense. In other words, it is not a pathology.
3. Yes, I think it is probably biological.
4. NO, I STILL don't think it's a disorder.
5. I think that the feeling of "being in the wrong body" is largely if not entirely due to social constructs, much like any other form of body dysmorphia.
6. I think that gender identity exists on a spectrum, much like sexuality.
7. Fuck off, that STILL DOESN'T MAKE BEING TRANSGENDER INHERENTLY A DISORDER.
8. I'm not opposed to body modification if that makes people happy.
9. I am opposed to a cultural norm that tells people that they MUST modify their bodies in order to be recognized as the gender they identify as.
Would anyone else like to try their hand at telling me what I really think and why I think it?
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on June 04, 2015, 06:44:35 AM
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 04, 2015, 06:06:25 AM
I mean ot exists, bit it's both useless and largely artificial. I'd say it's about 90% pointless arbitrary cultural inventions, 4.5% obsolete cultural practices, 4.5% evolutionary vestige, and 1% extant evolutionary function that is nonetheless detrimental to society as a whole.
Umm, I think most of us get your point, it's just that it's about 99% pointless idealized naval gazing that corresponds to like .001% of the population's current experience of reality (less if you omit those under the influence of psychedelics or hyperspecialized speculative philosophy), 300% boring shit that we've all already had our pseudo-profound WHOA's over, and 2.08 x 10^53% glorious distant utopian fantasy that renders real people in the here and now irrelevant.
Well said, sir, well said.
Quote from: Cainad (dec.) on June 04, 2015, 05:12:54 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 04, 2015, 04:54:15 AM
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 04, 2015, 03:22:53 AM
Something can affect everyone and not be real. Like what happened in the Salem witch trials; witchcraft sure affected everyone in that town despite the fact that there' no such thing as witches, there's no such thing as witchcraft, there never has been and there never will. Another good example would be Jehovah.
Police are a social fiction, and they'll kill you dead.
But no, you don't get it though, man
He's seen through the veil and everyone else still stuck in The Matrix. All this discussion of trans people or whatever is getting in the way of everyone acknowledging his intellectual breakthrough.
:lulz:
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 03, 2015, 10:25:05 PM
Quote from: Cainad (dec.) on June 03, 2015, 09:40:16 PM
I'm definitely in the same boat as Nigel, and the more I thought about it the more I realized how fucked up it is to "require" that someone go through a surgical (or even hormonal, honestly) transition to be considered legitimate.
I agree but not for the same reason. I hold maleness and femaleness (and therefore manhood and womanhood) to be defined solely by gamete production, something which modern medicine is so-far powerless to alter.
EDIT:
And furthermore, if you acknowledge anything beyond that as a salient or meaningful or relevant or worst of all a defining difference between men and women you're a sexist pig.
You're equating sex (male; female) with gender (man; woman). Sex is a (mostly) binary biological construct. Gender is a social attempt to impose defined binary roles on people of a given sex.
Sex, for that matter, is not as binary as most people think. Primary sexual characteristics aside, all of the real, physical differences between males and females occur on a spectrum, with most males clustered to one side of the center and most females clustered to the other side. Look at any two overlapping normal curves for an illustration.
This is really not that difficult of a concept. Most eight-and-nine-year-olds are intellectually developed enough to grasp it. Maybe you should try a little harder?
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 04, 2015, 06:46:27 AM
To fucking clarify for the one or two who seem to have a terribly unclear impression of what I have said so far:
1. Yes, I think the experience of being transgender is real.
2. No, I don't think it's a disorder, outside of the social sense. In other words, it is not a pathology.
3. Yes, I think it is probably biological.
4. NO, I STILL don't think it's a disorder.
5. I think that the feeling of "being in the wrong body" is largely if not entirely due to social constructs, much like any other form of body dysmorphia.
6. I think that gender identity exists on a spectrum, much like sexuality.
7. Fuck off, that STILL DOESN'T MAKE BEING TRANSGENDER INHERENTLY A DISORDER.
8. I'm not opposed to body modification if that makes people happy.
9. I am opposed to a cultural norm that tells people that they MUST modify their bodies in order to be recognized as the gender they identify as.
Would anyone else like to try their hand at telling me what I really think and why I think it?
Those are my views as well.
I don't have any strong opinions on it other than the the transitioning process being traumatic and grossly lacking in what the physiological changes can accomplish.
It wont happen in my lifetime but roll on the day that the transgender woman gives birth.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 04, 2015, 04:49:18 AM
Quote from: N E T on June 04, 2015, 02:44:12 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 03, 2015, 04:29:03 PM
I do think that the popular idea that some people are born into the "wrong" body is entirely socially programmed; you would have to believe in a soul or spirit that is generated separately from our material existence in order to think that one could innately have been misplaced into the wrong kind of body, and I don't believe in that (Cartesian duality, as our old friend what's-his-name would have pointed out). The mind is an emergent property of the body, and therefore the body you HAVE generated the mind you have.
That isn't the only way to interpret the vague phrase "born into the wrong body". That's merely a description of people's experience. I think you're reading way too much into it as a bit of a straw man to rationalize your beliefs.
There is no necessary condition of Cartesian dualism to explain the phenomenon. Whether people believe that is what is happening is really besides the point. If trans people all explained their condition in terms of the supernatural, would that in have any bearing on whether there is a genetic, physical cause for their strong need to change their sex organs?
Isn't it conceivable that there is a structure in the brain and body of transgendered individuals that creates this powerful sense of having the wrong sex organs? It's entirely possible for trans people to have physical causes for the need to physically transition that fit within the paradigm of the mind being an emergent property of the body.
I think you are trivializing the power of cultural context on human experience, in addition to just generally being kind of needlessly insulting.
The cultural context is powerful, I agree, and of course it plays a strong role in most everything we do. What I mean by "merely a description of a person's experience" is how we generally afford people generous poetic license in how they talk about their life.
I know this is a very touchy subject and I don't intend to insult but I believe you're wrong here.
If I recall correctly, you have lumped trans people's struggle in with those who claim they are non-human animals or mythical beings born in the wrong body and ridiculed the lot as examples of Cartesian dualism. In the latter cases, Cartesian dualism is a legitimate critique. But applying it in terms of trans people seems profoundly insulting, especially when you agree that sex and gender occur along independent spectrums.
Perhaps I'm misremembering previous posts. I otherwise agree with what you're saying. I especially appreciate your comment about social pressure requiring sexual reassignment surgery before we respect the gender people present themselves as—that's an excellent point.
Quote from: N E T on June 04, 2015, 09:52:49 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 04, 2015, 04:49:18 AM
Quote from: N E T on June 04, 2015, 02:44:12 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 03, 2015, 04:29:03 PM
I do think that the popular idea that some people are born into the "wrong" body is entirely socially programmed; you would have to believe in a soul or spirit that is generated separately from our material existence in order to think that one could innately have been misplaced into the wrong kind of body, and I don't believe in that (Cartesian duality, as our old friend what's-his-name would have pointed out). The mind is an emergent property of the body, and therefore the body you HAVE generated the mind you have.
That isn't the only way to interpret the vague phrase "born into the wrong body". That's merely a description of people's experience. I think you're reading way too much into it as a bit of a straw man to rationalize your beliefs.
There is no necessary condition of Cartesian dualism to explain the phenomenon. Whether people believe that is what is happening is really besides the point. If trans people all explained their condition in terms of the supernatural, would that in have any bearing on whether there is a genetic, physical cause for their strong need to change their sex organs?
Isn't it conceivable that there is a structure in the brain and body of transgendered individuals that creates this powerful sense of having the wrong sex organs? It's entirely possible for trans people to have physical causes for the need to physically transition that fit within the paradigm of the mind being an emergent property of the body.
I think you are trivializing the power of cultural context on human experience, in addition to just generally being kind of needlessly insulting.
The cultural context is powerful, I agree, and of course it plays a strong role in most everything we do. What I mean by "merely a description of a person's experience" is how we generally afford people generous poetic license in how they talk about their life.
I know this is a very touchy subject and I don't intend to insult but I believe you're wrong here.
If I recall correctly, you have lumped trans people's struggle in with those who claim they are non-human animals or mythical beings born in the wrong body and ridiculed the lot as examples of Cartesian dualism. In the latter cases, Cartesian dualism is a legitimate critique. But applying it in terms of trans people seems profoundly insulting, especially when you agree that sex and gender occur along independent spectrums.
Perhaps I'm misremembering previous posts. I otherwise agree with what you're saying. I especially appreciate your comment about social pressure requiring sexual reassignment surgery before we respect the gender people present themselves as—that's an excellent point.
Yes. You are misremembering previous posts. I have said that I don't believe that anyone is literally "born into the wrong body", and I may indeed have made a comparison to thinking that one is "really" something else entirely, but it sounds like you read a whole lot into that.
It's a very common logical trap for people to interpret someone they disagree with on a small measure as taking an extreme position, even when they're not. It's something I run into a lot when I say something like "Please stop using false arguments to defend the value of GMO, it's not "just like hybridization" or the methods used to induce seedless varieties" and the immediate reaction I get is "ZOMFG ANTI-GMO ACTIVIST GTFO HIPPIE".
You seem intent on defining transgender as some kind of pathology. I disagree. I don't actually care if you think I'm wrong, so we can leave it at that.
It occurs to me to put it like this: Caitlyn Jenner can not be a woman in a man's body, because she is a woman and therefore her body must be a woman's body--medically altered or otherwise.
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on June 04, 2015, 05:41:00 PM
It occurs to me to put it like this: Caitlyn Jenner can not be a woman in a man's body, because she is a woman and therefore her body must be a woman's body--medically altered or otherwise.
Poignant!
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on June 04, 2015, 05:41:00 PM
It occurs to me to put it like this: Caitlyn Jenner can not be a woman in a man's body, because she is a woman and therefore her body must be a woman's body--medically altered or otherwise.
I like this.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on June 03, 2015, 09:35:04 PM
Quote from: The Johnny on June 03, 2015, 06:40:13 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 03, 2015, 06:34:32 PM
Quote from: The Johnny on June 03, 2015, 05:54:11 PM
I was discussing this with my mentor recently... what can be more brutal than mutilating your genitals?... for sure theres a very intense feeling or passion at play... castration on one hand has a lot at play with men with relation to family relationships (ever heard of castration compkex and oedipus?) and virilization of women i dont even know...
We concluded that its a hugely complex phenomena that can only be approached clinically, that is to say, on a case by case basis on a deep level... i wonder if there has been research like this? about said groupality
When you talk about mutilating genitals, ie. surgery, you are talking about changing the physical appearance of sex, not about gender.
Yeah i was talking about transexuals... i need to read more about ops original case, since i assumed it was transexual not transgender... bbl rereading thread.
Transsexual at this point is kind of an outdated term. Transgender can mean people who have altered their body physically (through surgery or hormones or both) and those who haven't.
Regardless of accuracy the definitions i know of and use, are:
Transvestite: that dresses in a manner or style that does not coincide with its cultural norms for given genital sex
Transgender: that either identifies or acts in a manner not corresponding to their genital sex
Transexual: that has changed thru surgical means its genital sex.
And I dont understand why transexual is an outdated term, since then we are eliminating the possibility that there are people that change their genital sex for reasons other than their gender identification. One might assume those dont exist, but its still very possible.
I did a quick lookup and Transexual is defined and commonly used as a synonim for transgender, but from an etimological and roots it doesnt make sense to me, probably because in spanish we do make the distinction of "transgenero" and "transexual".
And well, speaking specifically about transgender behaviour:
We have culturally created divisions on how a man and a woman are supposed to act and behave, which is kinda silly, im sure it has some practical uses and facilitations, at a parallel with its toxic political and power consequences for women... the problem is that fragmentating human emotions and behaviour into "male and female" is that it limits the spectrum of emotions and agency of each individual to a detriment, the main manifestation being passive women and insensitive men (main detriments being an issue that others might think differently than myself, whatever).
TL;DR: arbitrary gender divisions make for incomplete humans that are not socially permitted to use the whole spectrum of their emotions.
And speaking specifically about transvestism:
Its a type of compulsion that is strong enough to transgress social norms in given moments... we also have subcultures that like to dress differently or people that make body modifications such as piercings, expansions or tattoos which are all a matter of self-perception and modifying ones appearance to the will of oneself... most people prefer a more conventional or bland look because they are themselves conventional or bland, or because they fear social retribution for showing an intimate or personal part to society which can be judgeded or disliked... businesssmen dress in suits and clean-cut styles, because they wish to express aesthetics that reflect order and professionalism, etc.
TL;DR: its aesthetical preference, fuck the man, dude.
It doesn't go into depth, but http://www.bu.edu/news/2015/02/13/review-article-provides-evidence-on-the-biological-nature-of-gender-identity/
QuoteThe researchers conducted a literature search and reviewed articles that showed positive biologic bases for gender identity. These included disorders of sexual development, such as penile agenesis, neuroanatomical differences, such as grey and white matter studies, and steroid hormone genetics, such as genes associated with sex hormone receptors. They conclude that current data suggests a biological etiology for transgender identity.
QuoteAccording to the researchers the article does have some limitations due to the small numbers of individuals studied and therefore conclusions should be drawn with caution. Safer recommends that further research focus on specific biologic mechanisms for gender identity.
Also
Quote from: The Johnny on June 04, 2015, 09:48:24 PM
TL;DR: arbitrary gender divisions make for incomplete humans that are not socially permitted to use the whole spectrum of their emotions.
Yeah, fuck that. It's like that phrase 'man-up'.
Any qualities that I can think of that would help me 'man-up' are qualities found in women as well.
Person-up, maybe?
The problem is that people confuse "biological basis" and "should be" as a type of neo-phobia to anything... funny that its always conveniently selective... prolonging our lives is anti-natural but here we are with the most profitable companies being pharmaceuticals, etc.
Quote from: The Johnny on June 04, 2015, 09:23:11 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on June 03, 2015, 09:35:04 PM
Quote from: The Johnny on June 03, 2015, 06:40:13 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 03, 2015, 06:34:32 PM
Quote from: The Johnny on June 03, 2015, 05:54:11 PM
I was discussing this with my mentor recently... what can be more brutal than mutilating your genitals?... for sure theres a very intense feeling or passion at play... castration on one hand has a lot at play with men with relation to family relationships (ever heard of castration compkex and oedipus?) and virilization of women i dont even know...
We concluded that its a hugely complex phenomena that can only be approached clinically, that is to say, on a case by case basis on a deep level... i wonder if there has been research like this? about said groupality
When you talk about mutilating genitals, ie. surgery, you are talking about changing the physical appearance of sex, not about gender.
Yeah i was talking about transexuals... i need to read more about ops original case, since i assumed it was transexual not transgender... bbl rereading thread.
Transsexual at this point is kind of an outdated term. Transgender can mean people who have altered their body physically (through surgery or hormones or both) and those who haven't.
Regardless of accuracy the definitions i know of and use, are:
Transvestite: that dresses in a manner or style that does not coincide with its cultural norms for given genital sex
Transgender: that either identifies or acts in a manner not corresponding to their genital sex
Transexual: that has changed thru surgical means its genital sex.
And I dont understand why transexual is an outdated term, since then we are eliminating the possibility that there are people that change their genital sex for reasons other than their gender identification. One might assume those dont exist, but its still very possible.
I did a quick lookup and Transexual is defined and commonly used as a synonim for transgender, but from an etimological and roots it doesnt make sense to me, probably because in spanish we do make the distinction of "transgenero" and "transexual".
I only feel comfortable talking about this particular aspect of the matter because I've been working on the style guide for the news project, and so I ended up looking up the GLAAD guidelines for journalists. The page is here: http://www.glaad.org/reference/transgender
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 04, 2015, 06:46:27 AM
To fucking clarify for the one or two who seem to have a terribly unclear impression of what I have said so far:
1. Yes, I think the experience of being transgender is real.
2. No, I don't think it's a disorder, outside of the social sense. In other words, it is not a pathology.
3. Yes, I think it is probably biological.
4. NO, I STILL don't think it's a disorder.
5. I think that the feeling of "being in the wrong body" is largely if not entirely due to social constructs, much like any other form of body dysmorphia.
6. I think that gender identity exists on a spectrum, much like sexuality.
7. Fuck off, that STILL DOESN'T MAKE BEING TRANSGENDER INHERENTLY A DISORDER.
8. I'm not opposed to body modification if that makes people happy.
9. I am opposed to a cultural norm that tells people that they MUST modify their bodies in order to be recognized as the gender they identify as.
Would anyone else like to try their hand at telling me what I really think and why I think it?
No, but can I say I agree with you, especially points 2, 4, 7, and 9?
Quote from: Sung Low on June 04, 2015, 10:38:14 PM
It doesn't go into depth, but http://www.bu.edu/news/2015/02/13/review-article-provides-evidence-on-the-biological-nature-of-gender-identity/
QuoteThe researchers conducted a literature search and reviewed articles that showed positive biologic bases for gender identity. These included disorders of sexual development, such as penile agenesis, neuroanatomical differences, such as grey and white matter studies, and steroid hormone genetics, such as genes associated with sex hormone receptors. They conclude that current data suggests a biological etiology for transgender identity.
QuoteAccording to the researchers the article does have some limitations due to the small numbers of individuals studied and therefore conclusions should be drawn with caution. Safer recommends that further research focus on specific biologic mechanisms for gender identity.
Also
Quote from: The Johnny on June 04, 2015, 09:48:24 PM
TL;DR: arbitrary gender divisions make for incomplete humans that are not socially permitted to use the whole spectrum of their emotions.
Yeah, fuck that. It's like that phrase 'man-up'.
Any qualities that I can think of that would help me 'man-up' are qualities found in women as well.
Person-up, maybe?
Fortify, buff-up
FORTIFY THYSELF!
I'm totally using that from now on.
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on June 04, 2015, 05:41:00 PM
It occurs to me to put it like this: Caitlyn Jenner can not be a woman in a man's body, because she is a woman and therefore her body must be a woman's body--medically altered or otherwise.
Yes.
Quote from: Choppas an' Sluggas on June 05, 2015, 12:56:17 AM
FORTIFY THYSELF!
I'm totally using that from now on.
I like that, and also "gird your loins".
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 05, 2015, 08:03:50 AM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on June 04, 2015, 05:41:00 PM
It occurs to me to put it like this: Caitlyn Jenner can not be a woman in a man's body, because she is a woman and therefore her body must be a woman's body--medically altered or otherwise.
Yes.
I just realized that this Caitlyn is a MtF trans, that completely changes the meaning of that sentence.
I guess this is a famous person I would know about if I followed the news?
Quote from: Reginald Ret on June 05, 2015, 08:26:39 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 05, 2015, 08:03:50 AM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on June 04, 2015, 05:41:00 PM
It occurs to me to put it like this: Caitlyn Jenner can not be a woman in a man's body, because she is a woman and therefore her body must be a woman's body--medically altered or otherwise.
Yes.
I just realized that this Caitlyn is a MtF trans, that completely changes the meaning of that sentence.
I guess this is a famous person I would know about if I followed the news?
Famous is stretching it, she is from that dumb reality show that asshole Kanye Wests wife is in.
The vanity fair announcement cover annoyed my fiance, because of the sexualised glamor spread on it as if to say "this is what it is to be a woman", it cant be a strong or professional look because those things aren't womanly.
To be fair, she was an Olympic medalist before any of that jive. She used to be Bruce Jenner, famous in my youth for the cover of the Wheaties box.
Quote from: Faust on June 05, 2015, 08:52:18 AM
Quote from: Reginald Ret on June 05, 2015, 08:26:39 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 05, 2015, 08:03:50 AM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on June 04, 2015, 05:41:00 PM
It occurs to me to put it like this: Caitlyn Jenner can not be a woman in a man's body, because she is a woman and therefore her body must be a woman's body--medically altered or otherwise.
Yes.
I just realized that this Caitlyn is a MtF trans, that completely changes the meaning of that sentence.
I guess this is a famous person I would know about if I followed the news?
Famous is stretching it, she is from that dumb reality show that asshole Kanye Wests wife is in.
The vanity fair announcement cover annoyed my fiance, because of the sexualised glamor spread on it as if to say "this is what it is to be a woman", it cant be a strong or professional look because those things aren't womanly.
John Stewart had a pretty good riff on exactly that.
http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/oekklq/brave-new-girl
Quote from: Hoopla on June 05, 2015, 12:50:44 PM
To be fair, she was an Olympic medalist before any of that jive. She used to be Bruce Jenner, famous in my youth for the cover of the Wheaties box.
Ah ok, I don't know much about reality tv, but I know even less on sports. That actually is news worthy so.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 05, 2015, 01:12:45 PM
Quote from: Faust on June 05, 2015, 08:52:18 AM
Quote from: Reginald Ret on June 05, 2015, 08:26:39 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 05, 2015, 08:03:50 AM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on June 04, 2015, 05:41:00 PM
It occurs to me to put it like this: Caitlyn Jenner can not be a woman in a man's body, because she is a woman and therefore her body must be a woman's body--medically altered or otherwise.
Yes.
I just realized that this Caitlyn is a MtF trans, that completely changes the meaning of that sentence.
I guess this is a famous person I would know about if I followed the news?
Famous is stretching it, she is from that dumb reality show that asshole Kanye Wests wife is in.
The vanity fair announcement cover annoyed my fiance, because of the sexualised glamor spread on it as if to say "this is what it is to be a woman", it cant be a strong or professional look because those things aren't womanly.
John Stewart had a pretty good riff on exactly that.
http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/oekklq/brave-new-girl
Only visible in the US, will look it up on youtube later.
Quote from: Hoopla on June 05, 2015, 12:50:44 PM
To be fair, she was an Olympic medalist before any of that jive. She used to be Bruce Jenner, famous in my youth for the cover of the Wheaties box.
Quote from: Faust on June 05, 2015, 08:52:18 AM
Quote from: Reginald Ret on June 05, 2015, 08:26:39 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 05, 2015, 08:03:50 AM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on June 04, 2015, 05:41:00 PM
It occurs to me to put it like this: Caitlyn Jenner can not be a woman in a man's body, because she is a woman and therefore her body must be a woman's body--medically altered or otherwise.
Yes.
I just realized that this Caitlyn is a MtF trans, that completely changes the meaning of that sentence.
I guess this is a famous person I would know about if I followed the news?
Famous is stretching it, she is from that dumb reality show that asshole Kanye Wests wife is in.
Um
http://biography.yourdictionary.com/bruce-jenner
QuoteOne of the most famous athletes of the 1970s, Bruce Jenner (born 1949) won the gold medal in the decathlon in the 1976 Olympic Games.
(http://a.abcnews.com/images/Business/SPL_wheaties_box_jenner2_ml_150428_16x9_992.jpg)
Quote
The vanity fair announcement cover annoyed my fiance, because of the sexualised glamor spread on it as if to say "this is what it is to be a woman", it cant be a strong or professional look because those things aren't womanly.
Quote from: Faust on June 05, 2015, 08:52:18 AM
Quote from: Reginald Ret on June 05, 2015, 08:26:39 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 05, 2015, 08:03:50 AM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on June 04, 2015, 05:41:00 PM
It occurs to me to put it like this: Caitlyn Jenner can not be a woman in a man's body, because she is a woman and therefore her body must be a woman's body--medically altered or otherwise.
Yes.
I just realized that this Caitlyn is a MtF trans, that completely changes the meaning of that sentence.
I guess this is a famous person I would know about if I followed the news?
Famous is stretching it, she is from that dumb reality show that asshole Kanye Wests wife is in.
The vanity fair announcement cover annoyed my fiance, because of the sexualised glamor spread on it as if to say "this is what it is to be a woman", it cant be a strong or professional look because those things aren't womanly.
Also annoying because she's like 66 and there is no way, even with all her money for plastic surgery, that she actually looks anything like that. So now she's contributing to objectification and unrealistic standards of beauty not only for women, whether they are OG or trans, but particularly for older trans women.
Quote from: Hoopla on June 05, 2015, 12:50:44 PM
To be fair, she was an Olympic medalist before any of that jive. She used to be Bruce Jenner, famous in my youth for the cover of the Wheaties box.
Hoopla beat me to it.
But still, she was famous before Kanye West was even BORN, and I still haven't figured out WTF a Kardashian is.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 05, 2015, 03:52:34 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on June 05, 2015, 12:50:44 PM
To be fair, she was an Olympic medalist before any of that jive. She used to be Bruce Jenner, famous in my youth for the cover of the Wheaties box.
Hoopla beat me to it.
But still, she was famous before Kanye West was even BORN, and I still haven't figured out WTF a Kardashian is.
It seems to be some sort of alien that stores its victims in its bum.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 05, 2015, 04:04:50 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 05, 2015, 03:52:34 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on June 05, 2015, 12:50:44 PM
To be fair, she was an Olympic medalist before any of that jive. She used to be Bruce Jenner, famous in my youth for the cover of the Wheaties box.
Hoopla beat me to it.
But still, she was famous before Kanye West was even BORN, and I still haven't figured out WTF a Kardashian is.
It seems to be some sort of alien that stores its victims in its bum.
:lulz:
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 05, 2015, 03:52:34 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on June 05, 2015, 12:50:44 PM
To be fair, she was an Olympic medalist before any of that jive. She used to be Bruce Jenner, famous in my youth for the cover of the Wheaties box.
Hoopla beat me to it.
But still, she was famous before Kanye West was even BORN, and I still haven't figured out WTF a Kardashian is.
*Clears throat, bet no ones made this joke before* They are the bad guys from Deep Space 9.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 05, 2015, 03:47:45 PM
Quote from: Faust on June 05, 2015, 08:52:18 AM
Quote from: Reginald Ret on June 05, 2015, 08:26:39 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 05, 2015, 08:03:50 AM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on June 04, 2015, 05:41:00 PM
It occurs to me to put it like this: Caitlyn Jenner can not be a woman in a man's body, because she is a woman and therefore her body must be a woman's body--medically altered or otherwise.
Yes.
I just realized that this Caitlyn is a MtF trans, that completely changes the meaning of that sentence.
I guess this is a famous person I would know about if I followed the news?
Famous is stretching it, she is from that dumb reality show that asshole Kanye Wests wife is in.
Um
http://biography.yourdictionary.com/bruce-jenner
QuoteOne of the most famous athletes of the 1970s, Bruce Jenner (born 1949) won the gold medal in the decathlon in the 1976 Olympic Games.
(http://a.abcnews.com/images/Business/SPL_wheaties_box_jenner2_ml_150428_16x9_992.jpg)
Quote
The vanity fair announcement cover annoyed my fiance, because of the sexualised glamor spread on it as if to say "this is what it is to be a woman", it cant be a strong or professional look because those things aren't womanly.
Ah, fair enough, I barely know the olympian athletes in Ireland for the last two years but he sounds like he deserves a lot more respect then he gets and it's a shame he is associated with that awful family.
Yeah, that after image could well have started with just about any other image with the amount of photoshopping put into it.
Quote from: Faust on June 05, 2015, 05:28:24 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 05, 2015, 03:52:34 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on June 05, 2015, 12:50:44 PM
To be fair, she was an Olympic medalist before any of that jive. She used to be Bruce Jenner, famous in my youth for the cover of the Wheaties box.
Hoopla beat me to it.
But still, she was famous before Kanye West was even BORN, and I still haven't figured out WTF a Kardashian is.
*Clears throat, bet no ones made this joke before* They are the bad guys from Deep Space 9.
:lol:
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 04, 2015, 03:45:07 PM
Quote from: N E T on June 04, 2015, 09:52:49 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 04, 2015, 04:49:18 AM
Quote from: N E T on June 04, 2015, 02:44:12 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 03, 2015, 04:29:03 PM
I do think that the popular idea that some people are born into the "wrong" body is entirely socially programmed; you would have to believe in a soul or spirit that is generated separately from our material existence in order to think that one could innately have been misplaced into the wrong kind of body, and I don't believe in that (Cartesian duality, as our old friend what's-his-name would have pointed out). The mind is an emergent property of the body, and therefore the body you HAVE generated the mind you have.
That isn't the only way to interpret the vague phrase "born into the wrong body". That's merely a description of people's experience. I think you're reading way too much into it as a bit of a straw man to rationalize your beliefs.
There is no necessary condition of Cartesian dualism to explain the phenomenon. Whether people believe that is what is happening is really besides the point. If trans people all explained their condition in terms of the supernatural, would that in have any bearing on whether there is a genetic, physical cause for their strong need to change their sex organs?
Isn't it conceivable that there is a structure in the brain and body of transgendered individuals that creates this powerful sense of having the wrong sex organs? It's entirely possible for trans people to have physical causes for the need to physically transition that fit within the paradigm of the mind being an emergent property of the body.
I think you are trivializing the power of cultural context on human experience, in addition to just generally being kind of needlessly insulting.
The cultural context is powerful, I agree, and of course it plays a strong role in most everything we do. What I mean by "merely a description of a person's experience" is how we generally afford people generous poetic license in how they talk about their life.
I know this is a very touchy subject and I don't intend to insult but I believe you're wrong here.
If I recall correctly, you have lumped trans people's struggle in with those who claim they are non-human animals or mythical beings born in the wrong body and ridiculed the lot as examples of Cartesian dualism. In the latter cases, Cartesian dualism is a legitimate critique. But applying it in terms of trans people seems profoundly insulting, especially when you agree that sex and gender occur along independent spectrums.
Perhaps I'm misremembering previous posts. I otherwise agree with what you're saying. I especially appreciate your comment about social pressure requiring sexual reassignment surgery before we respect the gender people present themselves as—that's an excellent point.
Yes. You are misremembering previous posts. I have said that I don't believe that anyone is literally "born into the wrong body", and I may indeed have made a comparison to thinking that one is "really" something else entirely, but it sounds like you read a whole lot into that.
Perhaps I just read into it too much. I think we're really in agreement, and I was being a bit oversensitive. My apologies.
Just to clarify, I don't believe being transgendered is a pathology and is just an uncommon set of coordinates on the sex and gender spectrums.
Quote from: N E T on June 05, 2015, 07:33:10 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 04, 2015, 03:45:07 PM
Quote from: N E T on June 04, 2015, 09:52:49 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 04, 2015, 04:49:18 AM
Quote from: N E T on June 04, 2015, 02:44:12 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 03, 2015, 04:29:03 PM
I do think that the popular idea that some people are born into the "wrong" body is entirely socially programmed; you would have to believe in a soul or spirit that is generated separately from our material existence in order to think that one could innately have been misplaced into the wrong kind of body, and I don't believe in that (Cartesian duality, as our old friend what's-his-name would have pointed out). The mind is an emergent property of the body, and therefore the body you HAVE generated the mind you have.
That isn't the only way to interpret the vague phrase "born into the wrong body". That's merely a description of people's experience. I think you're reading way too much into it as a bit of a straw man to rationalize your beliefs.
There is no necessary condition of Cartesian dualism to explain the phenomenon. Whether people believe that is what is happening is really besides the point. If trans people all explained their condition in terms of the supernatural, would that in have any bearing on whether there is a genetic, physical cause for their strong need to change their sex organs?
Isn't it conceivable that there is a structure in the brain and body of transgendered individuals that creates this powerful sense of having the wrong sex organs? It's entirely possible for trans people to have physical causes for the need to physically transition that fit within the paradigm of the mind being an emergent property of the body.
I think you are trivializing the power of cultural context on human experience, in addition to just generally being kind of needlessly insulting.
The cultural context is powerful, I agree, and of course it plays a strong role in most everything we do. What I mean by "merely a description of a person's experience" is how we generally afford people generous poetic license in how they talk about their life.
I know this is a very touchy subject and I don't intend to insult but I believe you're wrong here.
If I recall correctly, you have lumped trans people's struggle in with those who claim they are non-human animals or mythical beings born in the wrong body and ridiculed the lot as examples of Cartesian dualism. In the latter cases, Cartesian dualism is a legitimate critique. But applying it in terms of trans people seems profoundly insulting, especially when you agree that sex and gender occur along independent spectrums.
Perhaps I'm misremembering previous posts. I otherwise agree with what you're saying. I especially appreciate your comment about social pressure requiring sexual reassignment surgery before we respect the gender people present themselves as—that's an excellent point.
Yes. You are misremembering previous posts. I have said that I don't believe that anyone is literally "born into the wrong body", and I may indeed have made a comparison to thinking that one is "really" something else entirely, but it sounds like you read a whole lot into that.
Perhaps I just read into it too much. I think we're really in agreement, and I was being a bit oversensitive. My apologies.
Just to clarify, I don't believe being transgendered is a pathology and is just an uncommon set of coordinates on the sex and gender spectrums.
Apology accepted, and thank you.
As before I still think it's a bunch of BS. That said, I nonetheless believe that these folks should be allowed to live their lives the way they want to free of bullying institutionalized harassment. It's everyone's right to pull the wool over their own eyes and relax in their own delusions. It's ok, but it just doesn't make them stop being delusions is all I'm saying
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 05, 2015, 10:50:08 PM
As before I still think it's a bunch of BS. That said, I nonetheless believe that these folks should be allowed to live their lives the way they want to free of bullying institutionalized harassment. It's everyone's right to pull the wool over their own eyes and relax in their own delusions. It's ok, but it just doesn't make them stop being delusions is all I'm saying
I like that my children are less shitty on this subject than you.
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 05, 2015, 10:50:08 PM
As before I still think it's a bunch of BS. That said, I nonetheless believe that these folks should be allowed to live their lives the way they want to free of bullying institutionalized harassment. It's everyone's right to pull the wool over their own eyes and relax in their own delusions. It's ok, but it just doesn't make them stop being delusions is all I'm saying
You are almost there.
They may be using silly concepts to define themselves with,
but so are you. All humans identify with stupid shit, it is just how people work. We are lean, mean, self-identifying machines.
Hell, I know quite a lot of people who identify as
sportsfans! And not just sports in general, but they pick one very specific set of sports(in this case ballgames), then within that set they pick one particular sport (soccer), and within that sport they pick one particular league, and within that league they pick one particular team! They somehow manage to sum up all this nonsense in a two word description of themselves. Oh also, they use this as an excuse to fight people who choose the same set of sports, the same sport, the same league, but a different team!
Because those people are badwrong and need to be beat-up.Compared to that clusterfuck: Identifying yourself based on either gender, sex, or a specific combination of the two doesn't seem that strange. It's downright sensible really, when seen in the right context.
P.S. I have heard rumors that some people even choose a particular player within a team to identify with, but I have a hard time believing that.
HAHAHAHA EVERYBODY'S LIVED EXPERIENCE IS UNDERSTOOD AND DEFINED VIA CONCEPTS AND WORDS AND SOUNDS THEY MAKE WITH THEIR FACES THAT DON'T, REMOVED FROM THEIR SOCIAL CONTEXT, ACTUALLY MEAN ANYTHING.
IT'S ALL JUST WORDS, YOU DELUDED FOOLS. HAHAHAHA.
Quote from: Pæs on June 05, 2015, 11:54:56 PM
HAHAHAHA EVERYBODY'S LIVED EXPERIENCE IS UNDERSTOOD AND DEFINED VIA CONCEPTS AND WORDS AND SOUNDS THEY MAKE WITH THEIR FACES THAT DON'T, REMOVED FROM THEIR SOCIAL CONTEXT, ACTUALLY MEAN ANYTHING.
IT'S ALL JUST WORDS, YOU DELUDED FOOLS. HAHAHAHA.
Hey, sometimes the only way out of a hole is to keep digging until you hit sillyness. The sillyness explodes and launches you back to the surface.
Commonly known as appeal to absurdity when done to another, I'm not sure what it is called when I do it to myself.
Quote from: Reginald Ret on June 05, 2015, 11:58:22 PM
Quote from: Pæs on June 05, 2015, 11:54:56 PM
HAHAHAHA EVERYBODY'S LIVED EXPERIENCE IS UNDERSTOOD AND DEFINED VIA CONCEPTS AND WORDS AND SOUNDS THEY MAKE WITH THEIR FACES THAT DON'T, REMOVED FROM THEIR SOCIAL CONTEXT, ACTUALLY MEAN ANYTHING.
IT'S ALL JUST WORDS, YOU DELUDED FOOLS. HAHAHAHA.
Hey, sometimes the only way out of a hole is to keep digging until you hit sillyness. The sillyness explodes and launches you back to the surface.
Commonly known as appeal to absurdity when done to another, I'm not sure what it is called when I do it to myself.
The ridicule there was directed at PDS, rather than at your post :)
Quote from: Reginald Ret on June 05, 2015, 11:49:35 PM
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 05, 2015, 10:50:08 PM
As before I still think it's a bunch of BS. That said, I nonetheless believe that these folks should be allowed to live their lives the way they want to free of bullying institutionalized harassment. It's everyone's right to pull the wool over their own eyes and relax in their own delusions. It's ok, but it just doesn't make them stop being delusions is all I'm saying
You are almost there.
They may be using silly concepts to define themselves with, but so are you.
All humans identify with stupid shit, it is just how people work. We are lean, mean, self-identifying machines.
Hell, I know quite a lot of people who identify as sportsfans! And not just sports in general, but they pick one very specific set of sports(in this case ballgames), then within that set they pick one particular sport (soccer), and within that sport they pick one particular league, and within that league they pick one particular team! They somehow manage to sum up all this nonsense in a two word description of themselves. Oh also, they use this as an excuse to fight people who choose the same set of sports, the same sport, the same league, but a different team! Because those people are badwrong and need to be beat-up.
Compared to that clusterfuck: Identifying yourself based on either gender, sex, or a specific combination of the two doesn't seem that strange. It's downright sensible really, when seen in the right context.
P.S. I have heard rumors that some people even choose a particular player within a team to identify with, but I have a hard time believing that.
Exactly!
Omnia vanitas.
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 06, 2015, 12:35:34 AM
Exactly! Omnia vanitas.
Christ, what an asshole. I came into this discussion feeling vaguely uncomfortable because I held a philosophical position somewhat similar to yours and at the same time didn't see any need to belittle or harass trans people, and wasn't sure if that made me a bigot. Now I don't even care, I'm rejecting it. You've made it look that unappealing and pretentious.
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 05, 2015, 10:50:08 PM
As before I still think it's a bunch of BS. That said, I nonetheless believe that these folks should be allowed to live their lives the way they want to free of bullying institutionalized harassment. It's everyone's right to pull the wool over their own eyes and relax in their own delusions. It's ok, but it just doesn't make them stop being delusions is all I'm saying
It's fortunate that your approval is not required.
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 05, 2015, 10:50:08 PM
As before I still think it's a bunch of BS. That said, I nonetheless believe that these folks should be allowed to live their lives the way they want to free of bullying institutionalized harassment. It's everyone's right to pull the wool over their own eyes and relax in their own delusions. It's ok, but it just doesn't make them stop being delusions is all I'm saying
Okay, I see no reason to continue reading your drivel.
Not because you're kind of a bigot, which you are, but because you are doing the intellectual equivalent of fingers in your ears saying LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU YOU'RE WRONG every time someone attempts to explain the difference between gender expression and biological sex, and why social constructs are meaningful and real.
To me it just seems like if people Cotard's Syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotard_delusion) tried to tell me about how there's a difference being biologically dead and being dead from a sociological prespective, and that the latter was intrinsically more important.
You just realised you compared transgender people to the mentally ill there, right?
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 06, 2015, 04:20:14 AM
To me it just seems like if people Cotard's Syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotard_delusion) tried to tell me about how there's a difference being biologically dead and being dead from a sociological prespective, and that the latter was intrinsically more important.
So you're saying that people with Cotard's Syndrome aren't experiencing a real syndrome? Because, mind you, people who are transgender are generally not trying to say that their bodies are ACTUALLY the opposite sex, they are saying that they FEEL LIKE their gender is aligned with that normally ascribed to the opposite sex.
I am starting to suspect that you don't actually grasp the concept of gender-as-social-expectation at all.
Very likely because you have decided not to.
Quote from: Cain on June 06, 2015, 04:23:20 AM
You just realised you compared transgender people to the mentally ill there, right?
The mentally ill due to severe brain damage, in fact.
So at this point, he appears to be claiming that transgendered people do in fact have a neurobiological disorder.
This seems indicative that he doesn't even understand
his own argument.
Quote from: Cain on June 06, 2015, 04:23:20 AM
You just realised you compared transgender people to the mentally ill there, right?
Of course he realizes it. He doesn't seem ashamed of his bigotry at all.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 06, 2015, 04:27:07 AM
Quote from: Cain on June 06, 2015, 04:23:20 AM
You just realised you compared transgender people to the mentally ill there, right?
Of course he realizes it. He doesn't seem ashamed of his bigotry at all.
My guess is that they make him personally uncomfortable.
They make a lot of people uncomfortable, when they haven't been exposed to people who aren't locked into rigid gender roles before. So do gays and lesbians and professional women and stay at home dads. Most of us grow up and get over it.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 06, 2015, 04:31:55 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 06, 2015, 04:27:07 AM
Quote from: Cain on June 06, 2015, 04:23:20 AM
You just realised you compared transgender people to the mentally ill there, right?
Of course he realizes it. He doesn't seem ashamed of his bigotry at all.
My guess is that they make him personally uncomfortable.
They make a lot of people uncomfortable, when they haven't been exposed to people who aren't locked into rigid gender roles before. So do gays and lesbians and professional women and stay at home dads. Most of us grow up and get over it.
Yep.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 06, 2015, 04:23:56 AM
I am starting to suspect that you don't actually grasp the concept of gender-as-social-expectation at all.
Not really. Not in this context. I grasp the concept to a certain extent, but what I can grasp of that social expectation has always, at least in the western world, been inextricably bound up with physical sex. If you really believe that society at large can be induced to accept such a sweeping wholesale alteration to this concept, why would you root for it to merely be changed instead of done away with entirely.
Furthermore, while this change would make gender more egalitarian, and egalitarianism is always good, it would also rob this already effectively useless and contemptible social convention of the one meager and base shred of semi-usefulness that it retains, which is to inform people if a potential sexual partner has the type of genitals they are interested in. Base and superficial though this is it is the one -admittedly small- piece of positive value that the social convention of gender possesses and if it was to be removed and if convention is capable of being altered, than why not just alter the convention by doing away with it. Plus, doing away with it is if anything even more egalitarian.
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 06, 2015, 04:47:06 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 06, 2015, 04:23:56 AM
I am starting to suspect that you don't actually grasp the concept of gender-as-social-expectation at all.
Not really. Not in this context. I grasp the concept to a certain extent, but what I can grasp of that social expectation has always, at least in the western world, been inextricably bound up with physical sex. If you really believe that society at large can be induced to accept such a sweeping wholesale alteration to this concept, why would you root for it to merely be changed instead of done away with entirely.
Furthermore, while this change would make gender more egalitarian, and egalitarianism is always good, it would also rob this already effectively useless and contemptible social convention of the one meager and base shred of semi-usefulness that it retains, which is to inform people if a potential sexual partner has the type of genitals they are interested in. Base and superficial though this is it is the one -admittedly small- piece of positive value that the social convention of gender possesses and if it was to be removed and if convention is capable of being altered, than why not just alter the convention by doing away with it. Plus, doing away with it is if anything even more egalitarian.
How do you propose to do away with it?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 06, 2015, 04:49:14 AM
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 06, 2015, 04:47:06 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 06, 2015, 04:23:56 AM
I am starting to suspect that you don't actually grasp the concept of gender-as-social-expectation at all.
Not really. Not in this context. I grasp the concept to a certain extent, but what I can grasp of that social expectation has always, at least in the western world, been inextricably bound up with physical sex. If you really believe that society at large can be induced to accept such a sweeping wholesale alteration to this concept, why would you root for it to merely be changed instead of done away with entirely.
Furthermore, while this change would make gender more egalitarian, and egalitarianism is always good, it would also rob this already effectively useless and contemptible social convention of the one meager and base shred of semi-usefulness that it retains, which is to inform people if a potential sexual partner has the type of genitals they are interested in. Base and superficial though this is it is the one -admittedly small- piece of positive value that the social convention of gender possesses and if it was to be removed and if convention is capable of being altered, than why not just alter the convention by doing away with it. Plus, doing away with it is if anything even more egalitarian.
How do you propose to do away with it?
Through the same activism based means by which it's being altered.
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 06, 2015, 04:47:06 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 06, 2015, 04:23:56 AM
I am starting to suspect that you don't actually grasp the concept of gender-as-social-expectation at all.
Not really. Not in this context. I grasp the concept to a certain extent, but what I can grasp of that social expectation has always, at least in the western world, been inextricably bound up with physical sex. If you really believe that society at large can be induced to accept such a sweeping wholesale alteration to this concept, why would you root for it to merely be changed instead of done away with entirely.
Furthermore, while this change would make gender more egalitarian, and egalitarianism is always good, it would also rob this already effectively useless and contemptible social convention of the one meager and base shred of semi-usefulness that it retains, which is to inform people if a potential sexual partner has the type of genitals they are interested in. Base and superficial though this is it is the one -admittedly small- piece of positive value that the social convention of gender possesses and if it was to be removed and if convention is capable of being altered, than why not just alter the convention by doing away with it. Plus, doing away with it is if anything even more egalitarian.
Social roles will always exist. Unplugging gender from sex is essentially the same thing as relegating it to a non-sex-dependent social role, so all you're doing, ultimately, is making a pointless semantic argument.
Functionally, the difference between "Let's separate gender from sex" and "Let's do away with gender altogether" is nothing.
Unless you also intend to do away with the attendant behaviors, in which case you don't have any people left because all gender roles have done is take the naturally-occurring behaviors of human beings and segregated them according to sex.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 06, 2015, 05:25:46 AM
Functionally, the difference between "Let's separate gender from sex" and "Let's do away with gender altogether" is nothing.
Unless you also intend to do away with the attendant behaviors, in which case you don't have any people left because all gender roles have done is take the naturally-occurring behaviors of human beings and segregated them according to sex.
As it is, the attendant behaviors are clustered together in semi-rigid groups. I would break these groups up as well, so that people could mix and match. Basically aiming for a situation where genderqueer (or something closely resembling it) and society-at-large become largely indistinguishable from each other.
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 06, 2015, 06:15:53 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 06, 2015, 05:25:46 AM
Functionally, the difference between "Let's separate gender from sex" and "Let's do away with gender altogether" is nothing.
Unless you also intend to do away with the attendant behaviors, in which case you don't have any people left because all gender roles have done is take the naturally-occurring behaviors of human beings and segregated them according to sex.
As it is, the attendant behaviors are clustered together in semi-rigid groups. I would break these groups up as well, so that people could mix and match. Basically aiming for a situation where genderqueer and society-at-large become largely indistinguishable from each other.
Big talk for someone with absolutely no control over said behaviors and groups.
On an unrelated note, is it transphobic to not mention trans people at all? I ask because about a week ago, I was informed on Facebook that this was the case.
Quote from: President Television on June 06, 2015, 06:40:45 AM
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 06, 2015, 06:15:53 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 06, 2015, 05:25:46 AM
Functionally, the difference between "Let's separate gender from sex" and "Let's do away with gender altogether" is nothing.
Unless you also intend to do away with the attendant behaviors, in which case you don't have any people left because all gender roles have done is take the naturally-occurring behaviors of human beings and segregated them according to sex.
As it is, the attendant behaviors are clustered together in semi-rigid groups. I would break these groups up as well, so that people could mix and match. Basically aiming for a situation where genderqueer and society-at-large become largely indistinguishable from each other.
Big talk for someone with absolutely no control over said behaviors and groups.
I never said I had any influence. I'm just saying that I think the people who do seem to be changing things are squandering their influence making an unusually difficult but ultimately minor change to a system that needs a sweeping overhaul. Merely reforming gender norms is like doing detailed cosmetic surgery on a tumor.
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 06, 2015, 06:15:53 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 06, 2015, 05:25:46 AM
Functionally, the difference between "Let's separate gender from sex" and "Let's do away with gender altogether" is nothing.
Unless you also intend to do away with the attendant behaviors, in which case you don't have any people left because all gender roles have done is take the naturally-occurring behaviors of human beings and segregated them according to sex.
As it is, the attendant behaviors are clustered together in semi-rigid groups. I would break these groups up as well, so that people could mix and match. Basically aiming for a situation where genderqueer (or something closely resembling it) and society-at-large become largely indistinguishable from each other.
Functionally speaking, how is that different from disconnecting gender from sex?
Quote from: President Television on June 06, 2015, 06:40:45 AM
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 06, 2015, 06:15:53 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 06, 2015, 05:25:46 AM
Functionally, the difference between "Let's separate gender from sex" and "Let's do away with gender altogether" is nothing.
Unless you also intend to do away with the attendant behaviors, in which case you don't have any people left because all gender roles have done is take the naturally-occurring behaviors of human beings and segregated them according to sex.
As it is, the attendant behaviors are clustered together in semi-rigid groups. I would break these groups up as well, so that people could mix and match. Basically aiming for a situation where genderqueer and society-at-large become largely indistinguishable from each other.
Big talk for someone with absolutely no control over said behaviors and groups.
On an unrelated note, is it transphobic to not mention trans people at all? I ask because about a week ago, I was informed on Facebook that this was the case.
Depends on whether you're ignoring them despite their presence and relative relevance, or whether you simply have little enough exposure to them that you have no reason to mention them.
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 06, 2015, 07:16:48 AM
Quote from: President Television on June 06, 2015, 06:40:45 AM
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 06, 2015, 06:15:53 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 06, 2015, 05:25:46 AM
Functionally, the difference between "Let's separate gender from sex" and "Let's do away with gender altogether" is nothing.
Unless you also intend to do away with the attendant behaviors, in which case you don't have any people left because all gender roles have done is take the naturally-occurring behaviors of human beings and segregated them according to sex.
As it is, the attendant behaviors are clustered together in semi-rigid groups. I would break these groups up as well, so that people could mix and match. Basically aiming for a situation where genderqueer and society-at-large become largely indistinguishable from each other.
Big talk for someone with absolutely no control over said behaviors and groups.
I never said I had any influence. I'm just saying that I think the people who do seem to be changing things are squandering their influence making an unusually difficult but ultimately minor change to a system that needs a sweeping overhaul. Merely reforming gender norms is like doing detailed cosmetic surgery on a tumor.
Social change, like scientific change, is generally incremental (from a human lifespan perspective). The reason for this is that social change that occurs very rapidly is generally catastrophic.
"Transgenderism Kills Feminism
As conservatives and Christians have run away terrified by the prospect of having meaningless words like transphobic tossed at them, it might ultimately be, in a strange twist of fate, the feminists who take down the "transgender" narrative. If they ever figure out that "transgenderism" is a direct assault on their entire worldview, maybe it will prompt a full fledged civil war in the progressive ranks.
After all, according to mainstream feminist wisdom, there is no such thing as a "female brain" or a "female soul" or "feeling like a female." By the words of every liberal who has ever said anything on the subject of women's rights in the past four decades, how you dress, look, think, and feel have nothing to do with your womanhood. Usually it would be offensive and sexist to accuse a woman of acting like, thinking like, or feeling like a woman.
Yet now, suddenly, emotions and looks define a woman so severely that a man can actually become one if he claims to experience feelings that he assumes are feminine?
The whole thing contradicts itself.
Feminism and transgenderism say two opposing things about what it means to be a woman. In fact, feminists have come up with the term "neurosexism" to condemn the misogynistic and "pseudo-scientific" idea that male and females brains are different. But Bruce Jenner claims he has "the brain of a female," so how does this work? Do you mean to tell me that the only people who can have female brains are males?
Meanwhile, feminists regularly insist that the absence of a uterus and a vagina excludes men from having an opinion about things like abortion. So a man can't have ideas about women's issues because he lacks the correct anatomy, but he can actually be a woman despite lacking the correct anatomy?
How does that make any kind of sense?
Transgenderism and feminism cannot coexist. Progressives can't have both.
They'll just have to choose."
What the fucking shit?!?!?!!?
http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/calling-bruce-jenner-a-woman-is-an-insult-to-women/
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 06, 2015, 07:34:11 AM
Quote from: President Television on June 06, 2015, 06:40:45 AM
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 06, 2015, 06:15:53 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 06, 2015, 05:25:46 AM
Functionally, the difference between "Let's separate gender from sex" and "Let's do away with gender altogether" is nothing.
Unless you also intend to do away with the attendant behaviors, in which case you don't have any people left because all gender roles have done is take the naturally-occurring behaviors of human beings and segregated them according to sex.
As it is, the attendant behaviors are clustered together in semi-rigid groups. I would break these groups up as well, so that people could mix and match. Basically aiming for a situation where genderqueer and society-at-large become largely indistinguishable from each other.
Big talk for someone with absolutely no control over said behaviors and groups.
On an unrelated note, is it transphobic to not mention trans people at all? I ask because about a week ago, I was informed on Facebook that this was the case.
Depends on whether you're ignoring them despite their presence and relative relevance, or whether you simply have little enough exposure to them that you have no reason to mention them.
Hmm. I guess it was the former case. The context was that an image was posted (this one: https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xat1/v/t1.0-9/11392916_934552266615816_812535875114742651_n.jpg?oh=5dbb30621150cfcdb6eadc85764ac167&oe=5608D8B8), and since none of the examples it used to argue its point were trans people, someone got mad. I can't imagine a drag performer(or anyone active in the LGBT community) was unaware of trans people, but at the same time the image was pretty busy as it was and it didn't come across to me as a deliberate effort at silencing anyone. The resulting rage therefore looked to me like an example of DOING IT WRONG perfectionism, but maybe I was wrong about that.
If I'm understanding it correctly, when a trans person transitions the name they now go by is their real name. Their previous name is obsolete. They're not using an alias, so referring to trans people in that graphic would probably be offensive to them.
Quote from: Sung Low on June 06, 2015, 03:31:53 PM
If I'm understanding it correctly, when a trans person transitions the name they now go by is their real name. Their previous name is obsolete. They're not using an alias, so referring to trans people in that graphic would probably be offensive to them.
I would agree...but it could also be the case that the person is pre-transition or only starting to transition, so in the context of the picture, they could also be considered "using an alias" by the ridiculously wide standards of Facebook.
IMO, I wouldn't say such a graphic is transphobic, but it is maybe an example of
trans erasure. That would be a much more suitable way of putting it. I prefer to reserve terms like transphobia for some kind of active hatred or sentiment, which I don't think that graphic is. I mean, if that's transphobia, then what do we call Huckabee's recent comments?
i'm just trying to digest all this.
it makes sense to separate gender and sex. that is, a male can choose to identify as man or woman (or, perhaps - certain degrees of man-ness or woman-ness) and a female can also choose to identify as woman or man (again, to certain degrees).
a male (or female) choosing to identify as anything other than man (or woman) is considered to be transgendered.
(i now realize that it might not be appropriate to use the word "choose" as the individual may not really have a choice).
since gender is a social construct, identifying as the "non-socially acceptable" gender should not be considered a medical disorder (although I think you could argue it may be a psychological disorder?? is there such a thing as a sociological disorder??)
also, a male can identify as a female and a female can identify as a male. this would be considered to be transexual.
again, the individual may or may not have a choice.
given that the mind is an emergent property of the body (a notion i'm not sure I fully agree with . . .) I would think there is a connection between the body's natural hormone production and the mind's (brain's?) reaction and development.
i guess what i'm having a hard time with is how, in this context, transexualism is still not a disorder.
as Nigel stated, and others agreed with -
Quote
2. No, I don't think it's a disorder, outside of the social sense. In other words, it is not a pathology.
3. Yes, I think it is probably biological.
how can it be biological without a pathology?
.
.
.
i haven't read any Jenner interviews, but I imagine the following hypothetical:
Suppose Jenner, being an athlete under tremendous pressure to perform well, began to take large amounts of steroids.
The steroid abuse then caused his body to simultaneously stop producing testosterone and increase it's estrogen production (I believe this is a side effect of steroid abuse).
Olympics are over and steroid abuse stops, however the body never fully resumes "normal" hormone production.
Jenner begins to feel more and more female... transexual.
is this not a disorder?
Quote from: Gone with the Sin on June 06, 2015, 01:12:53 PM
What the fucking shit?!?!?!!?
http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/calling-bruce-jenner-a-woman-is-an-insult-to-women/
Just wait until The Blaze discovers trans-exclusionary radical feminism. Their minds will explode.
Quote from: Gone with the Sin on June 06, 2015, 01:12:53 PM
"Transgenderism Kills Feminism
As conservatives and Christians have run away terrified by the prospect of having meaningless words like transphobic tossed at them, it might ultimately be, in a strange twist of fate, the feminists who take down the "transgender" narrative. If they ever figure out that "transgenderism" is a direct assault on their entire worldview, maybe it will prompt a full fledged civil war in the progressive ranks.
After all, according to mainstream feminist wisdom, there is no such thing as a "female brain" or a "female soul" or "feeling like a female." By the words of every liberal who has ever said anything on the subject of women's rights in the past four decades, how you dress, look, think, and feel have nothing to do with your womanhood. Usually it would be offensive and sexist to accuse a woman of acting like, thinking like, or feeling like a woman.
Yet now, suddenly, emotions and looks define a woman so severely that a man can actually become one if he claims to experience feelings that he assumes are feminine?
The whole thing contradicts itself.
Feminism and transgenderism say two opposing things about what it means to be a woman. In fact, feminists have come up with the term "neurosexism" to condemn the misogynistic and "pseudo-scientific" idea that male and females brains are different. But Bruce Jenner claims he has "the brain of a female," so how does this work? Do you mean to tell me that the only people who can have female brains are males?
Meanwhile, feminists regularly insist that the absence of a uterus and a vagina excludes men from having an opinion about things like abortion. So a man can't have ideas about women's issues because he lacks the correct anatomy, but he can actually be a woman despite lacking the correct anatomy?
How does that make any kind of sense?
Transgenderism and feminism cannot coexist. Progressives can't have both.
They'll just have to choose."
What the fucking shit?!?!?!!?
http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/calling-bruce-jenner-a-woman-is-an-insult-to-women/
The entire article hinges on first assuming that what the author states about the premises of feminism is true.
Quote from: rong on June 06, 2015, 03:52:27 PM
i'm just trying to digest all this.
it makes sense to separate gender and sex. that is, a male can choose to identify as man or woman (or, perhaps - certain degrees of man-ness or woman-ness) and a female can also choose to identify as woman or man (again, to certain degrees).
a male (or female) choosing to identify as anything other than man (or woman) is considered to be transgendered.
(i now realize that it might not be appropriate to use the word "choose" as the individual may not really have a choice).
since gender is a social construct, identifying as the "non-socially acceptable" gender should not be considered a medical disorder (although I think you could argue it may be a psychological disorder?? is there such a thing as a sociological disorder??)
also, a male can identify as a female and a female can identify as a male. this would be considered to be transexual.
again, the individual may or may not have a choice.
given that the mind is an emergent property of the body (a notion i'm not sure I fully agree with . . .) I would think there is a connection between the body's natural hormone production and the mind's (brain's?) reaction and development.
i guess what i'm having a hard time with is how, in this context, transexualism is still not a disorder.
as Nigel stated, and others agreed with -
Quote
2. No, I don't think it's a disorder, outside of the social sense. In other words, it is not a pathology.
3. Yes, I think it is probably biological.
how can it be biological without a pathology?
.
.
.
i haven't read any Jenner interviews, but I imagine the following hypothetical:
Suppose Jenner, being an athlete under tremendous pressure to perform well, began to take large amounts of steroids.
The steroid abuse then caused his body to simultaneously stop producing testosterone and increase it's estrogen production (I believe this is a side effect of steroid abuse).
Olympics are over and steroid abuse stops, however the body never fully resumes "normal" hormone production.
Jenner begins to feel more and more female... transexual.
is this not a disorder?
Sexual attraction is biological. Is it a pathology?
Pregnancy is biological. Is it a pathology?
Digestion is biological. Is it a pathology?
Relative absence of melanin in the skin is biological. Is it a pathology?
Biological variation along a spectrum in a normal, otherwise healthy population, can be quite broad but it is only considered a pathology if it has a negative impact on the quality of health of the affected individual. Two conditions are present in the case of the transgender experience that in my opinion make it distinctly not a pathology:
1. The negative impact on quality of life is entirely socially imposed and based on exhibiting certain patterns of behavior.
2. Half the population is not only allowed, but expected, to exhibit those same patterns of behavior.
Can there be social disorders? Yes, they are behaviors exhibited by a society of people. For example, slavery would be an extreme example of a social disorder.
Quote from: Cain on June 06, 2015, 03:53:58 PM
Quote from: Gone with the Sin on June 06, 2015, 01:12:53 PM
What the fucking shit?!?!?!!?
http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/calling-bruce-jenner-a-woman-is-an-insult-to-women/
Just wait until The Blaze discovers trans-exclusionary radical feminism. Their minds will explode.
:lulz:
This SERIOUSLY makes me want to start a #notallfeminists campaign.
I found a chart of symbols which may be helpful :D
http://i.imgur.com/pTqGqgq.png :D
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 06, 2015, 09:02:36 PM
I found a chart of symbols which may be helpful :D
http://i.imgur.com/pTqGqgq.png :D
I lol'd at at the 40K and electrical.. :lulz:
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 06, 2015, 04:10:19 PM
Quote from: Cain on June 06, 2015, 03:53:58 PM
Quote from: Gone with the Sin on June 06, 2015, 01:12:53 PM
What the fucking shit?!?!?!!?
http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/calling-bruce-jenner-a-woman-is-an-insult-to-women/
Just wait until The Blaze discovers trans-exclusionary radical feminism. Their minds will explode.
:lulz:
This SERIOUSLY makes me want to start a #notallfeminists campaign.
TERFs are great fun on FB.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 07, 2015, 05:52:37 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 06, 2015, 04:10:19 PM
Quote from: Cain on June 06, 2015, 03:53:58 PM
Quote from: Gone with the Sin on June 06, 2015, 01:12:53 PM
What the fucking shit?!?!?!!?
http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/calling-bruce-jenner-a-woman-is-an-insult-to-women/
Just wait until The Blaze discovers trans-exclusionary radical feminism. Their minds will explode.
:lulz:
This SERIOUSLY makes me want to start a #notallfeminists campaign.
TERFs are great fun on FB.
What are TERFs?
Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists?
Quote from: rong on June 06, 2015, 03:52:27 PM
i'm just trying to digest all this.
it makes sense to separate gender and sex. that is, a male can choose to identify as man or woman (or, perhaps - certain degrees of man-ness or woman-ness) and a female can also choose to identify as woman or man (again, to certain degrees).
a male (or female) choosing to identify as anything other than man (or woman) is considered to be transgendered.
(i now realize that it might not be appropriate to use the word "choose" as the individual may not really have a choice).
since gender is a social construct, identifying as the "non-socially acceptable" gender should not be considered a medical disorder (although I think you could argue it may be a psychological disorder?? is there such a thing as a sociological disorder??)
also, a male can identify as a female and a female can identify as a male. this would be considered to be transexual.
again, the individual may or may not have a choice.
given that the mind is an emergent property of the body (a notion i'm not sure I fully agree with . . .) I would think there is a connection between the body's natural hormone production and the mind's (brain's?) reaction and development.
i guess what i'm having a hard time with is how, in this context, transexualism is still not a disorder.
as Nigel stated, and others agreed with -
Quote
2. No, I don't think it's a disorder, outside of the social sense. In other words, it is not a pathology.
3. Yes, I think it is probably biological.
how can it be biological without a pathology?
.
.
.
i haven't read any Jenner interviews, but I imagine the following hypothetical:
Suppose Jenner, being an athlete under tremendous pressure to perform well, began to take large amounts of steroids.
The steroid abuse then caused his body to simultaneously stop producing testosterone and increase it's estrogen production (I believe this is a side effect of steroid abuse).
Olympics are over and steroid abuse stops, however the body never fully resumes "normal" hormone production.
Jenner begins to feel more and more female... transexual.
is this not a disorder?
Just jumping in here, clearly, got some thoughts that may or not be applicable.
I heard about the bolded above, in different contexts, however, when regarding professionals, any steroid cycle is followed by appropriate PCT (post cycle therapy) including SERMs (Selective Esteogen Reuptake Modulators). If not for safety alone, PCT remains nescesary to avoid secondary signs of doping.
That being said, the point is that there seems to be a systemic problem of identity manifesting itself quite determinately now. Instead of dealing with it, we are putting it up on display, like the feature of a freak show.
Not meaning to pontificate, just throwing my hat in the ring.
Quote from: Gone with the Sin on June 06, 2015, 01:12:53 PM
"Transgenderism Kills Feminism
As conservatives and Christians have run away terrified by the prospect of having meaningless words like transphobic tossed at them, it might ultimately be, in a strange twist of fate, the feminists who take down the "transgender" narrative. If they ever figure out that "transgenderism" is a direct assault on their entire worldview, maybe it will prompt a full fledged civil war in the progressive ranks.
After all, according to mainstream feminist wisdom, there is no such thing as a "female brain" or a "female soul" or "feeling like a female." By the words of every liberal who has ever said anything on the subject of women's rights in the past four decades, how you dress, look, think, and feel have nothing to do with your womanhood. Usually it would be offensive and sexist to accuse a woman of acting like, thinking like, or feeling like a woman.
Yet now, suddenly, emotions and looks define a woman so severely that a man can actually become one if he claims to experience feelings that he assumes are feminine?
The whole thing contradicts itself.
Feminism and transgenderism say two opposing things about what it means to be a woman. In fact, feminists have come up with the term "neurosexism" to condemn the misogynistic and "pseudo-scientific" idea that male and females brains are different. But Bruce Jenner claims he has "the brain of a female," so how does this work? Do you mean to tell me that the only people who can have female brains are males?
Meanwhile, feminists regularly insist that the absence of a uterus and a vagina excludes men from having an opinion about things like abortion. So a man can't have ideas about women's issues because he lacks the correct anatomy, but he can actually be a woman despite lacking the correct anatomy?
How does that make any kind of sense?
Transgenderism and feminism cannot coexist. Progressives can't have both.
They'll just have to choose."
What the fucking shit?!?!?!!?
http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/calling-bruce-jenner-a-woman-is-an-insult-to-women/
The two narratives
do indeed contradict each other on many points. Anybody who can't see that is doing some serious doublethink.
At least one must be at least partly false and/or partly meaningless.
The strawman one. Oh, wait, they're both strawmen because you refuse to actually engage the issues and would rather argue from ignorance.
Or it's entirely possible that an argument put forward by a conservative website set up by notorious idiot Glenn Beck is not presenting at least one, if not both, of the arguments fairly.
Hmm, who to trust? Matt Walsh (http://revolfaith.com/2014/05/11/my-beef-with-the-matt-walsh-blog/), a 27 year old highly socially conservative blogger with no expertise in political or gender theory and is so infamously wrong about everything he has a blog devoted just to debunking his bullshit, or someone like Julia Serrano (http://juliaserano.blogspot.co.uk/)?
Edit: QG beat me to it.
Trans people DO have unique issues when it comes to feminism, privilege, and where they stand in discussions of reproductive freedom and gender equality.
But that's a different topic entirely from whether the experience of being transgender is legitimate, as well as whether there are biological bases for the experience, and whether these bases should be considered a disorder.
A sure sign that someone isn't exactly sure why they don't like something and don't have a good argument for not liking it is when they start to flail, wildly bringing in tangential arguments in the hope that one of them will stick.
This is starting to remind me of arguing with a religious fundamentalist.
Meanwhile, on Facebook...
I've often considered going through years of therapy, expensive hormone and surgical treatment and facing the possible ostracism of everyone close to me, not to mention having an entire nation freak out over becoming a woman, simply for the sake of publicity.
I'd get mad media coverage, for sure.
Quote from: Cain on June 07, 2015, 08:35:26 PM
I've often considered going through years of therapy, expensive hormone and surgical treatment and facing the possible ostracism of everyone close to me, not to mention having an entire nation freak out over becoming a woman, simply for the sake of publicity.
I'd get mad media coverage, for sure.
I like the part where he calls me government brainwashed sheeple, unaware that I'm married to a dude on every watch list and have actively supported at least four people the government wants locked up for calling out their bullshit.
Hah, I skipped over that bit the first time.
Yeah, the media totally wants us to concentrate on one woman. Americans were worshipping the troops bravery too much, you see. It was totally going to bring the whole system down. But then the media dangles someone's transition in front of us, and we lose our minds.
WAKE UP SHEEPLE.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on June 07, 2015, 08:41:06 PM
Quote from: Cain on June 07, 2015, 08:35:26 PM
I've often considered going through years of therapy, expensive hormone and surgical treatment and facing the possible ostracism of everyone close to me, not to mention having an entire nation freak out over becoming a woman, simply for the sake of publicity.
I'd get mad media coverage, for sure.
I like the part where he calls me government brainwashed sheeple, unaware that I'm married to a dude on every watch list and have actively supported at least four people the government wants locked up for calling out their bullshit.
His lack of interpunction offends me.
People who can't form sentences can't be expected to form thoughts.
Thoughts, like sentences, have a beginning, middle, and end.
Quote from: Reginald Ret on June 07, 2015, 11:00:21 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on June 07, 2015, 08:41:06 PM
Quote from: Cain on June 07, 2015, 08:35:26 PM
I've often considered going through years of therapy, expensive hormone and surgical treatment and facing the possible ostracism of everyone close to me, not to mention having an entire nation freak out over becoming a woman, simply for the sake of publicity.
I'd get mad media coverage, for sure.
I like the part where he calls me government brainwashed sheeple, unaware that I'm married to a dude on every watch list and have actively supported at least four people the government wants locked up for calling out their bullshit.
His lack of interpunction offends me.
People who can't form sentences can't be expected to form thoughts.
Thoughts, like sentences, have a beginning, middle, and end.
It took every ounce of control not to correct him as we went, but it was my cousin's post and I was trying to be nice.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on June 07, 2015, 11:09:40 PM
Quote from: Reginald Ret on June 07, 2015, 11:00:21 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on June 07, 2015, 08:41:06 PM
Quote from: Cain on June 07, 2015, 08:35:26 PM
I've often considered going through years of therapy, expensive hormone and surgical treatment and facing the possible ostracism of everyone close to me, not to mention having an entire nation freak out over becoming a woman, simply for the sake of publicity.
I'd get mad media coverage, for sure.
I like the part where he calls me government brainwashed sheeple, unaware that I'm married to a dude on every watch list and have actively supported at least four people the government wants locked up for calling out their bullshit.
His lack of interpunction offends me.
People who can't form sentences can't be expected to form thoughts.
Thoughts, like sentences, have a beginning, middle, and end.
It took every ounce of control not to correct him as we went, but it was my cousin's post and I was trying to be nice.
I feel for you, and am impressed with your restraint.
Also, my own misuse of comma's offends me.
I
may be offended too easily.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on June 07, 2015, 07:50:39 PM
Meanwhile, on Facebook...
The lack of the Jews disappoints me.
http://youtu.be/bXn1xavynj8 (http://youtu.be/bXn1xavynj8)
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 06, 2015, 07:32:42 AM
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 06, 2015, 06:15:53 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 06, 2015, 05:25:46 AM
Functionally, the difference between "Let's separate gender from sex" and "Let's do away with gender altogether" is nothing.
Unless you also intend to do away with the attendant behaviors, in which case you don't have any people left because all gender roles have done is take the naturally-occurring behaviors of human beings and segregated them according to sex.
As it is, the attendant behaviors are clustered together in semi-rigid groups. I would break these groups up as well, so that people could mix and match. Basically aiming for a situation where genderqueer (or something closely resembling it) and society-at-large become largely indistinguishable from each other.
Functionally speaking, how is that different from disconnecting gender from sex?
Technically it's not, but there's still a distinction between it and what is otherwise being proposed.
Imagine there's a bad traffic accident in which the two vehicles belonging to the same household involved become twisted together so they are hard to seperate, and after they are disconnected one is still drivable and only cosmetically damaged (perhaps it's much larger or something, bear with me) but the other is totaled. The smart course of action would be for the drivable vehicle to be kept and the wrecked one to be scrapped for parts and materials, this is analogous to my proposal. A more silly thing to do would be for the family to hang on to both vehicles and keep the wrecked one on conderblocks on their front lawn, and an even sillier proposal would be to keep the wrecked vehicle and get rid of the one that still works; the second proposal and in extreme cases the third proposal are analogous to what all of you seem to be proposing. The wrecked car represents gender, the working car represents biological sex, and the scrapyard and used auto parts store represent miscellaneous personality traits.
Additionally, people who are transgender rather than either normal or genderqueer identifying as a non-standard category are basically trying to have their cake and eat it too. Operating within he genderbinary system but refusing to play by its rules (as opposed to cisgender who operate within the system and play by its rules or genderqueer not identifying as a man or a woman who are outside the system and therefore have no societal obligation to play by its rules)
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 11, 2015, 10:09:06 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 06, 2015, 07:32:42 AM
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on June 06, 2015, 06:15:53 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 06, 2015, 05:25:46 AM
Functionally, the difference between "Let's separate gender from sex" and "Let's do away with gender altogether" is nothing.
Unless you also intend to do away with the attendant behaviors, in which case you don't have any people left because all gender roles have done is take the naturally-occurring behaviors of human beings and segregated them according to sex.
As it is, the attendant behaviors are clustered together in semi-rigid groups. I would break these groups up as well, so that people could mix and match. Basically aiming for a situation where genderqueer (or something closely resembling it) and society-at-large become largely indistinguishable from each other.
Functionally speaking, how is that different from disconnecting gender from sex?
Technically it's not, but there's still a distinction between it and what is otherwise being proposed.
Imagine there's a bad traffic accident in which the two vehicles belonging to the same household involved become twisted together so they are hard to seperate, and after they are disconnected one is still drivable and only cosmetically damaged (perhaps it's much larger or something, bear with me) but the other is totaled. The smart course of action would be for the drivable vehicle to be kept and the wrecked one to be scrapped for parts and materials, this is analogous to my proposal. A more silly thing to do would be for the family to hang on to both vehicles and keep the wrecked one on conderblocks on their front lawn, and an even sillier proposal would be to keep the wrecked vehicle and get rid of the one that still works; the second proposal and in extreme cases the third proposal are analogous to what all of you seem to be proposing. The wrecked car represents gender, the working car represents biological sex, and the scrapyard and used auto parts store represent miscellaneous personality traits.
Additionally, people who are transgender rather than either normal or genderqueer identifying as a non-standard category are basically trying to have their cake and eat it too. Operating within he genderbinary system but refusing to play by its rules (as opposed to cisgender who operate within the system and play by its rules or genderqueer not identifying as a man or a woman who are outside the system and therefore have no societal obligation to play by its rules)
I'm sure your metaphor felt like it made sense when you started typing it, but it just
doesn't work on any level.And that last paragraph just makes you sound like a total idiot.
No change there, then.
I still think he's being a total twunt about this. The only thing I can interpret his last paragraph as is "I refuse to accept what they want because they weren't born that way and it makes me uncomfortable to look at people differently than how I automatically judge them. So because I don't want to move outside my comfort zone and the world isn't perfect, fuck them."
Quote from: Choppas an' Sluggas on July 12, 2015, 02:03:11 AM
I still think he's being a total twunt about this. The only thing I can interpret his last paragraph as is "I refuse to accept what they want because they weren't born that way and it makes me uncomfortable to look at people differently than how I automatically judge them. So because I don't want to move outside my comfort zone and the world isn't perfect, fuck them."
I thought his last paragraph was the only vaguely interesting thing he's ever written on this forum.
Quote from: Hoopla on July 12, 2015, 02:13:33 AM
Quote from: Choppas an' Sluggas on July 12, 2015, 02:03:11 AM
I still think he's being a total twunt about this. The only thing I can interpret his last paragraph as is "I refuse to accept what they want because they weren't born that way and it makes me uncomfortable to look at people differently than how I automatically judge them. So because I don't want to move outside my comfort zone and the world isn't perfect, fuck them."
I thought his last paragraph was the only vaguely interesting thing he's ever written on this forum.
It can still be interesting and repulsive in its undertones.
Quote from: Choppas an' Sluggas on July 12, 2015, 02:15:26 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on July 12, 2015, 02:13:33 AM
Quote from: Choppas an' Sluggas on July 12, 2015, 02:03:11 AM
I still think he's being a total twunt about this. The only thing I can interpret his last paragraph as is "I refuse to accept what they want because they weren't born that way and it makes me uncomfortable to look at people differently than how I automatically judge them. So because I don't want to move outside my comfort zone and the world isn't perfect, fuck them."
I thought his last paragraph was the only vaguely interesting thing he's ever written on this forum.
It can still be interesting and repulsive in its undertones.
Absolutely.