Law of noncontradiction and is a woman a woman?

[aeon]

And it's so hard to reprogram the brain when you've had a negative experience to not fear having that same experience and I guess that's the premise of prejudice or discrimination in some circumstances is just the assumption that the same situation will play out because of certain factors you're identifying.

Quite. Inasmuch as I am double-demi, I am on the Asexual spectrum. So I am LGBTQIA+.

Well, I was told by someone queer that I didn’t qualify—and was not welcome—because I am a cis het white male.

Whatever. A-spec folks are looking for acknowledgment and recognition as examples of a valid presentation of human sexuality, but from what I have seen online, people accept that others experience sexual attraction that differs from person to person, but not that someone experiences no sexual attraction whatsoever, or only experiences it under specific circumstances. Allo is the standard, and any kind of a-spec is invalidated, sometimes by explaining it away, and sometimes with animosity.

When you live long enough to become the villain.

I suppose we are just highlighting the difference between people who enjoy traditional and structure and predictably vs those who like change and expansion and innovation. And it's definitely a spectrum.

Yep.

I think it would be nice to look forward to change and be excited by it and embrace it instead of get lost in fear.

Welcome to my world. I especially embrace change when tradition seeks to preserve human suffering and injustice.

And as always, my opinion is worth 2¢, and marked down as surplus every Thursday.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[Sidis Coruscatis]

@slant You can redefine reality, but you can't change reality. That seems to be the core mix-up of progressive deconstruction. You can stretch reality, but it's going to snap back at you and you will suffer. What terrifies me is that language is no longer seen as a structure that is used to discover common truths. The question now, in a distinctively Marxist manner, is whether language and its usage is itself designed by the patriarchal oppressors (because the lens demands that every social issue boils down to class war) to shape reality according to their wishes, and the progressive gospel speaks clearly: Well yes, that must be what it is. That answer opens the door to the notion of progress without having to define a concrete vision that is falsifiable (because critique is transphobic, or any other selection of -phobic), nor having to look back and deeply consider what has always been true because it's all been invalidated as a devious scheme of power. And power is indeed at the top of the hierarchy; not God, not truth. Whoever gets to the top is the truth.

What is even more terrifying is that I can see hints of that thought permeating even those who don't explicitly espouse that theory. When you say it's "not good or bad" or when Ian wants you to "come on already", what does that really mean? When parents and teachers are now encouraging children to take drugs for chemical castration or surgically remove healthy parts of their body because they "feel" like it (remember when the diagnosis and the treatment were decided by the doctor and not the patient?), how can it not be judged good or bad? Come on where, and why? What's the end goal? You can't build a future on compassion and acceptance, the devil would like nothing more. It's as if there is no causality anymore, and we decide our circumstances by sheer power of will. It's a creative game, but then it's a game that doesn't even have any rules, so it's nothing. "Nothing" may as well be the ultimate category of complete inclusivity.

As always, Chesterton has nailed everything about the future thought 100 years ago:

The modern man says, "Let us leave all these arbitrary standards and embrace liberty." This is, logically rendered, "Let us not decide what is good, but let it be considered good not to decide it." He says, "Away with your old moral formulae; I am for progress." This, logically stated, means, "Let us not settle what is good; but let us settle whether we are getting more of it." He says, "Neither in religion nor morality, my friend, lie the hopes of the race, but in education." This, clearly expressed, means, "We cannot decide what is good, but let us give it to our children."

 

[slant]

@slant You can redefine reality, but you can't change reality. That seems to be the core mix-up of progressive deconstruction. You can stretch reality, but it's going to snap back at you and you will suffer. What terrifies me is that language is no longer seen as a structure that is used to discover common truths. The question now, in a distinctively Marxist manner, is whether language and its usage is itself designed by the patriarchal oppressors (because the lens demands that every social issue boils down to class war) to shape reality according to their wishes, and the progressive gospel speaks clearly: Well yes, that must be what it is. That answer opens the door to the notion of progress without having to define a concrete vision that is falsifiable (because critique is transphobic, or any other selection of -phobic), nor having to look back and deeply consider what has always been true because it's all been invalidated as a devious scheme of power. And power is indeed at the top of the hierarchy; not God, not truth. Whoever gets to the top is the truth.

What is even more terrifying is that I can see hints of that thought permeating even those who don't explicitly espouse that theory. When you say it's "not good or bad" or when Ian wants you to "come on already", what does that really mean? When parents and teachers are now encouraging children to take drugs for chemical castration or surgically remove healthy parts of their body because they "feel" like it (remember when the diagnosis and the treatment were decided by the doctor and not the patient?), how can it not be judged good or bad? Come on where, and why? What's the end goal? You can't build a future on compassion and acceptance, the devil would like nothing more. It's as if there is no causality anymore, and we decide our circumstances by sheer power of will. It's a creative game, but then it's a game that doesn't even have any rules, so it's nothing. "Nothing" may as well be the ultimate category of complete inclusivity.

As always, Chesterton has nailed everything about the future thought 100 years ago:

The modern man says, "Let us leave all these arbitrary standards and embrace liberty." This is, logically rendered, "Let us not decide what is good, but let it be considered good not to decide it." He says, "Away with your old moral formulae; I am for progress." This, logically stated, means, "Let us not settle what is good; but let us settle whether we are getting more of it." He says, "Neither in religion nor morality, my friend, lie the hopes of the race, but in education." This, clearly expressed, means, "We cannot decide what is good, but let us give it to our children."

I sympathize with your confusion about words getting redefined and there not being one clear truth and definition even when you want there to be one. I wish people could see it's more caused by your brain wanting everything to be proven by the scientific method rather than out of bigotry.

And just because there are problems with something doesn't make it right or wrong. Everything has upsides and downsides that doesn't mean it's a moral issue. Rather than evaluating situations factually going to this error of "this ideology is evil and dangerous!! " Panic is the same exact thing as what the people you're being critical of are doing and I'm not sure why you don't see that you are identical in presentation it is just what you think is right is different.

And you know, like I say, it's not right or wrong. So it might be clearly wrong to you but your opinion isn't right or wrong either.... It's just an opinion. I'm glad you are feeling free to voice it.

 

[aeon]

When parents and teachers are now encouraging children to take drugs for chemical castration or surgically remove healthy parts of their body because they "feel" like it (remember when the diagnosis and the treatment were decided by the doctor and not the patient?), how can it not be judged good or bad?

Quite simply. You don’t judge. Not that simply, at least.

Also, inasmuch as puberty blockers are reversible, and given the history of clinical data regarding their use, they are a great option which provides time for a child, parents, therapist, and clinicians to come to a mutual decision. There are clinical best-practices guidelines in place for this. Your characterization certainly suggests a position and the emotion behind it.

when Ian wants you to "come on already", what does that really mean?...Come on where, and why? What's the end goal? You can't build a future on compassion and acceptance, the devil would like nothing more. It's as if there is no causality anymore, and we decide our circumstances by sheer power of will. It's a creative game, but then it's a game that doesn't even have any rules, so it's nothing. "Nothing" may as well be the ultimate category of complete inclusivity.

As I said, it is the lean of my cognition. It doesn’t mean anything. There is no end goal. There is no plan.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[91GT347]

You see, I’m a conservative and it’s been a big thing these days to question “what is a woman?” And while many people don’t want to answer the question, I thought of a question epistemological one myself. Now a progressive leftist might agree that a woman is a woman. Now I’d like to follow that up with “permanently?” Now I don’t know but maybe I’d get some kind of response like “not if they don’t want to be.” The point is this, a woman can’t be a woman and not a woman at the same time. It’s nonsense.

Someone wants to be a woman. Let em be a woman. That doesn’t mean your female though. I disagree with being trans, until you are trans. A tadpole hasnt transitioned to a frog, til it has all four legs…if ya know what Im getting at. Logically, its all on a feminine/ masculine scale. So those people are just excessively feminine men or masculine women. So Im sure they do “feel” like the opposite sex. Doesnt mean they actually are. You want me to call you she or her or whatever. No problem. Its a little ridiculous to expect people to know 100 different pronouns and know which you prefer. Your going to be a he/him or a she/her til otherwise specified.

 

[slant]

What was weird was during the midterms this was an issue that came up with the school district. Apparently people were concerned about pornographic books, which included any book that mentions gay or transgender.

Everybody has the right to teach their children the values they want to, and the whole book banning trend is very surprising to me in that, they want to ban the books on principle rather than collaboration with the parents at the school and what is desired to be in those schools. The culture is very homogeneous here, so if they did try to get votes it's not like they're going to be outvoted. But instead of looking at it as "whatever fits the culture of the population" it is what they think is what goes.
I see this going the opposite way, too. This is why everyone is so upset. People who are religious or socially conservative minorites are getting these populations that teach what they don't agree with. I don't have issues with that though, I think that's when you decide to move. I'm not sure why in these culture wars we can't tolerate the existence of what we don't like.

 

[Defective]

We can not base fact off feeling, it is simply illogical and the idea of 'someone's truth' being valid reasoning, is greatly concerning to me, we can not base reality off 'someone's truth', they are welcome to live in whatever world they like and believe what they want, but I dislike that everyone is bullied into playing along with them.

I 100% believe in gender dysphoria but, it is something that should be the DSM and that's okay. It also isn't the case for most of the cases today, it's actually quite a rare phenomenon, so the prevalence is quite alarming and it's odd to me that there is such a huge attempt to silence anyone questioning it, and that people who de-transition are bullied into silence, definitely a lot more going on...

I also know there are often comorbidities with gender dysphoria, and I do suspect BPD (borderline personality disorder) is at play in a lot of cases, as that causes a huge confusion about identity, and it can seem comforting to seemingly change into 'someone' new, like shedding your skin and 'finding' yourself.

People seem to correlate being a 'woman' with stereotypes and I personally think that is very insulting, we need to separate the two.

 

[Asa]

What always interests me about this thread and a few similar ones that are anti-trans, is that people waltz in here pretending they are experts in gender and biology which they are not, and they claim (often in other threads) that they are empathetic and understanding people (despite the lack of empathy shown in this thread) and wish people understood them (which they fail to extend to trans people they attack here). Being transgender is not an abstract philosophical topic. It's about real people, and some of those very real people are part of this forum community and see what you write about them.

If you want people to be more compassionate, empathetic, and understanding toward you, try extending that to others. Try harder with people you don't understand.

 

[slant]

What always interests me about this thread and a few similar ones that are anti-trans, is that people waltz in here pretending they are experts in gender and biology which they are not, and they claim (often in other threads) that they are empathetic and understanding people (despite the lack of empathy shown in this thread) and wish people understood them (which they fail to extend to trans people they attack here). Being transgender is not an abstract philosophical topic. It's about real people, and some of those very real people are part of this forum community and see what you write about them.

If you want people to be more compassionate, empathetic, and understanding toward you, try extending that to others. Try harder with people you don't understand.

Would it be any better if those people just said,

"I don't like this and I don't want to be around this and I'm going to ignore people who are into this and just focus on my own life."

I feel like there's a difference between actively trying to restrict and remove people's choices in life and ability to express themselves vs just not liking the way somebody is and not wanting to be involved due to that. Are we allowed to not like people, but still allow them to exist as they are?

 

[Asa]

Are we allowed to not like people, but still allow them to exist as they are?

Yup.

 

[Wyote]

Are we allowed to not like people, but still allow them to exist as they are?

Not on the internet. There's a right way and a cancelled way.

 

[aeon]

Would it be any better if those people just said,

"I don't like this and I don't want to be around this and I'm going to ignore people who are into this and just focus on my own life."

I feel like there's a difference between actively trying to restrict and remove people's choices in life and ability to express themselves vs just not liking the way somebody is and not wanting to be involved due to that. Are we allowed to not like people, but still allow them to exist as they are?

Speaking very generally, some people accept the world and the people in it as it is, and as they are, and some people do not accept the world, or the people in it, when it and they do not align with their internalized models of “the way things should be.” Those things being the world, and the people and things in it—for reasons of cultural socialization, and otherwise.

I suppose a person may not like another, but there is a limit on not being involved, because we live in a society. Again, speaking very generally.

I think it a good idea to focus on oneself, but not to the exclusion of others. By focus, I mean directing one’s abilities and available resources within the constraints of a given situation on the meeting of one’s needs as well as on personal growth and development.

It seems over the span of history, transculturally, and with full intersectionality, human beings are absolutely shit when it comes to recognizing others’ agency, autonomy, and right to self-identity and self-expression.

I like the idea of doing what one likes, lest it harm none, but humans use all these control devices to stop other people from doing that. Culturally, legally, medically, sexually, and otherwise—we’re beyond poor when it comes to recognizing boundaries, and honoring consent.

I like your idea, because I’m a visionary and idealist (so say the tests!), so of course I do. That said, some people are kept up at night because someone, somewhere, might be enjoying/living life in a way they do not approve of.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[Matty]

What always interests me about this thread and a few similar ones that are anti-trans, is that people waltz in here pretending they are experts in gender and biology which they are not, and they claim (often in other threads) that they are empathetic and understanding people (despite the lack of empathy shown in this thread) and wish people understood them (which they fail to extend to trans people they attack here). Being transgender is not an abstract philosophical topic. It's about real people, and some of those very real people are part of this forum community and see what you write about them.

If you want people to be more compassionate, empathetic, and understanding toward you, try extending that to others. Try harder with people you don't understand.

And on top of what you said, someone always comes in grandstanding with absolutely nothing on topic, but just to insult others. Then on top of that, someone calls that person out, again, with nothing to say about the actual topic.

 

[slant]

Speaking very generally, some people accept the world and the people in it as it is, and as they are, and some people do not accept the world, or the people in it, when it and they do not align with their internalized models of “the way things should be.” Those things being the world, and the people and things in it—for reasons of cultural socialization, and otherwise.

I suppose a person may not like another, but there is a limit on not being involved, because we live in a society. Again, speaking very generally.

I think it a good idea to focus on oneself, but not to the exclusion of others. By focus, I mean directing one’s abilities and available resources within the constraints of a given situation on the meeting of one’s needs as well as on personal growth and development.

It seems over the span of history, transculturally, and with full intersectionality, human beings are absolutely shit when it comes to recognizing others’ agency, autonomy, and right to self-identity and self-expression.

I like the idea of doing what one likes, lest it harm none, but humans use all these control devices to stop other people from doing that. Culturally, legally, medically, sexually, and otherwise—we’re beyond poor when it comes to recognizing boundaries, and honoring consent.

I like your idea, because I’m a visionary and idealist (so say the tests!), so of course I do. That said, some people are kept up at night because someone, somewhere, might be enjoying/living life in a way they do not approve of.

Cheers,
Ian

Thanks for this.

I see that polarization in the world, or there being competing ideologies playing tug-of-war, is one of the beautiful balancing acts of being alive. I usually fall in the middle, so I have a vested interest in keeping all sides alive, whether I agree with them or not.

Eventually when ideas are different they fundamentally seek to eliminate each other or restrict each other. I don't think this can be prevented. So it often just boils down to majority rules, so typically what I'll end up doing is falling on the side of least popular idea and vouching for that to balance things out.

People might say, bad ideas need to die, and that's true, but as I know you see more clearly than most, once you understand the reason underlying a person's belief, it becomes more clear that the reason it is valid for them. So in world that really doesn't have an objective truth, when any side of any issue tries to insist there is, it begins to become frustrating and naturally I'll rebel against that. Some might view that as wanting the world to burn but the fact remains that when the world burns some people interpret that as a necessary, controlled burn that will result in a better future. Both are true and false.

 

[Defective]

What always interests me about this thread and a few similar ones that are anti-trans, is that people waltz in here pretending they are experts in gender and biology which they are not, and they claim (often in other threads) that they are empathetic and understanding people (despite the lack of empathy shown in this thread) and wish people understood them (which they fail to extend to trans people they attack here). Being transgender is not an abstract philosophical topic. It's about real people, and some of those very real people are part of this forum community and see what you write about them.

If you want people to be more compassionate, empathetic, and understanding toward you, try extending that to others. Try harder with people you don't understand.

I don't think questioning topics is being non empathetic, I can completely accept that someone is having a human experience while still critically evaluating it, I also am not sure why only certain people are allowed to be upset by things and are entitled to validation while others are told they are being judgemental and to sit down. I am very much allowed to have an opinion and a feeling based on the way something affects me, no one is the moral arbiter here.

I actually never claimed to be an expert at all, and both sides are heavily guilty of sourcing misinformation to support both sides. I understand that these topics are triggering for people but it is frustrating that you are not allowed to question anything these days, nothing that I wrote was hateful at all, it was curiosity and expression of my own human experience and my thoughts based upon my own knowledge. I look forward to the day people can have these discussions without it turning into a competition of moral superiority and without labelling each other.

 

[aeon]

We can not base fact off feeling

Fair enough.

they are welcome to live in whatever world they like

Everyone lives in the same world, albeit each with their own experiences and perspective on that world.

I dislike that everyone is bullied into playing along with them.

It’s not playing. That you would trivialize human lives like that belies your intention.

I 100% believe in gender dysphoria but, it is something that should be the DSM and that's okay.

So you believe gender dysphoria should be a clinically-diagnosable disorder, and you feel that is okay. Noted.

Gender dysphoria is in the DSM-5-TR, with a single entry containing both criteria for children, as well as criteria for adolescents/adults.

What they have in common is a fundamental basis in nonconsent. There is the gender identity, or lack thereof, of a human being. And there is the gender that human being is assigned at birth. Sometimes those things match, and sometimes they do not.

That someone could be diagnosed for resisting the identity that was forced onto them, which they had no choice or say in is ludicrous to me. That we suppose the superiority and rightness of an assignment made in ignorance, as part of a willful disregard of autonomy, to be greater than the stated witness of self of the person in question. What a disrespect and denial.

It also isn't the case for most of the cases today, it's actually quite a rare phenomenon

And you know the experiences of most other people who experience gender dysphoria because...? Do you have a citation for this?

so the prevalence is quite alarming

It is alarming to you, at least. I’m not sure your reason(s), but I accept that you feel as you do.

it's odd to me that there is such a huge attempt to silence anyone questioning it,

I don’t think there is any attempt to silence anyone who engages in good faith, is aware of the clinical data, and seeks to learn through remaining open while exploring the world.

Bad faith, dismissal of science, presupposition, judgement, stigmatization, being alarmed by other people’s lived experiences? No one benefits from those things, save perhaps those with agendas seeking to preserve and enforce non-consensual gender identities and gender roles based on reductive distortions of sex (genetic or dimorphism).

people who de-transition are bullied into silence, definitely a lot more going on...

Would you be willing to provide some information on this? My awareness of it is purely anecdotal as told by others.

I also know there are often comorbidities with gender dysphoria

No surprise, because this culture, with its violent enforcement of the reductive binary, certainly predisposes GSRM toward anxiety and depressive disorders, among other things.

I do suspect BPD (borderline personality disorder) is at play in a lot of cases

Are you a clinician?

as that causes a huge confusion about identity, and it can seem comforting to seemingly change into 'someone' new, like shedding your skin and 'finding' yourself.

That you would use the word “comforting” in the context of BPD and/or gender transition is an interesting choice, to say the least.

Regards,
Ian

 

[Defective]

Hi Ian!

Thanks for your reply, you have a deep insight into the topic and I appreciate you responding, you raised some very good points.

In regard to those who distransition this study comes to my mind from 2021 'Detransition-Related Needs and Support: A Cross-Sectional Online Survey' by Ellie Vandenbussche. There is a lot of anecdotal support from those in the community, but I agree that is not exactly reliable. This is a study exploring clinicians poor knowledge in helping those who distransition https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/article-abstract/2794543 (2022).

I am not a clinician but I am studying psychology, this is a study that is exploring personality disorders being comorbid with Gender dysphoria https://journals.lww.com/jfmpc/Full...of_personality_disorders_in_patients.151.aspx and its recent as well, 2022.

Identity disturbance is extremely common in BPD, I am sorry if my wording came across as insensitive, perhaps I could have used a better word!

My main point is that we need to be careful to find the line between true gender dysphoria and other issues, which is difficult for sure, but I suppose personally I find the gender rules we push onto children from the minute we find out their sex to be very disturbing and possibly the root cause.

I hope this helps you understand my perspective, thanks again

 

[slant]

It seems like people view open disagreement as saying you "can't say that" or "can't think that".

Rather than what I think people are communicating:

"That's not what I believe and I don't like your perspective."

Generally speaking, people have their perspective because it resonates with their morals and values. Of course those people are not going to want to be constantly surrounded by what they don't agree with, what they find opposing their views. And of course they will voice their opposition. They are even allowed to tell you they want you to stop saying what you're saying or they have certain moral judgements about you due to your opinion. This is all reasonable and basic human nature.

Here at least, there is absolutely no censorship going on. Open disagreement is absolutely ok.

 

[aeon]

Of course those people are not going to want to be constantly surrounded by what they don't agree with, what they find opposing their views. And of course they will voice their opposition. They are even allowed to tell you they want you to stop saying what you're saying or they have certain moral judgements about you due to your opinion. This is all reasonable and basic human nature.

In the abstract, as presented here, it seems a fair enough way to go about things.

That said, things like bigotry work within that framework. That might be quintessentially human, but I don’t think them reasonable.

In particular, when bad faith comes cloaked in rhetoric which aspires to reason, it is the most treacherous form of sophistry.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[slant]

In the abstract, as presented here, it seems a fair enough way to go about things.

That said, things like bigotry work within that framework. That might be quintessentially human, but I don’t think them reasonable.

In particular, when bad faith comes cloaked in rhetoric which aspires to reason, it is the most treacherous form of sophistry.

Cheers,
Ian

Yeah, that sucks. People often have opinions that contradict my morals and values. I don't like that, either.