Clarification on Transgender Claims (good faith)
Tell me if I’m understanding the claims.
It’s that some trans people have an incorruptible sense of their true gender from the beginning, but the connection to true gender for other trans people is impeded and they don’t get the pure insight until later.
If this is correct, what is preventing the pure insight early on for the latter group? How come they don’t have the uncorrupted connection from the beginning?
Then, the de-transitioners would be those who thought they had the uncorrupted connection to their true gender, but later developed the uncorrupted connection, realizing their sex based gender is their true gender. Is this correct? Or do only the actual trans have a true gender?
Next, how can an outsider determine who actually has the incorruptible connection to their true gender and who is impeded and mistaken?
I'm closing this thread as well pending the posting of the new guidelines. I'm not making any judgement on this thread. I simply want to suspend further transgender discussions for a few hours until the guidelines are posted and everyone can be operating under the same rules.
Thanks
Tell me if I’m understanding the claims.
It’s that some trans people have an incorruptible sense of their true gender from the beginning, but the connection to true gender for other trans people is impeded and they don’t get the pure insight until later.
If this is correct, what is preventing the pure insight early on for the latter group? How come they don’t have the uncorrupted connection from the beginning?
Then, the de-transitioners would be those who thought they had the uncorrupted connection
I think this is a fascinating question. I am also curious, if someone is born a man, for example, but "feels" he's a gal, why does he need that affirmed by a third party?
I want to reiterate the fork in the road with the trans issue along with every other identity politics issue.
Is the foundation of existence gender or is it the self?
There is no lasting meaning to be found in making gender the foundation of existence. When a trans activist says, “You are denying their existence.” What they mean is you are refusing to supplant the self with gender as the foundation of existence.
The fundamental moral move, if you are to build on a solid foundation, is SELF-acceptance. Not gender-acceptance, not race-acceptance, not gay-acceptance. Lasting meaning can only be found through the self.
I want to reiterate the fork in the road with the trans issue along with every other identity politics issue.
Is the foundation of existence gender or is it the self?
There is no lasting meaning to be found in making gender the foundation of existence. When a trans activist says, “You are denying their existence.” What they mean is you are refusing to supplant the self with gender as the foundation of existence.
The fundamental moral move, if you are to build on a solid foundation, is SELF-acce
Well, humans have got along just fine the last million years or so with pretty much a universal 2 gender understanding of the world, where 99% of individuals can be easily assigned a gender based on their phenotype. And no one cared whether one self-accepted or not.
You seem to be imagining some utopian society organized very differently than any that has every existed, without thinking about the possible utility for the way things are the way the are.
How many posts will this thread be allowed to go before it gets locked?
I'm putting the o/u at 67 if anyone wants action.
Well, humans have got along just fine the last million years or so with pretty much a universal 2 gender understanding of the world, where 99% of individuals can be easily assigned a gender based on their phenotype. And no one cared whether one self-accepted or not.
You seem to be imagining some utopian society organized very differently than any that has every existed, without thinking about the possible utility for the way things are the way the are.
You seem to be arguing on behalf of unconsciousness as the way forward. You don’t look back at human history with horror? You think to yourself, “more of that”?
Either way, it’s too late. There is no going back. The identitarians have already made these issues conscious.
Tell me if I’m understanding the claims.
It’s that some trans people have an incorruptible sense of their true gender from the beginning, but the connection to true gender for other trans people is impeded and they don’t get the pure insight until later.
If this is correct, what is preventing the pure insight early on for the latter group? How come they don’t have the uncorrupted connection from the beginning?
Then, the de-transitioners would be those who thought they had the uncorrupted connection
Do I understand you correct...
Someone with gender dysphoria, although may claim such a thing, is actually seen and understood as having a mental disorder. You aren't speaking about this type of person right?
Someone that decides one day they are x gender and the next they are z gender and they feel its fluid and don't care blah blah...you also aren't speaking about that kind of trans gender person.
Someone that tries to attach a divine or natural expression of their true gender which doesn't match their sex...you are asking about whether or not its against terms here that you acknowledge the truth of that?
You seem to be arguing on behalf of unconsciousness as the way forward. You don’t look back at human history with horror? You think to yourself, “more of that”?
Either way, it’s too late. There is no going back. The identitarians have already made these issues conscious.
How can you say there is no going back, when no one went anywhere? I see no evidence that "consciousness" has made the tiniest of dents in the passages of human affairs. "Unconsciousness" as you put it, seems to be comfortably dictating how things are going and will continue to go for the foreseeable future.
As an aside, my screen name is actually from a fantasy series that deals with the themes you are talking about. The Dunyain are a monastic sect whose singular purposes is to achieve The Logos, which is to become fully conscious and master of one's circumstance.
Spoiler alert:
Spoiler
It doesn't turn out great
Do I understand you correct...
Someone with gender dysphoria, although may claim such a thing, is actually seen and understood as having a mental disorder. You aren't speaking about this type of person right?
Someone that decides one day they are x gender and the next they are z gender and they feel its fluid and don't care blah blah...you also aren't speaking about that kind of trans gender person.
Someone that tries to attach a divine or natural expression of their true gender which doesn't matc
Right, the most vocal trans advocates on this subforum are making the third case. I’m asking them to clarify their views in a more expansive way.
How can you say there is no going back, when no one went anywhere? I see no evidence that "consciousness" has made the tiniest of dents in the passages of human affairs. "Unconsciousness" as you put it, seems to be comfortably dictating how things are going and will continue to go for the foreseeable future.
As an aside, my screen name is actually from a fantasy series that deals with the themes you are talking about. The Dunyain are a monastic sect whose singular purposes is to achieve The Lo
I mean there is no going back in terms of making what has become known in the collective conscious of humanity (gender in this instance) unconscious again.
It seems quite clear to me the unconscious status quo self terminates, in the not too distant future. I feel no need to defend against accepting defeatism, as you seem to have, just because many utopians have failed in the past.
You should be skeptical. I’m not against skepticism. But I know for damn sure complacency is not the way.
[QUOTE=Jbouton]
Someone that tries to attach a divine or natural expression of their true gender which doesn't match their sex...you are asking about whether or not its against terms here that you acknowledge the truth of that?[/QUOTE]
Right, the most vocal trans advocates on this subforum are making the third case. I’m asking them to clarify their views in a more expansive way.
Ok but thats not a statement about sex. This forum upholds that sex and gender are different. So someone claims that they are the gender they say they are and this is the divine based expression of the truth of their gender...
I don't think you mean they are religious and believe god makes it so, this forum isn't religious and wouldn't uphold that...
It must mean, 'I am what I say I am but in regard to my gender, and not my sex.' <<< you mean to disagree with that being natural/valid logic?
I mean there is no going back in terms of making what has become known in the collective conscious of humanity (gender in this instance) unconscious again.
It seems quite clear to me the unconscious status quo self terminates, in the not too distant future. I feel no need to defend against accepting defeatism, as you seem to have, just because many utopians have failed in the past.
You should be skeptical. I’m not against skepticism. But I know for damn sure complacency is not the way.
I dont advocate for complacency. But I dont think pretending biology doesn't exist is going to be a successful starting point towards transcending it. I think if you want to transcend biology, you first must acknowledge and understand it.
I dont advocate for complacency. But I dont think pretending biology doesn't exist is going to be a successful starting point towards transcending it. I think if you want to transcend biology, you first must acknowledge and understand it.
It’s vital to not deny the body and its relationship to the self, I agree. I mean, self-awareness brings awareness to the body so I don’t always feel the need to explicitly speak to that.
Do I think we can get to the deepest levels of causation, whether biological or otherwise, through the intellect? No I do not.
I think most people have some intuitive realization of their desire for lasting meaning, including transgender people. If we agree on that, then I’m simply offering a course correction.
If lasting meaning is not your priority, then you’re going to hate me.
Things like inclusion are meaningful in the short term, but that meaning doesn’t last.
Tell me if I’m understanding the claims.
It’s that some trans people have an incorruptible sense of their true gender from the beginning, but the connection to true gender for other trans people is impeded and they don’t get the pure insight until later.
If this is correct, what is preventing the pure insight early on for the latter group? How come they don’t have the uncorrupted connection from the beginning?
Then, the de-transitioners would be those who thought they had the uncorrupted connection
Still waiting to be educated on this. Otherwise, I’m going to continue with the view that the claims are smoke and mirrors.
A lot of my thoughts on gender are in the trans visibility thread. Before I repeat them here…
I’ve seen you say gender and race are not real. Let me ask you:
Is an idea real?
Can an idea be true?
Can something be true but not real?
When I say gender and race aren't real what I mean is that there is no underlying biological/neurological/psychological/cognitive/etc basis for them. Race deserves a asterisk because it can be real, even in humans, but our conceptions of race (e.g. black, white, asian, etc), are so broad as to be meaningless.
Gender though is mostly just pure nonsense. To whatever extent it does exist, it's something that's imparted on people by society. "Oh, you have a penis, and you're Somali....well then you're supposed to act this way because that's how all people who both have penises and are Somali act"-- that's pretty much all gender is. It's essentially a code of conduct imposed on people and differentiated by sex. Men don't cry, or ask for directions, and do all the cooking outdoors whereas women do the indoors cooking, are allowed to cry, and are allowed to ask for directions. It's just collections of stereotypes that people can either internalize and identify with or not and this is what people mean when they say that gender is socially constructed.
As far as whether ideas are real, I wouldn't use that same frame to address that question. When we're talking about gender we're talking about something that is psycho-social, not philosophical.
As you’ve shown, gender is associated with morality.
Do you think morality in general is entirely socially constructed?
Is the personal conscience solely formed by the social conscience or does it have access to a higher authority?
I say the personal conscience can transcend the social conscience, accessing a moral domain which includes gender. In other words, I believe in a soul.
The difference is, in my view, the soul doesn’t have a true gender. The soul has male and female, which is why I can say I have a masculine side and a feminine side.
As you’ve shown, gender is associated with morality.
Do you think morality in general is entirely socially constructed?
Is the personal conscience solely formed by the social conscience or does it have access to a higher authority?
I say the personal conscience can transcend the social conscience, accessing a moral domain which includes gender. In other words, I believe in a soul.
Well those are questions more for the religion forum than politics, but I think that people can have a sense of right and wrong that is independent from society. That doesn't even really need religion-- there was an interesting book that I read when I was younger, The Moral Animal by Robert Wright which gives an evolutionary take on morality.
