Well, I would argue that what has happened is that we've advanced enough where we can change biological sex, in order to 'fit in' better with the gender-based social constructs that makes those people more comfortable.
As long as somebody isn't forcing me to change sex, I don't particularly see what the problem is. Much like religion, if it helps some people live better lives and doesn't get involved in mine, then it's fine by me.
See, Chris looks increasingly agitated with the notion that somebody might want to change their sex to fit a different social role, despite the fact that it doesn't affect him at all, nor it points to him being gay or anything.
His fear is the usual traditionalist fear.
You're projecting.
Am I? What are your thoughts on that graph you posted above?
Yes, you were projecting. I'm familiar with this tactic and iden y politics.
They are conceptions of life, personalities, disorders, and afflictions. If you have a penis, you are a male. If you have a vagina, you are a female. Two genders.What are your thoughts on that graph you posted above?
If someone wants to chop their pee pee off and wear a dress it means nothing to me and is a separate subject.
what is your conspiracy theory about these 'tactics'? You don't know what projecting is either, considering what you just wrote.
Exactly, strict traditionalism. And a lie to boot, it clearly means enough to you, since attacks your traditional views. Otherwise we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
This. I don't understand why people feel so threatened and give such a about such things. No one is asking them to cut off their and go by Nancy in agreement, just respect other people's lives. Not sure why that is difficult.
Tory deep state uses think tank as a cutout to spread anti-Russian propaganda and slag Labor:
In a weird twist, the guy who runs it was a Bernie Sanders campaign worker in 2016.
Until we can change the DNA of a human being, we cannot change biological sex. Cutting off organs and hormone therapy =/= biological sex change any more than gluing feathers on your back makes you a bird.
The problem is that forcing the rest of society to accept and repeat a total fabrication for the collective mental comfort of people who are mentally imbalanced is a very slippery slope. Should we start telling Christians that we too hear God?
The DNA argument is debatable. There are chemistry signatures that differentiate male and female, and as you say, it's a slider and we have more and more control of that slider (we do now that ever before, and that will likely continue to increase), then we're at that point where it's not just a matter of dressing as the opposite sex, but going much further than that, which psychologically apparently is helpful for them.
It's a two way street. The people that have these inclinations didn't get to choose the gender-based societal roles that rule them, they're imposed on them.
We could easily make the same argument that religious people are mentally/emotionally imbalanced too, yet we protect their right to practice their religion. And as much as I expressed my dislike for organized religion in general, I've also expressed that I know first hand that it helps certain people, and if it works for them, and it doesn't affect me, what's the big deal?
The major difference between both is that people has practiced mysticism for centuries, while the ability for having a relatively effective trans-gender therapy is relatively new ( sexuality has existed for centuries too). One is fully embedded in traditionalism, the other isn't (yet anyways).
Realistically, if we're really looking at the slippery slope of allowing/accepting irrational behavior, that ship has sailed a long time ago.
Religious people are mentally and emotionally imbalanced. In fact, we expressly prohibit any laws that respect a specific religion and we do not require people to acknowledge even Christmas (happy holidays, xmas... etc...) yet somehow Bob who you've worked with for 20 years is now Barbara and you have to pretend to believe Barbara is actually a female despite the straggler chest hairs poking through the blouse and the missed spots while shaving. Oh but Barbara has purple hair now and suddenly has a high pitched voice that cracks after 8am. Now Bob... errr.. Barbara uses the women's restroom and talks openly about her boyfriend, and shakes her head in empathy for women who are PMSing.
Imagine being required to acknowledge someone who think's they are a prophet for a god? " o prophet Bob.." "Just call me prophet if you don't mind"
"Transgendered men do not become women, nor do transgendered women become men. All (including Bruce Jenner) become feminized men or masculinized women, counterfeits or impersonators of the sex with which they ‘identify.’ In that lies their problematic future."
I agree with this statement.
I also agree that salving the desire factor of mentally troubled people does not equate to mental healthcare.
We have pastors that truly believe they're the ambassadors of some deity in the world and would really, really prefer if you called them pastors. Or bishop, or your majesty, or whatever.
Do churches clog up the parking in the area when there's church service? Sure. Is it annoying? Sometimes. Is it really that important? It really isn't, IMO.
If calling Bob then, Barbara now, makes him/her a better functioning person in society and happy to boot, I don't particularly have a problem with that either.
The easiest counter-argument to that is that there's not a single person that understands the human psyche fully. We do grasp certain things, and there's a lot of trial and error to get there, but a whole lot is driven by patient response/feedback.
Again, we can go back to religion as a parallel. The fact that they think there's an all powerful imaginary person everywhere with them doesn't mean there is. But it would be hard to take a look at a lot of cases where lives have been turned around for the better due to that thinking, or even historically, at the effective grip that religion has had in ample swats of population (for both good and bad). So we can't certainly debate the merits of some of this make believe stuff, but I think their relative effectiveness is fairly indisputable.
Which is fine. I don't mind calling them that since the term doesn't conjure up images of a respectful person, just someone affiliated with the church. I don't feel someone is requiring I "play along" with the charade. I am atheist, but I can call a church a church and a Christian a Christian, and I can recognize their terminology. I don't have to pretend to believe what they believe though.
Would you do that if Bob didn't have a gender transformation?Do churches clog up the parking in the area when there's church service? Sure. Is it annoying? Sometimes. Is it really that important? It really isn't, IMO.
If calling Bob then, Barbara now, makes him/her a better functioning person in society and happy to boot, I don't particularly have a problem with that either.
I don't care what name to call someone. I don't care what they wear or how they sound. I don't care who they marry or . I only care that I am expected to pretend a male isn't a male because they disguised themselves as female. It would be the same as expecting someone to consider your date as your wife, although they know your wife and that isn't her. But it makes you feel better for them to pretend, and not only pretend, live as if it's true.
That's argument from ignorance though. Not knowing doesn't open possibilities.
Suicide rates post op vs pre op aside - Religion is invasive thus a bill of rights was needed to both ensure freedom to worship and freedom from it. I believe in freedom of expression. If someone wants to live as the opposite sex, go for it. I don't believe in brow beating the rest of us into pretending it's not a facade. I don't have to pretend religion isn't a facade. I can be openly atheist and no one here will label me as a bigot because of it.Again, we can go back to religion as a parallel. The fact that they think there's an all powerful imaginary person everywhere with them doesn't mean there is. But it would be hard to take a look at a lot of cases where lives have been turned around for the better due to that thinking, or even historically, at the effective grip that religion has had in ample swats of population (for both good and bad). So we can't certainly debate the merits of some of this make believe stuff, but I think their relative effectiveness is fairly indisputable.
Well this is no different. I mean, if Bob is going to get mad and retaliate because I slipped one time and didn't call him Barbara, then it does affect me. Then it's problematic, but honestly, I don't feel we're at that level.
Just like, you know, I don't actively seek pastors and call them charlatans (even if I had a solid case), because it's not that important.
We pretty much all called at one point or another a fake bearded, fat, dressed in ridiculous red, Santa. It was just a normal guy in the mall whose name was very likely not Santa. It's going to happen many times again in just a few days (probably already happening all around). One could make the argument we didn't know better, yet, how many people continue that tradition with his kids, etc...
So this is another example where traditionalism wins over rationality. And God forbid(tm) you take Santa away from Christmas.
That's not correct. An argument from ignorance means that you make an affirmative claim because there's no evidence to the contrary. But that's not what I'm saying, and not knowing is a perfectly normal position in science which does open a lot of possibilities, you just can't make an affirmative claim on them unless and until you find testable evidence.
To declare these people are mentally ill or unstable, we would need to have testable evidence of that, and I don't think we do. There's plenty of academic debate on the matter, and mostly because psychology is a science (which I'm not a fan of at all) driven more by response/feedback than tangible evidence. Now, we can't entirely say therapy never works, or has been largely demonstrated to be a placebo. But we have to take it as a theory, because largely we don't know why it works on some people (and doesn't in others).
It's like the utilitarian aspect of religion in a lot of ways. Even if you're an atheist, there's no hypocrisy in admitting there's an utilitarian aspect to it, even if we were to argue the whole construction is irrational.
I agree with all that, but I don't truly see the difference. If you go to your job and shout to a visiting pastor that he's a fraud, you run the risk of losing your job. If you work for the government, things might go different.
In this case, it's much of the same. If you're at work and Bob wants to be called Barbara and the company agrees, your options are to call him Barbara, quit or wait until you get fired. Again, if you work for the government, there's a different set of much more complicated rules.
lol Daisy's upset.
I actually enjoy my conversations with DMC very much, even if we don't agree in certain things. Seems like it happens every year around the holidays...
I actually enjoy my conversations with DMC very much, even if we don't agree in certain things. Seems like it happens every year around the holidays...
I would just offer that gender dysphoria is a diagnosis, so it stands to reason that it's a mental illness. No one gets diagnosed as cisgender, for example. Also the suicide rate of transgender and transexual people is exponentially higher than cisgendered people. That alone should support the notion that gender dysphoria is a mental condition (perhaps illness is too strong a word) that needs to be addressed. The lack of success in that area, I think, could be a major reason why the "solution" has been to try to force the rest of society to pretend. It's like someone has a gun to their own head, or they are on a ledge, and they are saying they are Napoleon Bonaparte... and no one believes them... so you say "I believe you, come down off that ledge my friend, we could cut ties with all the lies you've... errr.. never mind.. just step down let's talk about it, general"
nah, we want to believe there's no differences between genders but there most definitely is and that's the real issue; playing make believe. sure, there's some out there who don't fit into that nice little box of boys wear blue and girls wear pink but let's not kid ourselves into believing all this isn't propagated by the very small minority we capitulate to on a daily basis so we all don't look like assholes for standing up and having a spine.
let's just break it down to its core; you got a your a boy, got a vagina you're a girl, but if you want play make believe don't expect others to play with you.
I would agree there's something "abnormal" (ie: an altered state, not necessarily right or wrong, otherwise, these people wouldn't suffer). Dysphoria in general is "a profound state of unease or dissatisfaction", which I think you'll agree it's pretty vague (this is why I'm not a fan of psychology/psychiatric). Normal common people experience dysphoria in their daily lives all the time for all sorts of reasons. Some get over it, some end up with anxiety, depression, etc. which in turn can end up in suicide, etc.
Like I said, there's still debate in academia about gender dysphoria. The DSM used to use the "gender iden y disorder" term, but now has changed it to "gender dysphoria". This again, IMO, goes straight to the lack of a solid understanding of the psyche (chemical, electric, etc). While we don't know all about it, there's people still facing these issues, so it makes sense we try different approaches, especially when we already know that further stigmatization and social shunning only deepens the condition (as seen forever with, say, sexuality).
When I brought up the Cons utional protections for religion, my point was squarely aimed at your comment about disallowing people to indulge in the self-delusion. However, if that has therapeutic value, and the societal cost is relatively minor (I believe it is, the major argument against it, besides the direct rationality case, which is valid, is tearing down traditionalism), then let's provide that tool. For some people it's going to be entirely make-believe, that's fine, but for these people it could be a valuable way to overcome.
The bolded is a social construct based on traditionalism. Has nothing to do with biological sex, s or vaginas. Once you have that understanding, then we can analyze why it takes a much bigger spine for a boy to wear pink in our society without being shunned. Pointing fingers at somebody else for what they wear or what they want to do with their bodies or names because it defies your notion of what's traditional doesn't involve having a spine at all, it goes directly to having your traditional social values threatened.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote