What does it mean to be transgender?

[Karl]

Great post Redcairo. Your take on the essential oneness of physical/psychological/spiritual viewpoints really puts transgerderism -- and a good deal more -- in a useful context.I spent much of yesterday thinking about and writing in this thread, and today it´s time to move onto other things. Hopefully I´ll have the fortitude to resist responding to further posts. (I guess you´ll all see, huh?)I enjoy my time here but there comes a point when further discussion yields diminishing returns, and I think I´ve reached it.If there are people reading this thread who are dealing personally with these kind of issues around gender, please take heart. Yes, there is a lot of ignorance out there, but I believe the tide is turning. Love will eventually triumph. It has to.Liminal

 

It doesn't appear to me that you think love is particularly relevant when you support coercive force.

[Karl]

When you are losing an argument your writing becomes even more exaggerated and twisted.  If the only way to rationalize your beliefs is to see the other side putting guns to peoples head then you might want to adjust your beliefs a little closer to reality.  Laws against discrimination are not a magic wand, but they've worked for woman and minorities.  

 

Perhaps if you were in a minority that faced discrimination or straight out ban on where you could work, live or marry you'd gain a little more sympathy.   Maybe even hope for a law that would help you and yours. 

 

What about the rest of us who aren't minorities ? Forcing one group to accept another means the other group is now receiving the discrimination. It's an equation. Like the scales of justice.

 

There are any amounts of places I can't go, and can't work. I don't feel it's necessary to force people to accept me.

 

Sympathy is the weakest of reasons. Someone who wishes to gain value had better do so without the use of force to obtain it or remain a captive of their own deceit.

[redcairo]

You should read this. It agrees with what I have posted-what the author hasn't realised is why there are issues. I covered it. Trying to extract unearned values brings misery. http://www.sexchangeregret.com/research

 

You have moved into a completely different topic though. Now we're all about politics. I will spare you time converting the choir here; I'm so conservative I'm a constructionist, I think George Will and I actually share a brain (which explains a lot of my life -- apparently he had it all that time...) -- there just isn't any more conservative to go after that, so I do not argue in favor of what amounts to variants on affirmative action and don't need to see the error of those ways.

 

I have many far less conservative views (far less) but I have different ideas for their implementation.

 

But you have twisted the direction of the topic into that politic of money and government interference, when the topic was actually about -- well I don't think anyone answered the given question, but I think it's fair to say it was about the more social and personal elements of alternative sexuality, including for (but not limited to) transgender.

 

You began saying that it was to paraphrase, a sign of cultural devolution. Some alternative theories were put forth about that. Instead of addressing any of those, you went to the what if they're lying to people path, and then over into the and what if the government makes us support them economically path.

 

I don't think politics is a focus that is likely to bring discussion about understanding human sexuality or ways of life any clarity... it usually makes things a big flaming mess.

Edited December 20, 2015 by redcairo

[Karl]

You have moved into a completely different topic though. Now we're all about politics. I will spare you time converting the choir here; I'm so conservative I'm a constructionist, I think George Will and I actually share a brain (which explains a lot of my life -- apparently he had it all that time...) -- there just isn't any more conservative to go after that, so I do not argue in favor of what amounts to variants on affirmative action and don't need to see the error of those ways.

 

I have many far less conservative views but I have different ideas for their implementation.

 

But you have twisted the direction of the topic into that politic of money and government interference, when the topic was actually about -- well I don't think anyone answered the given question but I think it's fair to say it was about the more social and personal elements of alternative sexuality including for but not limited to transgender.

 

You began saying that it was to paraphrase, a sign of cultural devolution. Some alternative theories were put forth about that. Instead of addressing any of those, you went to the what if they're lying to people path, and then over into the and what if the government makes us support them economically path. I don't think politics is a focus that is likely to bring discussion about understanding human sexuality or ways of life any clarity... it usually makes things a big flaming mess.

 

That piece is nothing to do with politics. It's about the personal issues experienced by those who undergo surgery. That's what we were discussing. You cannot seperate politics and economics from the issue. Things do not occur in a neat little vacuum. They are not sums on a pad, but real life interactions with causes and effects. A transgender person must find a way to make money and interact in the day to day politics of the world.

[redcairo]

As a personal note, one thing that watching the more negative elements of daydreams has done for me, is make me realize when I am setting up the paths of decision to allow me to act out an energy without thinking. In this case, Karl I would say that you have a negative feeling about this topic in a large way, but you don't allow yourself to openly make this clear because it would make you sound a bit phobic and people might wonder why. (I hold no judgment. I have zero vested in how you feel. You have a right to feel anything you like.) But the negative feeling is still there. And you need some seemingly logical reason to have it and express it. So you come up with "what if" situations that don't even exist (there is no law saying one must hire transgenders for example), in order to create a "perceived threat" to yourself, and to all of fairness, and By God To the Very Good Of Our Nation (lol), because then you will feel there is only that one path of decision Against-The-Bad-Thing, and you are righteous for walking that path. I've done this plenty myself is the only reason I have learned to recognize this dynamic, it is human nature. It is useful to see into these dynamics though.

[redcairo]

Actually your link was very interesting. I think I misunderstood what you meant with your "unearned values" comment and attributed it differently, so, my bad in that case and I apologize.

[ralis]

As a personal note, one thing that watching the more negative elements of daydreams has done for me, is make me realize when I am setting up the paths of decision to allow me to act out an energy without thinking. In this case, Karl I would say that you have a negative feeling about this topic in a large way, but you don't allow yourself to openly make this clear because it would make you sound a bit phobic and people might wonder why. (I hold no judgment. I have zero vested in how you feel. You have a right to feel anything you like.) But the negative feeling is still there. And you need some seemingly logical reason to have it and express it. So you come up with "what if" situations that don't even exist (there is no law saying one must hire transgenders for example), in order to create a "perceived threat" to yourself, and to all of fairness, and By God To the Very Good Of Our Nation (lol), because then you will feel there is only that one path of decision Against-The-Bad-Thing, and you are righteous for walking that path. I've done this plenty myself is the only reason I have learned to recognize this dynamic, it is human nature. It is useful to see into these dynamics though.

 

Karl and I have debated numerous issues here in the past. Karl claims to be a follower of neoliberal and libertarian views, which are no different than Ayn Rand objectivism. Also he has stated that logic is his hobby and I surmise that he has no formal training in such disciplines, his narrative is obvious in that regard.

 

Neoliberals base their ideology on the false premise that if there were minimal government interference i.e, a level playing field, therefor, all would have an equal chance to live life according to their own best interest, i.e, selfish interest. That premise fails to account for the inherent flaws of human nature. Evolutionary forces are responsible for neurological variations that are socially problematic.

Edited December 20, 2015 by ralis

[Karl]

Actually your link was very interesting. I think I misunderstood what you meant with your "unearned values" comment and attributed it differently, so, my bad in that case and I apologize.

 

No issues. I should have thought earlier about checking to see if the evidence conformed to my thesis instead of continuing an ever evolving argument. It's all I meant to say in the beginning anyway, I just got dragged into ever widening side tracks.

[Karl]

Karl and I have debated numerous issues here in the past. Karl claims to be a follower of neoliberal and libertarian views, which are no different than Ayn Rand objectivism. Also he has stated that logic is his hobby and I surmise that he has no formal training in such disciplines, his narrative is obvious in that regard.

 

Neoliberals base their ideology on the false premise that if there were minimal government interference i.e, a level playing field, therefor, all would have an equal chance to live life according to their own best interest, i.e, selfish interest. That premise fails to account for the inherent flaws of human nature. Evolutionary forces are responsible for neurological variations that are socially problematic.

I would harden that up. I'm not libertarian although I agree with the lassez faire part of their argument. I'm more broadly objectivist. Logic isn't a hobby, but a means to filter out fallacy and integrate concepts. To see through your poorly constructed arguments and ad hominems is a good example.

 

Objectivist philosophy doesn't base anything on anything except reality. It takes into account that humans are fallible, but equally that they can be right, that they can choose and by that choosing their actions they gain or lose happiness.

 

As you haven't studied it and have a poor grasp of philosophy and logic anyway I suggest taking a basic course to help you gain some perspective.

Edited December 20, 2015 by Karl

[ralis]

I would harden that up. I'm not libertarian although I agree with the lassez faire part of their argument. I'm more broadly objectivist. Logic isn't a hobby, but a means to filter out fallacy and integrate concepts. To see through your poorly constructed arguments and ad hominems is a good example. Objectivist philosophy doesn't base anything on anything except reality. It takes into account that humans are fallible, but equally that they can be right, that they can choose and by that choosing their actions they gain or lose happiness.

 

Falling back on the accusation that I am attacking your personally has no basis. My critique is in regarding your narrative which contains flawed logic. I have never made personal accusations towards you.

[ralis]

 

As you haven't studied it and have a poor grasp of philosophy and logic anyway I suggest taking a basic course to help you gain some perspective.

 

Poor grasp of? That is an attack on my person and not on my writing skills. I happen to be a well educated college graduate/science major.

 

As a college freshman, I studied philosophy, logic and have around 50 credit hours of math. Some of which were advanced course work.

Edited December 20, 2015 by ralis

[liminal_luke]

Perhaps I´m overly educated myself, but I tend to downplay the importance of college degrees. Successfully trading currencies, on the other hand, that takes some logic!

 

(Oops, I posted)

[ralis]

Perhaps I´m overly educated myself, but I tend to downplay the importance of college degrees. Successfully trading currencies, on the other hand, that takes some logic!

 

(Oops, I posted)

 

 

I certainly agree regarding the education. I think I am way over educated.   

[redcairo]

Well I am seriously under-educated in 'formal' regard, so, happy to be the scarecrow leader for the local proletariat. :-)

 

I have yet to see any government structure which is ideal for the well-rounded upbringing of humans and further civilization.

[thelerner]

What about the rest of us who aren't minorities ? Forcing one group to accept another means the other group is now receiving the discrimination. It's an equation. Like the scales of justice. There are any amounts of places I can't go, and can't work. I don't feel it's necessary to force people to accept me. Sympathy is the weakest of reasons. Someone who wishes to gain value had better do so without the use of force to obtain it or remain a captive of their own deceit.

Good question.  My answer: They'll have to learn to respect others, even minorities.  Actually many (most?) do already.

 

Prejudice will/is still be very easy to get away with.  Ultimately you can't legislate it away, but civilization is evolving mostly towards tolerance.  Not quickly, but for the past few generations have been much more tolerant, in general, then there predecessors.  Course often that was a low bar.  

 

Karl.. I'm guessing you're a white dude, as am I.   You have no idea what its like to be turned down for jobs and housing because of your color.  No clue to the fear that comes about losing your job if people find out your gay. 

 

Thankfully, modern civilization is turning the tide against man's prejudices.  You are gonna be forced to live in a society where you can't discriminate based on sex, color, religion or sexual preference.   Get used to it.  No one is gonna put a gun to your head, but if you just get in the habit of showing people respect, you won't even notice.  It really is a good thing.

Edited December 22, 2015 by thelerner

[Karl]

Good question.  My answer: They'll have to learn to respect others, even minorities.  Actually many (most?) do already.

 

Prejudice will/is still be very easy to get away with.  Ultimately you can't legislate it away, but civilization is evolving mostly towards tolerance.  Not quickly, but for the past few generations have been much more tolerant, in general, then there predecessors.  Course often that was a low bar.  

 

Karl.. I'm guessing you're a white dude, as am I.   You have no idea what its like to be turned down for jobs and housing because of your color.  No clue to the fear that comes about losing your job if people find out your gay. 

 

Thankfully, modern civilization is turning the tide against man's prejudices.  You are gonna be forced to live in a society where you can't discriminate based on sex, color, religion or sexual preference.   Get used to it.  No one is gonna put a gun to your head, but if you just get in the habit of showing people respect, you won't even notice.  It really is a good thing.

 

Have to learn respect=forced to comply.

 

No one who is discriminated against has had force used against them. So why would you advocate force against those who have committed no crime ?

 

If someone doesn't like you because of your accent, skin colour, religion, back ground, hair style, sexuality it is you that should 'suck it up'. The world does not owe anybody anything. No one has a right to anything except to seek their own happiness. It is not up to the world to conform to suit anybody.

 

Once the use of force is deemed acceptable as a necessity for benefitting one group over that of another, then the stage is set. Violence becomes the acceptable norm for getting whatever we want. Eventually one group will get into power on that ticket.

[ralis]

 No one who is discriminated against has had force used against them.

 

You have got to be kidding me. Are you serious and expect intelligent persons to buy into that naive nonsense? African Americans are discriminated against, physically abused and shot by racist cops here in the USA almost everyday. History is replete with such examples.

[dawei]

I already regret posting in this thread... 

 

Feeling something doesn't make it reality. If someone thinks, feels, believes or otherwise that they aren't in the right skin, then that's unfortunate. Making a word up to cover the mental/physical anguish is senseless. They cannot change gender no matter how good the modifications are. If they feel better for it then I have no issues with it. I don't mind if they use the men's, of women's toilets, changing rooms etc, I will happily treat them like women, but they remain the gender they were born and nothing can change that. To call yourself transgender is ridiculous, as it makes it patently clear you are avoiding the reality-Either a man posing as a woman, or a woman as a man. It's interesting to note that the second option is not common.

 

For the good of who, would you 'happily treat them' ... as them want to be called ?   Their sake or your sake or both? 

 

To call yourself as to 'happily treat THEM' is ridiculous on some level.

 

The idea of "posing" means to be disingenuous... or a prankster in a way...  That is interesting to note...

 

 

Being dishonest has repercussions. They must be honest or fail to gain value, unless their is to obtain a twisted kind of pleasure by deception-which would be strange considering they had felt dishonest in their previous gender guise. Reality is inescapable. Trying to cheat it brings unhappiness for the fraudster.

 

Dishonest to what?  Definitions?  Logic?  your intellectual framework which requires certain definitions be adhered to... by force of definitions?

 

Whose reality is inescapable?   You'res seems so tightly bound it seeks to castrate anything not within it's logical definitions.

 

Well you have the right to call me whatever you like, but it doesn't make it so. As it is you are a million miles wide of the mark. I'm against the initiation of force by anyone.

 

All of your logic is initiation by force.  You just haven't realized it yet.

 

Everyone discriminates. People are denied all kinds of opportunities in life because of gender, age, sexual orientation etc, that's reality. Haven't I made it abundantly clear that it is not acceptable to initiate force against people ? Isnt it you that wishes to use force in order to get your way ? You justify it, but you don't see the wrong.

 

You use force of your concepts to get your way and explain your way...   You stuck in explain Karl's observation of the world around Karl within a rigid set of definitions of so-called reality...  This is just Karl's reality being posted.... forced on us.. which I think from my reading that most get and accept as your reality.

 

I'm not really trying to be so hard on you and my logic is far inferior to yours... for the simple reason that logic is useless at times like this.   JMO.

[thelerner]

Have to learn respect=forced to comply.

 

 

No one who is discriminated against has had force used against them. So why would you advocate force against those who have committed no crime ? If someone doesn't like you because of your accent, skin colour, religion, back ground, hair style, sexuality it is you that should 'suck it up'. The world does not owe anybody anything. No one has a right to anything except to seek their own happiness. It is not up to the world to conform to suit anybody. Once the use of force is deemed acceptable as a necessity for benefitting one group over that of another, then the stage is set. Violence becomes the acceptable norm for getting whatever we want. Eventually one group will get into power on that ticket.

Where you use the word force, I see the word law.  We live in a nation of laws, you'll like some not others.  There are countries you can go to without them, but they tend to be very nasty.  

 

Also its not about liking people.  You don't have to like those with a  different accents.., but you can't legally discriminate against them in terms of housing and employment.   Maybe that's the point you don't understand.  You think there's mind police forcing you to 'like' others, maybe at gun point or something.   You have the freedom to be prejudiced and bigoted, just not for some legal and commercial transactions. 

 

It's not about the world.  Its about countries making laws to protect there citizens, even the minorities against bigotry.  They're not forcing you to like people, but for certain legal transaction, you have to treat people equally.  All in all, such laws make these countries better places for everyone to live. 

 

Where could you go to escape from these draconian rules against discrimination in the work place and housing?   Most of the civilized world would be abhorrent to you.   There is a reason you'd have to leave kinder gentler places and look for dictatorships and nasty places to find your logical society where prejudices can flourish.  Probably you'd find it a nightmare.   As I see it, most people want to live in progressive countries with laws that protect minorities. 

 

You keep going back to 'gun pointed at my head', being forced, and violence becoming acceptable.  So much fear. 

 

 

addin> on the third hand, I admire your bravery in standing up for the very libertarian view you believe in and the vigor and consistency you have in defending it. 

Edited December 22, 2015 by thelerner

[liminal_luke]

If somebody broke into my house and tried to kill me I wouldn´t play nice. I´d do whatever I had to do to protect myself. Might even use force. There aren´t many, but sociopathic killers do exist, and there are laws in place that attempt to FORCE them not to kill. Why? Because other people have a right to live.

 

If somebody tells me that just because of the color of my skin, or my gender, or whatever that I can´t rent an apartment or find employment or get married, I´ll use the law to FORCE them not to discriminate. It´s the same thing. There are basic rights that should not be taken away from people. And when others try to take away those rights people of decency cry foul.

 

Love isn´t always about passively standing around and letting everybody do what they want no matter what. Sometimes love is tough and mean. Sometimes love carries a gun.

Edited December 22, 2015 by liminal_luke

[Karl]

I already regret posting in this thread... 

 

 

 

For the good of who, would you 'happily treat them' ... as them want to be called ?   Their sake or your sake or both? 

 

To call yourself as to 'happily treat THEM' is ridiculous on some level.

 

The idea of "posing" means to be disingenuous... or a prankster in a way...  That is interesting to note...

 

 

 

 

Dishonest to what?  Definitions?  Logic?  your intellectual framework which requires certain definitions be adhered to... by force of definitions?

 

Whose reality is inescapable?   You'res seems so tightly bound it seeks to castrate anything not within it's logical definitions.

 

 

 

All of your logic is initiation by force.  You just haven't realized it yet.

 

 

 

You use force of your concepts to get your way and explain your way...   You stuck in explain Karl's observation of the world around Karl within a rigid set of definitions of so-called reality...  This is just Karl's reality being posted.... forced on us.. which I think from my reading that most get and accept as your reality.

 

I'm not really trying to be so hard on you and my logic is far inferior to yours... for the simple reason that logic is useless at times like this.   JMO.

 

Only someone who believes in the primacy of consciousness could possibly have come up with that argument.

 

The inquisition used to burn witches because they believed they had the power to cast spells and therefore do physical harm. Is that what you believe I am doing ?

 

Are you really unable to distinguish between thought/words and physical actions ?

 

 

[Karl]

If somebody broke into my house and tried to kill me I wouldn´t play nice. I´d do whatever I had to do to protect myself. Might even use force. There aren´t many, but sociopathic killers do exist, and there are laws in place that attempt to FORCE them not to kill. Why? Because other people have a right to live.If somebody tells me that just because of the color of my skin, or my gender, or whatever that I can´t rent an apartment or find employment or get married, I´ll use the law to FORCE them not to discriminate. It´s the same thing. There are basic rights that should not be taken away from people. And when others try to take away those rights people of decency cry foul.Love isn´t always about passively standing around and letting everybody do what they want no matter what. Sometimes love is tough and mean. Sometimes love carries a gun.

 

Respect/Love is a value you earn, not take by force. If you haven't taken that onboard yet I'm afraid you are in for a particularly miserable kind of life. You will have to live by the sword, to take what you cannot fairly earn. That will apply to everything equally. You will become dissatisfied, frightened of loss, your attachments to unearned values will grow making you fear that someone else will take them, as you did. Love is Liberty. Letting go of the necessity to initiate force. To know that you earned love fairly is to never fear it's loss. Losing respect for yourself is the very worst. Don't pull that trigger.

 

 

 

 

[Karl]

Where you use the word force, I see the word law.  We live in a nation of laws, you'll like some not others.  There are countries you can go to without them, but they tend to be very nasty.  

 

Also its not about liking people.  You don't have to like those with a  different accents.., but you can't legally discriminate against them in terms of housing and employment.   Maybe that's the point you don't understand.  You think there's mind police forcing you to 'like' others, maybe at gun point or something.   You have the freedom to be prejudiced and bigoted, just not for some legal and commercial transactions. 

 

It's not about the world.  Its about countries making laws to protect there citizens, even the minorities against bigotry.  They're not forcing you to like people, but for certain legal transaction, you have to treat people equally.  All in all, such laws make these countries better places for everyone to live. 

 

Where could you go to escape from these draconian rules against discrimination in the work place and housing?   Most of the civilized world would be abhorrent to you.   There is a reason you'd have to leave kinder gentler places and look for dictatorships and nasty places to find your logical society where prejudices can flourish.  Probably you'd find it a nightmare.   As I see it, most people want to live in progressive countries with laws that protect minorities. 

 

You keep going back to 'gun pointed at my head', being forced, and violence becoming acceptable.  So much fear. 

 

 

addin> on the third hand, I admire your bravery in standing up for the very libertarian view you believe in and the vigor and consistency you have in defending it. 

 

My view isn't libertarian. It's objectivist.

 

I cannot expect you to understand. Everything for you is partitioned and in a silo. You deny causality and think pragmatically. You cannot see, nor imagine the effects of the things you support, or the ramifications. You don't see the damage, but I do. If you could see what I see you would stop at once. You would be horrified by your actions. If I could hold up a mirror and let you see, but alas it is not possible, the mirror must come from inside you and you must be brave enough to hold it and look upon it.

 

To some extent, ignorance is excusable. If you don't know that you are doing wrong that's one thing, but if you are evading and justifying the wrong that's quite another.

[Michael Sternbach]

I haven't read through all the posts, but in response to the OP, I think there is an increased tendency in the collective consciousness to integrate the opposite sex within the psyche (Jung's Anima/Animus), in fact expressive of humanity's evolutionary alchemical process. There are of course always some individuals who take things to extremes, but a degree of psychological transgenderism is actually so common in females nowadays that almost nobody notices it any longer.

 

If the trend continues, I won't be too surprised to watch little she-males playing with

 

 

Or to hear about confusions in relationships like

 

 

[Geof Nanto]

My view isn't libertarian. It's objectivist. I cannot expect you to understand. Everything for you is partitioned and in a silo. You deny causality and think pragmatically. You cannot see, nor imagine the effects of the things you support, or the ramifications. You don't see the damage, but I do. If you could see what I see you would stop at once. You would be horrified by your actions. If I could hold up a mirror and let you see, but alas it is not possible, the mirror must come from inside you and you must be brave enough to hold it and look upon it. To some extent, ignorance is excusable. If you don't know that you are doing wrong that's one thing, but if you are evading and justifying the wrong that's quite another.

 

When I read narrow agenda orientated posts like Karl’s I’m reminded of how psychologist Iain McGilchrist describes what he calls the left-brain trap; we get caught in a hall of mirrors which reflects our own logic. Everything refers to something else within the hall of mirrors, but never breaks out into reality.  He writes, “The more we get trapped into this, the more we undercut and ironize things that might have kept us out of it, and we just get reflected back into more of what we know about what we know about what we know....” 

 

I’ve been trapped there myself and consequently I’m under no illusions about its power. I fully believed I had real answers applicable to everybody, and had strong, rational arguments to support my perspective.  The more intelligent a person is, the tighter the potential this trap has to bind.