Transgender Q&A

[Salvijus]

6 hours ago, silent thunder said:

Why do you continue to do the very same thing I called childish and called you up on it? You're just shooting yourself in the foot like this. 

Edited April 17 by Salvijus

[Salvijus]

7 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

Ah , ya lost me now .    Defending something 'devious'   ?  

Defending something that is of shaky foundation, uncertain, and prone to fail under questioning. Hence fear, hence the triggered emotions that you're under threat and boiling blood. 

 

Whearas truth, is forever open to be questioned by anything. It is not afraid because its certainty is forever established. The truth has no need to defend itself or be afraid of different opinions. Only ego does that. 

Edited April 17 by Salvijus

[Salvijus]

7 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

I asked the same question to a 'mid-trans' guy in a magic group I was associating  with for a bit ,  his answer was  , "  Because I needed to experience  both in one lifetime ."       < shrug >   I thought that answer was 'fair enough ' . 

Clever answer

I would have sayed. "indeed people may need to go through various experiences in life to grow and develop. And those experiences can be very diverse. But should we still consider trans phylosophy valid? Some people may need experience long phase of alcohol abuse. But does that mean being an alcoholic is intelligent thing to do? Definitely being an alcoholic may play a role in somebodies spiritual development but does that mean alcoholism needs to be endorsed and promoted? Etc. " 

Edited April 17 by Salvijus

[Maddie]

1 hour ago, Salvijus said:

Clever answer

I would have sayed. "indeed people may need to go through various experiences in life to grow and develop. And those experiences can be very diverse. But should we still consider trans phylosophy valid? Some people may need experience long phase of alcohol abuse. But does that mean being an alcoholic is intelligent thing to do? Definitely being an alcoholic may play a role in somebodies spiritual development but does that mean alcoholism needs to be endorsed and promoted? Etc. " 

 

So you're comparing being trans to being an alcoholic? 

 

You should realize psychology considers alcoholism a disease, while it prescribes transitioning to people with gender dysphoria.

[idiot_stimpy]

Quote

4. The principle of polarity

"Everything is dual; everything has poles; everything has its pair of opposites; like and unlike are the same; opposites are identical in nature, but different in degree; extremes meet; all truths are but half-truths; all paradoxes may be reconciled."

5. The principle of rhythm

"Everything flows, out and in; everything has its tides; all things rise and fall; the pendulum-swing manifests in everything; the measure of the swing to the right is the measure of the swing to the left; rhythm compensates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kybalion#:~:text=The principle of polarity,all paradoxes may be reconciled."

 

 

Excessive effort in one direction can lead to an equal swing in the opposite direction to compensate. 

[Salvijus]

2 hours ago, Maddie said:

 

So you're comparing being trans to being an alcoholic? 

 

You should realize psychology considers alcoholism a disease, while it prescribes transitioning to people with gender dysphoria.

No no I did not mean that at all. 

 

I meant just because a particular experience is good for your growth, or just because a particular experience is part of your souls destiny and karma. Doesn't mean that that particular experience is intelligent or wise thing to do. Or should be endorsed and promoted etc. Alcoholism is just one example that shows how a particular experience while can serve the function of a person's life journey isn't in any way or form intelligent thing to do. There are many other such examples. 

 

For the record. I'm not saying trans phylosophy is unintelligent thing to do. To be honest I don't know the answer of how much wisdom there is in that movement. I would only question it, inquire into it. And see where it takes me. My participation in this discussion is a form of group discussion about the logic and validity of trans phylosophy. Would be nice if people didn't take it so personally. Although it's a sensitive topic so I understand the reaction.

Edited April 17 by Salvijus

[Apech]

5 hours ago, S:C said:

Judith Butler is the name I associate with your question. It might be, that there has been someone before, who proposed that conceptual change and also the linguistic turn, but she made the most noise. So it seems to rely on the concept of a performative model of gender, e.g. it relies on language theory (‚performative‘), which originated in the wake of Austin, Searle etc. An act of speaking is conceptually separated into several sub acts, where one of them is ‚illocutionary‘, e.g. creates a reality of itself through speaking, as empirical sense data is frowned upon as a reliable source for observation, language instead is used as the source. Or so I understood it.

 

 

Yes the name Judith Butler came to my mind too - I once tried to read some of 'Gender Trouble' or maybe it was an essay about it - but I got nowhere - the language was far too dense for me.

 

If gender is performative - thus something you act out - then it would be quite fair to suggest that what is normative behaviour for a gender is socially determined.  History is full of people who refused to conform - George Sand comes to mind but I am sure there are lots of examples.  But even here there is a difference between some one who says for instance ' I am a woman but I refuse to act in the way that others (society) demands' and being trans-  Or at least i suppose there is a difference.

 

I worked in fairly 'normal' environments through the 70's, 80's, 90's etc and can remember the general discomfort among some when women gradually began to take on new work roles.  In the long run people accepted it but initially a woman being anything other than a typist was quite rare - and professions were quite male orientated.  (not that this is particularly relevant except from the vantage of the old man's bench  ).

 

 

Edited April 17 by Apech

[Apech]

2 hours ago, idiot_stimpy said:

 

 

Excessive effort in one direction can lead to an equal swing in the opposite direction to compensate. 

 

Perhaps we should all swing both ways

 

 

[Apech]

@Maddie

 

Given this is a forum dedicated to energy arts (for want of a better term) isn't it a reasonable question to ask what happens energetically when you transition - and in particular how changes in the physical body produce a change in the subtle body?

 

Also from the point of view of rebirth/reincarnation - doesn't this contextualise the instance of being born in the wrong body in one particular incarnation.

 

Do you have any thoughts on this?

 

 

[idiot_stimpy]

58 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

Perhaps we should all swing both ways

 

 

 

The mind is polarized and can swing any way you can imagine it to be. There is a saying, believe something long enough and it will be true.

[S:C]

45 minutes ago, idiot_stimpy said:

 

The mind is polarized and can swing any way you can imagine it to be. There is a saying, believe something long enough and it will be true.

That more how I understood it, @Apech Language (in that view) constitutes reality. Claiming an observation via language seems to constitute a different layer of reality (for lack of better words), in that view. To rely on feelings, wishes and personal needs and preference is therefore deemed ‚valid enough’, just as well as empirical sense data (both faulty, but necessary nonetheless). 
A claim that is backed up, constitutes reality. Language is reality, then, not a map thereof. 
Please correct me if I am wrong here.

Edited April 17 by S:C

[liminal_luke]

 

To my thinking, it all comes down to definitions.  Some people say that gender is a social construct and that people can be cis or trans depending on the alignment of their subjectively chosen gender with their biological sex. This is Maddie´s position.  Others say that gender is an immutable biological characteristic generally, but not always, apparent at birth. This is Jadespear´s position. Where you go with this topic depends on which definition you pick.  Neither definition is morally wrong; they´re just definitions.

 

In either case, transgender people exist and have a right to human dignity like everyone else.

Edited April 17 by liminal_luke

[Apech]

17 minutes ago, S:C said:

That more how I understood it, @Apech Language (in that view) constitutes reality. Claiming an observation via language seems to constitute a different layer of reality (for lack of better words), in that view. To rely on feelings, wishes and personal needs and preference is therefore deemed ‚valid enough’, just as well as empirical sense data (both faulty, but necessary nonetheless). 
A claim that is backed up, constitutes reality. Language is reality, then, not a map thereof. 
Please correct me if I am wrong here.

I am being thick - I really can’t follow what you are saying.

[S:C]

22 minutes ago, Apech said:

I am being thick - I really can’t follow what you are saying.

Sorry, I cannot explain it understandably.

[Apech]

53 minutes ago, S:C said:

Sorry, I cannot explain it understandably.

I can’t understand it explainerly.

[S:C]

3 minutes ago, Apech said:

I can’t understand it explainerly.

When treaded categories fall away, the search for structure continues for the functional mind. Garfield/Priest discuss it nicely, Why mountains are mountains or the like… (I forgot).

[S:C]

7 minutes ago, Apech said:

understandably… explainerly

Is this not a word in the English language?  

sorry… there should be one like this. there it is…

Edited April 17 by S:C

[Taomeow]

9 hours ago, S:C said:

Judith Butler is the name I associate with your question. It might be, that there has been someone before, who proposed that conceptual change and also the linguistic turn, but she made the most noise. So it seems to rely on the concept of a performative model of gender, e.g. it relies on language theory (‚performative‘), which originated in the wake of Austin, Searle etc. An act of speaking is conceptually separated into several sub acts, where one of them is ‚illocutionary‘, e.g. creates a reality of itself through speaking, as empirical sense data is frowned upon as a reliable source for observation, language instead is used as the source. Or so I understood it.

 

 

Thanks, I think I'll try to read up (always prefer to go to the original source before the "derivational tree," to use another term I recall from my linguistics course, has grown too many branches and leaves while the root has been forgotten.) 

 

This echoes something Aleister Crowley put thusly:  

"I therefore take "magical weapons," pen, ink, and paper; I write "incantations" — these sentences — in the "magical language," i.e., that which is understood by the people I wish to instruct; I call forth "spirits," such as printers, publishers, booksellers and so forth and constrain them to convey my message to those people. The composition and distribution of this book is thus an act of Magick by which I cause Changes to take place in conformity with my Will."

      

[S:C]

16 minutes ago, Taomeow said:

This echoes something

Would you be able and willing to give a reference for this quote please? 

[Taomeow]

2 minutes ago, S:C said:

Would you be able and willing to give a reference for this quote please? 

 

Yes.  https://hermetic.com/crowley/magick-without-tears/mwt_01

[Maddie]

4 hours ago, Apech said:

@Maddie

 

Given this is a forum dedicated to energy arts (for want of a better term) isn't it a reasonable question to ask what happens energetically when you transition - and in particular how changes in the physical body produce a change in the subtle body?

 

Also from the point of view of rebirth/reincarnation - doesn't this contextualise the instance of being born in the wrong body in one particular incarnation.

 

Do you have any thoughts on this?

 

 

 

I feel like any sincere question is reasonable here for the most part since that was the whole point of this thread. 

 

The Buddha actually said that one of the things that determines the gender that someone is born as is the type of identification that they clung to in their past life. He said there was a male identifying mind and a female identifying mind. It's interesting that he always spoke of it as the mind and not the body. He said at some point a male identifying mind can change to a female identifying mind and that a female identifying mind can change to a male identifying mind.

 

As far as energy goes if we're using energy to describe psychological traits I can say I've definitely become more gentle and sensitive and compassionate since I started transitioning and taking female hormones.

Edited April 17 by Maddie

[Maddie]

6 hours ago, Salvijus said:

My participation in this discussion is a form of group discussion about the logic and validity of trans phylosophy. 

 

It's not a philosophy. It's an existence. I think that's where you're confused.

[Apech]

1 hour ago, Maddie said:

 

I feel like any sincere question is reasonable here for the most part since that was the whole point of this thread. 

 

The Buddha actually said that one of the things that determines the gender that someone is born as is the type of identification that they clung to in their past life. He said there was a male identifying mind and a female identifying mind. It's interesting that he always spoke of it as the mind and not the body. He said at some point a male identifying mind can change to a female identifying mind and that a female identifying mind can change to a male identifying mind.

 

As far as energy goes if we're using energy to describe psychological traits I can say I've definitely become more gentle and sensitive and compassionate since I started transitioning and taking female hormones.

Do you remember which sutra that is from?

[liminal_luke]

...

 

Edited out.  What can I say -- sometimes ya feel like a TERF, sometimes ya don´t.

 

 

Edited April 17 by liminal_luke

[Maddie]

18 minutes ago, Apech said:

Do you remember which sutra that is from?

 

Oh geez I wish I did. I've read so many of them I just remember coming across this one time a few years ago.