Transgender Q&A

[Maddie]

4 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

Is there a trans community in your area?  Do you feel like "the only one"?

 

There is one from what I hear but a. I work a lot and don't really have time for that, and b. to be honest I'm not really that interested. I did choose to talk about it here, but these kinds of trans groups tend to talk about their gender all the time and I would rather not obsess over my gender and just live life. 

[Maddie]

2 minutes ago, NaturaNaturans said:

Why is there so strikingly many trans people in Thailand compared to the rest of the world?

 

This is a good question and I have actually put some thought into it and one of the things I thought of is that Thailand is almost all Buddhist and Buddhism unlike Abrahamic religions is not judgmental about things like being trans. So my assumption is that Thailand has about as many trans people as everywhere else but they are more free to come out and present as their true gender. 

[Daniel]

On 4/16/2024 at 8:50 AM, Salvijus said:

It is sayed in spiritual texts that a physical body is the last manifestation of all the other subtle bodies before it

 

 

The spiritual realms do not have "before".  Time is one of the fundamental aspects of the material world. Everything is concurrent in spirit.  Any transition that happens in time in the material realm is eternal in the spirit realm.  It's always happening.

 

For example:  I myself had a birthmark removed from my left thigh as a child.  That event, the body modification, is eternal.  It's always and forever a part of my identity.  Nothing changes that.  If a person transitions, they have always and forever transitioned.  It's inherently part of who they are, always and forever.

[Daniel]

On 4/16/2024 at 11:56 AM, liminal_luke said:

I always know my various spiritual practices are working when my voice goes down in pitch,

 

OK, ok... Low voice = spiritual.  Clearly then Clapton is not God.  Not anymore.  Thanks for clearing this up.

 

God is either James Earl Jones or that Chicca-Chicca guy.  ( chicca-chicca song is below ) 

 

Spoiler

 

 

Edited Thursday at 11:37 PM by Daniel

[Daniel]

On 4/16/2024 at 1:54 PM, Salvijus said:

Only ego can ever get triggered. 

 

Good grief.  That's not true.  Awe is spiritual, not ego, and it is a triggered response.  All reactions are "triggered".  The alternative is stasis.  And spirit is not static.

[liminal_luke]

2 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

OK, ok... Low voice = spiritual.  Clearly then Clapton is not God.  Not anymore.  Thanks for clearing this up.

 

 

Actually, no.  I don´t think being "spiritual" is associated with having a low voice on a population level.  It´s something personal to me.  When I´m more anxious my voice goes up.  My practices help me deal with my anxiety allowing my voice to drop back down.  Other people´s mileage will likely differ.

[Daniel]

On 4/16/2024 at 1:58 PM, Salvijus said:

And being triggered always exposes that you're defending something. And that something is always something false. Because truth never feels under threat or in need of defending hence it never gets triggered. 

 

Bro, your unqualified assertions, Always, Only, Never...  those are very unlikely to be true.  They're not universal truth.  Where are you getting this stuff from, seriously?

[Daniel]

1 minute ago, liminal_luke said:

 

Actually, no.  I don´t think being "spiritual" is associated with having a low voice on a population level.  It´s something personal to me.  When I´m more anxious my voice goes up.  My practices help me deal with my anxiety allowing my voice to drop back down.  Other people´s mileage will likely differ.

 

Well... that joke bombed.  Please disregard... Sorry

[Daniel]

On 4/16/2024 at 2:31 PM, Salvijus said:

In reality there's nothing that is not acceptable.

 

OK.  This will be my last gripe.

 

There's nothing that is not acceptable?

 

Rape?

 

Bro.... listen to yourself.

 

 

[Daniel]

26 minutes ago, Maddie said:

unlike Abrahamic religions

 

Little known fact, there are something like 8 genders in Judaism... 

 

Edited Thursday at 11:51 PM by Daniel

[liminal_luke]

5 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

Well... that joke bombed.  Please disregard... Sorry

 

Nah, I´m just a little humor-challenged at the moment.  My bad.

[Maddie]

2 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

Little known fact, there are something like 8 genders in Judaism... 

 

 

I think I might have vaguely heard about this before, but if you would like to elaborate I would be interested to hear about it. 

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, Maddie said:

 

I think I might have vaguely heard about this before, but if you would like to elaborate I would be interested to hear about it. 

 

Here you go.

 

1. Zachar, male.
2. Nekevah, female.
3. Androgynos, having both male and female characteristics.
4. Tumtum, lacking sexual characteristics.
5. Aylonit hamah, identified female at birth but later naturally developing male characteristics.
6. Aylonit adam, identified female at birth but later developing male characteristics through human intervention.
7. Saris hamah, identified male at birth but later naturally developing female characteristics.
8. Saris adam, identified male at birth and later developing female characteristics through human intervention.

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-eight-genders-in-the-talmud/

 

 Rav Ammi suggests, drawing on a pair of verses from Isaish 51, that Avraham and Sarah were in fact tumtumim, and Rabbi Nachman further imagines that Sarah was an aylonit.

 

https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/263046?lang=bi

 

 

Edited Friday at 01:21 AM by Daniel

[Maddie]

40 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

Here you go.

 

1. Zachar, male.
2. Nekevah, female.
3. Androgynos, having both male and female characteristics.
4. Tumtum, lacking sexual characteristics.
5. Aylonit hamah, identified female at birth but later naturally developing male characteristics.
6. Aylonit adam, identified female at birth but later developing male characteristics through human intervention.
7. Saris hamah, identified male at birth but later naturally developing female characteristics.
8. Saris adam, identified male at birth and later developing female characteristics through human intervention.

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-eight-genders-in-the-talmud/

 

 Rav Ammi suggests, drawing on a pair of verses from Isaish 51, that Avraham and Sarah were in fact tumtumim, and Rabbi Nachman further imagines that Sarah was an aylonit.

 

https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/263046?lang=bi

 

 

 

That's very interesting! 🤔 Thank you 

[Salvijus]

4 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

OK.  This will be my last gripe.

 

 

Damn, that was quite a rant a didn't not see coming  but I'm glad you chose to express it if it helps you to get that disturbed energy cleared. It seems like you were holding it in for a quite some time. 

 

Okay, here would be my response. I would say every statement can be true from one perceptive and false from another perspective at the same time. For example, 1 pile of sand plus another pile of sand equals 1 pile of sand. 1+1=1. See where I'm getting at? 

 

Of course trying to carry a gun through the air port security is not acceptable and you are going to get kicked out. But are you confident that's the perspective I was talking from? That same response applies to your other proposed problems in my words. It's a matter of getting the perspective right. After which, we can begin to have a proper discussion if those statements are flawed or not. 

 

I hope that helps to clarify somewhat the problem. For now, I feel it should suffice. More than that may lead to deep sidetracked topics from the main thread and people may not like it. 

 

Peace ✌️ 

Edited Friday at 04:35 AM by Salvijus

[Daniel]

5 hours ago, Salvijus said:

I would say every statement can be true from one perceptive and false from another perspective at the same time.

 

Noted.  You didn't say what you meant.  Always doesn't mean always.  Never doesn't mean never.  Only doesn't mean only.

 

If this is your point of view, and the overarching intention which is governing your posts here, I do not see how anyone would be able to discern that.  

 

And this ignores the inherent paradox in what you wrote.  If what you're written is true:  "I would say every statement can be true from one perceptive and false from another perspective at the same time."  Then your own statement about this simultaneous truth and falsehood is false.

 

I don't see how someone can acknowledge that their own words "could be false" from a certain perspective and yet still include the word "every" in their universal declaration.  If you know that your statements are false, depending on the perspective, then, using words like "every", "none", "always", "only" are all meaningless. 

 

5 hours ago, Salvijus said:

After which, we can begin to have a proper discussion if those statements are flawed or not. 

 

Dude, there cannot be any discussion if you don't say what you mean.  Besides it only takes one counter-example to defeat a universal assertion.  You really don't seem to have thought through what you're saying.

 

5 hours ago, Salvijus said:

Damn, that was quite a rant a didn't not see coming 

 

I didn't expect you to be so ... rude.  

 

5 hours ago, Salvijus said:

I'm glad you chose to express it if it helps you to get that disturbed energy cleared. It seems like you were holding it in for a quite some time. 

 

Yes.  It disturbs me when good people, smart people, say stupid things, hurtful things and seem completely unapologetic.

 

You disappointed me.  I thought more of you.

 

Edited Friday at 09:59 AM by Daniel

[Salvijus]

@Daniel

 

Certain principles are consistently true imo. I would argue, human psychology follows certain principles and rules that are universal and always the same but there's probably no room to have this conversation over here about this because it would be a long discussion and this thread is about something else. 

 

Besides I have a feeling your problem is not even with those particular statements but with the way I speak and express myself on this matter. I 'm sorry if seeing that side of me was hard to digest. We all have different opinions and world views. Let's try to be respectful of each other. Listen each other out. Hear each other out. Make our own conclusions and follow the path of our own heart's calling,.

Amen 

 

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

Besides it only takes one counter-example to defeat a universal assertion.  

 

How about "A mango seed will never produce an apple tree."

Edited Friday at 11:41 AM by Salvijus

[Daniel]

3 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

 

Certain principles are consistently true imo. I would argue, human psychology follows certain principles and rules that are universal.

 

Agreed.  And that is the tenor of the comments you had posted in this thread.  Those assertions directed at an individual's choices and identity can be rather hurtful. 

 

3 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

"A mango seed will never produce an apple tree."

 

I can imagine a world where it could happen.  It's modal logic.

[Salvijus]

@Daniel

 

I just edited a bit more to say. 

Edited Friday at 11:41 AM by Salvijus

[Salvijus]

4 minutes ago, Daniel said:

Those assertions directed at an individual's choices and identity can be rather hurtful. 

 

If there was a gentler way to express myself. I would have gone with that. Noted, there's no limit for perfection. 

[Daniel]

19 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

If there was a gentler way to express myself.  I would have gone with that

 

I have nothing more to add.  Thank you for explaining.

 

Edited Friday at 12:04 PM by Daniel

[Daniel]

33 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

I 'm sorry if seeing that side of me was hard to digest.

 

It is.

[Salvijus]

@Daniel

That was quite intense bro. My heart was racing with intensity and adrenaline energy lol  I'm glad we found at least some common ground. 

 

🙏

 

[S:C]

49 minutes ago, Daniel said:

Quote

"A mango seed will never produce an apple tree."

 

I can imagine a world where it could happen.  It's modal logic

How so? Can you explain please, Daniel?

[S:C]

2 hours ago, Daniel said:

Dude, there cannot be any discussion if you don't say what you mean. 

Upaya? Westerners sometimes call it playing the devils advocate. Of course there can still be discussion: the premises are just more uncertain - and not everyone is willing to follow there for the sake of discussion or learning alone. But it’s possible, for experience sake, no?

 

For now, I experienced the perspective changes and line of argumentation as quite nagarjunian, but I‘m not an expert and might be biased.

 

Still curious on how a mango seed becomes a apple tree in modal logic! But maybe we should take this elsewhere, I don’t want to occupy @Maddies thread here with topics leading astray and elsewhere…

Edited Friday at 12:42 PM by S:C