To Seem, Rather Than To Be? (Trans Ideology)

[Ken-1122]

Okay, so you can affect people negatively that aren't part of the conversation you're having and you debunked your own claim. Good job.

My claim was talking about a person who was not there.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Does biology always matter in every situation and context? My claim is that sometimes it don't

And sometimes it do....right?

See that's the common denominator here. Everyone is fine with pretending until the biology matters. For some women, that's in sports....for others, in prison....and for others, the restroom.

All I'm really saying is that yes....You're correct that we identify people according to secondary sex characteristics and yes....someone with enough effort and surgery may convincingly fool someone else.

At the point I described above though....that illusion is gone. You're confronted with biological facts.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I thought that was obvious from the get-go... The people who tell you who you are are the ones who control you.

It's a bad argument....here's why....

I'm a cat.

If I go out and steal something or drink and drive...can my defense be that I'm a cat, laws don't apply to me, and you must respect and recognize my identity?

Probably not, right? That's astonishingly stupid. Laws keep our society from crumbling and frankly, there are categories that apply to people in general. Categories like minor and adult. Categories like man and woman. We don't get to choose which apply to us.

 

[Ana the Ist]

So you wouldn't see any problem with me not going along with my parent's beliefs when they pray over a meal and just act normally, right? It's fine to just go about my life as though there isn't something they care about, and that won't make me a jerk?

What do you do? Pretend to pray?

I don't do that around religious people.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Do I need to? Just because I defend using pronouns that match how a person presents themselves to the world, I owe it to you guys to talk about every situation and context that someone somewhere has a conflict over biology vs gender? I think it's enough that I've stated repeatedly that biology matters sometimes and pronouns just isn't one of those times.

I disagree a bit....not entirely, but to a degree.

Because frankly, the pronouns may be a big part of the problem. Once you concede the issue of identity in your own language....how exactly are you going to take a different position in reality when those biological issues matter?

The trans swimmer....Lia something....was arguably able to compete against biological women because of this whole "trans women are women" argument....which began shortly after people conceded pronouns to trans people. A trans woman is not a biological woman....that's biologically a man.

I don't know if it's the exact reason why so many people seem confused...but I can't confidently say it doesn't matter.

And that's not the only issue with the pronouns.

 

[RDKirk]

What do you do? Pretend to pray?

I don't do that around religious people.

When I was in Air Force basic training, we had a particular routine we had to go through in the chow hall. Meals had to be eaten quickly, efficiently, and systematically (basic training makes a person OCD...and it's intended to).

When troops have gotten their food in the cafeteria line and go into the dining hall, they look around to find a table with an empty seat. If they see a completely unoccupied table, the troop goes there, but doesn't sit immediately down. Rather, the troop stands behind the chair and raises a hand so that others can see quickly that there is a table with empty seats.

When the table is fully occupied, everyone can sit down. But they don't start to eat immediately. They pause a moment to see if anyone wants to say grace. If someone wants to say grace, then the others wait while that business takes place.

But the person saying grace also knows that everyone needs to eat quickly before the training instructor calls them all out...and that won't be long, so grace is as short as possible.

 

[Ana the Ist]

When I was in Air Force basic training, we had a particular routine we had to go through in the chow hall. Meals had to be eaten quickly, efficiently, and systematically (basic training makes a person OCD...and it's intended to).

When troops have gotten their food in the cafeteria line and go into the dining hall, they look around to find a table with an empty seat. If they see a completely unoccupied table, the troop goes there, but doesn't sit immediately down. Rather, the troop stands behind the chair and raises a hand so that others can see quickly that there is a table with empty seats.

When the table is fully occupied, everyone can sit down. But they don't start to eat immediately. They pause a moment to see if anyone wants to say grace. If someone wants to say grace, then the others wait while that business takes place.

But the person saying grace also knows that everyone needs to eat quickly before the training instructor calls them all out...and that won't be long, so grace is as short as possible.

That's interesting, like most atheists...I've been on the spot where prayers are being said...and I don't say anything, I don't bow my head, don't close my eyes. I'm not going to say anything...because I always consider it rude to talk over others. I don't pretend though...because that's patronizing.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The other issue with the pronouns is this rhetorical retreat to it being "polite".

It may be polite....but it is a lie.

It's like a chunky friend asking if you can tell they've lost 5lbs....and you tell them you had noticed and wondered how they did it.

You're lying to spare someone's feelings...I can understand why someone would do this, but it shouldn't be required of anyone.

If that same friend asks you to carry them up a hill...the biological reality sets in and you tell them "no...You're 350lbs....my knees will explode."

The problem is that so many people are certain they'll never confront the biological reality that they never acknowledge the lie....and imagine themselves as these polite moral people. They attack anyone who admits the truth regardless of whether or not they confront it at a biological level.

 

[RDKirk]

The other issue with the pronouns is this rhetorical retreat to it being "polite".

It may be polite....but it is a lie.

It's like a chunky friend asking if you can tell they've lost 5lbs....and you tell them you had noticed and wondered how they did it.

You're lying to spare someone's feelings...I can understand why someone would do this, but it shouldn't be required of anyone.

If that same friend asks you to carry them up a hill...the biological reality sets in and you tell them "no...You're 350lbs....my knees will explode."

The problem is that so many people are certain they'll never confront the biological reality that they never acknowledge the lie....and imagine themselves as these polite moral people. They attack anyone who admits the truth regardless of whether or not they confront it at a biological level.

There's more to it than that. There is a certain amount of wool being pulled. As I've mentioned, the incidence of actual gender dysphoria is less than the incidence of people with six fingers. Even in these forums, Silverbear has pointed out repeatedly that only 14% of persons identifying as transexuals actually have gender dysphoria.

So, it really is true that most people will rarely, if ever, actually confront anyone with true gender dysphoria. And, further, most of those with gender dysphoria will be presenting as closely as possible to how they identify and avoiding situations where they'll be forced to confront the biological reality.

We are really, therefore, dealing almost completely with virtue signalers and pretenders.

 

[MehGuy]

I had a particular question. Do trans people really believe that by transitioning, that they become the opposite sex?

No, most transgenders do not believe they are actually transitioning into the opposite sex. They divide people into "cis" and "trans" for a reason. The majority simply want to appear and be treated by others by how they "feel" on the inside.

So what I’m getting at is, just how dedicated are progressives to this gender theory? Is it irrelevant to state that what is normal of male and female behavior is obvious, if perhaps they believe that what is normal now may not always be normal—meaning that humans may evolve into something different? Or, maybe progressive minded people know that their theory is senseless, except maybe not all, and they would rather use their ideas to divide and conquer. But then again that just sounds conspiratorial.

I really don't know; seems like some progressives are all over the place. Bouncing around from a more feminist approved worldview that most or all gender differences are due to culture and the evil patriarchy then going back to a more biological worldview when defending transgenderism. At least going the biological route when they feel like they're backed into a corner during an argument.

Many resort to the "respect" argument. At this point I seriously wonder how much validity they actually give to the concept of transgenderism. I've frequented transgenderism forums in the past in an attempt to get a better grasp of what they think. Forums that were made for transgender people only. Many seem to be highly insecure and some outright state that they have periods where they believe all this transgenderism is just "nonsense".

The reality of how a progressive and conservative feels about this subject may not be so different. Both sides are probably confused to some extent and are not as confident as they appear in public.

This is how I feel about the issue. That there are some philosophical elements behind it.

For example, I watched a video of a trans woman explaining that he thought the concept of male and femaleness really was a concept that the colonizers came up with.

Ha ha, wow. When someone starts whining about "colonizers" it's a cue to tune them out, lol.

I can’t tell you how absurd that is. I guess there’s no point in defining humans as male and female. But that’s like saying that human procreation is irrelevant, and that’s why we don’t need terms like male and female. This really gets into dangerous territory because it’s an attempt to play God—the idea that we don’t have to have limits based on our gender.

It’s also an attack on God’s very good design, that in the beginning he made them male and female. Even Jesus affirmed this (see Mt 19:4).

I do not really understand why some Christians feel this way. According to Christianity isn't God's design tainted by the falling of man? We have clear examples like Joseph Merrick. Heck, some people are born with both sex organs. The male/female line is already blurred on the sex level, how much of a leap is it to think that some people may be born with differently structured brains? Like a person born as a male on the outside but with a more feminine structured brain and vice-versa?

It still might not be natural according to God's "pure" design, but is it really an attack?

 

[Kylie]

How many times are you gonna keep repeating the same thing over and over again? Are you expecting a different response? Again; as far as I am concerned, gender and biology are the same. But for those of you who see them as different, I don't reference gender, just biology.

If you think gender and biology are the same, then you are wrong. There is a huge amount of evidence to show that a person's identity is separate to the structures they have in their pants. You insist on ignoring this.

 

[Ana the Ist]

There's more to it than that. There is a certain amount of wool being pulled. As I've mentioned, the incidence of actual gender dysphoria is less than the incidence of people with six fingers. Even in these forums, Silverbear has pointed out repeatedly that only 14% of persons identifying as transexuals actually have gender dysphoria.

So, it really is true that most people will rarely, if ever, actually confront anyone with true gender dysphoria. And, further, most of those with gender dysphoria will be presenting as closely as possible to how they identify and avoiding situations where they'll be forced to confront the biological reality.

We are really, therefore, dealing almost completely with virtue signalers and pretenders.

Yeah it kind of goes along with my previous post about conceding the point.

You're told to lie...go along with the lie....use their preferred pronouns. They're struggling with something difficult and we want to spare their feelings.

It's something we've all done so it doesn't automatically come off as unreasonable.

Once you accept it as the morally good thing to do....that gives them space to push that boundary.

Now they want access to women's restrooms.
Now they want access to women's prison.
Now they want to compete against women in sports.
Now they win the woman of the year.

And people are such moral cowards that they go along with it....mainly because they see that people who don't get attacked for it.

I have to think that the point of pronouns was never really about pronouns....it's about everything else. Pronouns seem like such a small concession that it's not a big deal. It puts you in a position where you are lying about reality and thinking there is something moral about it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If you think gender and biology are the same, then you are wrong. There is a huge amount of evidence to show that a person's identity is separate to the structures they have in their pants. You insist on ignoring this.

But it's still biological, right?

We aren't talking about souls here....are we?

 

[Kylie]

But it's still biological, right?

We aren't talking about souls here....are we?

I wouldn't say "soul" but rather "mind." Is a person's mind purely biological? I don't know. But I do know that it's not related to the physical structure and shape of their genitals.

 

[Ana the Ist]

There's more to it than that. There is a certain amount of wool being pulled. As I've mentioned, the incidence of actual gender dysphoria is less than the incidence of people with six fingers. Even in these forums, Silverbear has pointed out repeatedly that only 14% of persons identifying as transexuals actually have gender dysphoria.

So, it really is true that most people will rarely, if ever, actually confront anyone with true gender dysphoria. And, further, most of those with gender dysphoria will be presenting as closely as possible to how they identify and avoiding situations where they'll be forced to confront the biological reality.

We are really, therefore, dealing almost completely with virtue signalers and pretenders.

I probably should have prefaced my previous response by saying I was only trying to address the subject of pronouns.

Yes, I think there's serious issues with the "affirmative care model". It basically says "there's nothing wrong with you...it's all of society that's wrong".

That's not a doctor. That's not even a therapist. These people are supposed to help you when you have a problem....not bend all of society around your problem until it goes away.

The affirmative care model turns doctors into something more like a cultist. They're selling a worldview....and one not based in reality.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I wouldn't say "soul" but rather "mind." Is a person's mind purely biological?

Yeah the evidence is pretty strong there. We can erase who you are by destroying your frontal lobe. It's called a lobotomy.

I don't know. But I do know that it's not related to the physical structure and shape of their genitals.

But still biological if it's real.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

I had a particular question. Do trans people really believe that by transitioning, that they become the opposite sex? I mean, sometimes I hear the phrase thrown around, that trans women are women. I don’t have to be a biologist to know that’s insane—trans women don’t have eggs. Trans women don’t magically start menstruating. Or who knows, maybe a progressive would fire back, does a woman need to menstruate to be a woman? And then I suppose I would have to argue based on what is normative, namely that women usually menstruate, but trans women never have eggs.


So what I’m getting at is, just how dedicated are progressives to this gender theory? Is it irrelevant to state that what is normal of male and female behavior is obvious, if perhaps they believe that what is normal now may not always be normal—meaning that humans may evolve into something different? Or, maybe progressive minded people know that their theory is senseless, except maybe not all, and they would rather use their ideas to divide and conquer. But then again that just sounds conspiratorial.


For example, I watched a video of a trans woman explaining that he thought the concept of male and femaleness really was a concept that the colonizers came up with. I can’t tell you how absurd that is. I guess there’s no point in defining humans as male and female. But that’s like saying that human procreation is irrelevant, and that’s why we don’t need terms like male and female. This really gets into dangerous territory because it’s an attempt to play God—the idea that we don’t have to have limits based on our gender.


It’s also an attack on God’s very good design, that in the beginning he made them male and female. Even Jesus affirmed this (see Mt 19:4).

I don't know what they believe. I can only go by what they say and do. but they seem adamant that others pretend that it does. I always like to ask what facts of reality make the concept of gender necessary. If anyone can be any gender they want, even made up ones, then why did we ever develop the concept in the first place. The fact is men and women are different and so we needed a concept to identify that difference. Now all of a sudden no one knows how to define woman or man. But every kid knows what the differences are, especially teenagers. But academics don't.

I don't care if someone wants to dress as the other sex but when someone tries to bully me into speaking the way they want me to, I part company.

 

[didactics]

I wouldn't say "soul" but rather "mind." Is a person's mind purely biological? I don't know. But I do know that it's not related to the physical structure and shape of their genitals.

Sorry to butt in. I think the mind is either male or female because it relates to the brain but it's also something you can't directly observe from the outside looking in (unless someone tells you what they're thinking. That's the closest you can get to understanding the mind). I know you pointed out an article about how there can be some defect on the brain. But what I got from that was for example a male brain showing less masculine difference or to the point that it's almost undetectable. I would just call that perhaps female-like, but it's not the same as the brain being mapped out the same as a female.

 

[didactics]

I do not really understand why some Christians feel this way. According to Christianity isn't God's design tainted by the falling of man? We have clear examples like Joseph Merrick. Heck, some people are born with both sex organs. The male/female line is already blurred on the sex level, how much of a leap is it to think that some people may be born with differently structured brains? Like a person born as a male on the outside but with a more feminine structured brain and vice-versa?

It still might not be natural according to God's "pure" design, but is it really an attack?

The way I understand it is that yes creation has been marred by the curse, but there still is a remnant of beauty as we see structure, order and design. I think when it comes to rare cases of intersex disorders (where it’s very difficult to know if it’s male or female) God still knows what that person was meant to be. Most of the time, from the collaboration of specialists in their respective field, they can confirm if it is male or female.

 

[Kylie]

Yeah the evidence is pretty strong there. We can erase who you are by destroying your frontal lobe. It's called a lobotomy.

But still biological if it's real.

True, but how much of our mind is formed from our experiences, not just the genetics?