You don't have an argument there, you are just reciting the received opinions and describing the status quo. Why isn't surgery appropriate in some mental cases, but appropriate in others? — unenlightened

No, I was correcting you on the facts: mental health conditions are medical conditions, and gender dysphoria isn't considered a mental health condition. If your view on this question requires we ignore patent medical fact, all the worse for you. Though, credit where credit is due; "received opinions" is a good one :lol:

And I imagine what treatments are effective for what conditions are going to differ on a case-by-case basis (though, again, gender dysphoria isn't a "mental case"): what are the causes and symptoms of this or that condition? What is currently feasible via surgery? In any case, when surgery is or isn't appropriate or effective is a medical question, not a philosophical one, and neither you nor I are doctors (so far as I'm aware), so what is the value of us debating it?

I mean, honestly... is this satire or what? You post this checklist of transphobic misinformation- patent falsities- and want to turn around and claim concern for the truth? :yikes:

If you don't mind me asking, what are you smoking and where can I get some?

To me censoring or vilifying people for misgendering people and making me or others call a Male "She" or a Female "He" is undermining the quest for truth and transparency and authenticity. — Andrew4Handel

Misgendering trans people is engaging in falsehood and deception, as it involves blatantly ignoring how both gender and language work, and frankly is just an asshole move.

So don't do it. Unless you don't care about truth, and don't mind being an asshole. Honestly its just that simple. It doesn't harm you in any way to just use people's preferred pronouns, and so refusing to do so is just being an epic jerk.

This is just a tad suspect. It is a mental health condition. Alien limb syndrome is not treated by surgery, and generally it seems that to treat psychological conditions with surgery is suspect, at the least. One might better compare such surgical interventions more with cosmetic surgery than knee surgery or the like. — unenlightened

Mental health conditions are medical conditions, and in any case gender dysphoria, like homosexuality, used to be classified as a mental illness only to have that classification subsequently corrected, and now is not considered a mental illness by credible health organizations or professionals (even though the incorrect belief that it is a mental illness persists among the general population- a belief that will change over time, as it did with homosexuality). So it is most certainly a legitimate medical condition, no way around that.

And alien limb syndrome isn't treated with surgery, because surgery hasn't been shown to be a safe and effective treatment for it. On the other hand, various surgical interventions have been proven safe and effective for the treatment of gender dysphoria. So sort of an apples/oranges situation here.

Weather Report is great, too. Love me some Jaco Pastorius. But Stanley Clarke and Return to Forever are on another level (imo), and Romantic Warrior especially (that was the first RtF album I ever heard, and I was instantly hooked).

And yeah some of that 60-70s fusion/prog can get a little corny at times, but the musicianship is always legit :fire:

They should not be allowed to perform them in my opinion. — Andrew4Handel

No offense, but who asked you? Gender dysphoria is a legitimate medical condition, and so if gender-affirming surgery helps people get relief then what's the problem? Who are you to make that determination? How is it our business, who are we to say they shouldn't have access to these procedures? Its not like anyone's forcing you or I to have these surgeries. So why are you so concerned about other people's intensely private and personal medical matters?

Maybe, but it isn't appropriate in this context (why do you even care about other people's extremely private business in the first place?), nor is this an appropriate place to be simply venting disgust against a highly vulnerable minority group.

If you have things to say on the scientific, medical, ethical, sociological, etc. aspects of transgenderism and trans gender identity, that's great, by all means talk about that (as long as its still within the bounds of the site's posting guidelines, at least). But going on about how transgenderism is evil and wrong and how gender-affirming medical interventions are "genital mutilation" ain't it, chief.

Phalloplasty and Vaginoplasty are literally genital mutilation — Andrew4Handel

Yikes. More nonsense. They are legitimate (and quite safe) medical interventions, not "genital mutilation" (else doctors would not be allowed to perform them), and they exist for a reason: gender dysphoria is a legitimate medical condition (and a rather unpleasant one from what I gather), and gender-affirming genital surgery is a crucial tool for helping people get relief.

Yes but if someone is going to a big effort to become a woman with large doses of oestrogen in their body, presenting feminine etc they are actively trying to be more like a woman which means you would expect them to be trying to follow women's patterns of behaviour. — Andrew4Handel

Except, again, its unreasonable to expect people to just unlearn a lifetime of habituation and social expectation/performance at the drop of a hat. Why would we expect it to work that way? Wouldn't we expect it to take some time to unlearn these (often subconscious) expectations and behaviors?

And I don't see anything in your cited paper or quotes that contradicts what I'm saying- it seems like you're arguing against a different point than the one I'm making. Remember, you said there was "no evidence" that socialization and social factors drive crime and violence, or help explain the difference in crime/violence rates between males and females. I pointed out that there is in fact a fairly large body of evidence (and scholarly consensus) for this. Gender norms, especially those governing masculinity (so, social factors, not biological ones) can and do contribute to the overall amount of crime and violence, and can help explain the disparity in the rates at which males and females commit crimes/violence.

(to be clear: no one is saying that its the only factor, but it is a factor, and there is a good amount of evidence for that)

This is why I need to scrutinise the studies you claim support your hypothesis. — Andrew4Handel

This isn't "my hypothesis"- as if its just some random conjecture that just occurred to me- its a pretty well-established and widely-acknowledged sociological fact: our gender norms and expectations for men/boys ("hyper-masculinity")- which involve, among other things, valorizing aggression and violence- contribute both to the overall amount of crime, as well as the disparity in crime/violence rates between men vs. women.

And not only is it well-documented, its just sort of obvious: if you raise boys to believe that being tough and violent and aggressive are good and desirable traits for a man to have (and that anything less is negative/undesirable- "being a wimp" or "acting like a girl"), while teaching girls that they are to be quiet and submissive and reserved, you should probably expect to see increased crime/violence rates overall, and a disparity between crime rates between males vs females, as a result.

I also expect that this sort of lifelong habituation and saturation of societal gender norms and expectations isn't something that can be forgotten or eliminated over night- its not like it just magically disappears the moment a trans woman transitions (wrt your previous point).

You stated that:

Has someone posted an explanation yet of why most violence, sex offences and crime per se is committed by men throughout history.

It clearly isn't socialisation. There is no evidence it is socialisation and there is no evidence of a change in trends. — Andrew4Handel

I'm objecting to the bolded part. There is evidence (quite a lot of it in fact) that "socialization", or social expectations and gender norms, help drive crime and violence, and that gender norms (specifically hyper-masculinity) help explain the difference in crime/violence rates between men vs. women... hence the linked studies to that effect.

Before I critique your studies... — Andrew4Handel

In other words, before you reject them out of hand because you see criticizing trans people and transgenderism as some sort of religious crusade (as you previously mentioned in a since-deleted thread)?

But you are wrong on the facts here: your "critiques" notwithstanding, there is an abundant body of evidence that sociocultural gender norms help drive crime, violence, and suicide, as you can see from the previously cited sources (and the many others like them). Maybe you disagree about the degree to which they contribute to these things, but you can't credibly deny that there is evidence that it is a factor.

I will look for a counter study for this — Andrew4Handel

How about instead of immediately trying to "counter" this body of scientific/medical counter-evidence, you actually look at it and consider the possibility that you might have been mistaken? Or is that impossible with the whole religious crusade thing? And if you're not open to genuinely considering counter-evidence or counter-arguments, what are we even doing here?

Has someone posted an explanation yet of why most violence, sex offences and crime per se is committed by men throughout history.

It clearly isn't socialisation. There is no evidence it is socialisation and there is no evidence of a change in trends. — Andrew4Handel

Nonsense. There most certainly is evidence that "socialization"- sociocultural gender norms and expectations- plays a major role in driving violence and crime, and the disparity in violence/crime rates between men and women:

"Men are disproportionately overrepresented among both perpetrators and victims of violent crime. Scholars from the men's studies movement have documented a clear link between socialization into stereotypical norms of hegemonic masculinity and an increased risk for experiencing violence."

- Toward a Transformed Approach to Prevention: Breaking the Link Between Masculinity and Violence

and

"There is strong evidence that young men who subscribe to inequitable gender norms (e.g., believe women are solely responsible for household chores and child-rearing) (Pulerwitz and Barker, 2008) and endorse dominant and hostile forms of masculinities (e.g., believe women are sexual conquests) (Pulerwitz and Barker, 2008) have higher rates of perpetrating psychological, physical, and sexual violence against women... perpetrating verbal and physical abuse, cyber bullying, and aggression towards gay, lesbian, and transgender people or those who do not conform to hetero-normative gender norms... Furthermore, studies have explored the impact of “harmful masculinities” on the health of the individual who endorses them..."

- Harmful masculinities among younger men in three countries: Psychometric study of the Man Box Scale

And also

"Masculine ideals, such as the restriction of emotional expression and the pressure to conform to expectations of dominance and aggression, may heighten the potential for boys to engage in general acts of violence including, but not limited to, bullying, assault, and/or physical and verbal aggression"

- Harmful Masculinity and Violence

and

Men who strongly adhere to traditional masculine gender norms are at increased risk for the perpetration of violent and abusive acts toward their female intimate partners

-Man enough? Masculine discrepancy stress and intimate partner violence

and who knows how many more like these. You're just wrong on the facts here.

These are people who are going out of their to present as female yet retaining male patterns of criminality. — Andrew4Handel

And why should that be surprising? If they were raised as male, and in a culture that bombards them with male/masculine gender norms all throughout their childhood, we wouldn't expect transitioning to immediately and completely eliminate all of the traits and behaviors encouraged and nurtured by ubiquitous gender norms, social pressure, and habituation. Its unreasonable to expect this to change overnight.

I'd be interested to see what the crime rates look like for newly transitioned trans women vs. trans women who have transitioned and been living as a woman for a longer period of time. And then there's the point Benkie already made, that trans people are usually the victim of a crime, not the perpetrator, and so panic over trans people using the bathroom that corresponds to their gender (for instance) is 100% pure horse pucky, an irrational panic over a completely fictitious threat.

Jaco Pastorius- Blackbird :strong:

What you describe as “The abject failure of Christianity to break into India, expand, and continue Eastward” can be explained by comparison with the spectacular expansion of Western science throughout the world. Science offers objective truth; religion offers comforting fictions — Art48

But isn't one of major reasons (or even the major reason) Christianity has failed to catch on in India is because of the success/dominance of Hinduism in India (~80% of the population identifies as Hindu, vs something like 2-3% identifying as Christian)? So is it really a failure of religion when one religion is thwarted by a different religion?

And while I agree that religion (and certain varieties of Christianity in particular) has failed- whereas science has succeeded- at discerning factual/empirical truths about the natural world, I think its fairly obvious that this isn't the only objective of religion: in fact, Christianity's insistence on the importance of belief that certain propositions are true (that God exists, that Jesus of Nazareth was god incarnate, and that he was crucified and subsequently resurrected) is actually fairly unique- most religions don't put anywhere near as much emphasis on belief or truth, but are often more concerned with conduct, rites and rituals (i.e. particular ways of living), enforcing certain norms, and maintaining certain traditions and social hierarchies.

And on these counts, I think religion has been fairly successful, and continues to be successful (look at the portion of the global population that is religious, look at the number of countries that are explicitly or implicitly theocratic, i.e. having policy dictated to some extent by a particular religious tradition- take the US and abortion, for instance).

So religion has failed as an explanatory endeavor... but it remains quite successful as a social, cultural, and political force (which I find to be sort of terrifying, to be completely honest).

Charles Mingus- Moanin' :fire:



I challenge anyone to listen to this song all the way through without e.g. tapping your foot, bobbing your head, etc to the rhythm. Its just infectious.

T.R.A.M.- Seven Ways Till Sunday

(and if you enjoy My Favorite Things, you should also check out Blue Train and especially Giant Steps- two of my absolute favorite albums of all-time)

:up: :100:

I'd have to say that Chick Corea/Return to Forever first got me into the jazz vicinity (i.e. fusion), but it was Coltrane- and the track "Afro Blue" specifically (which I've probably listened to literally hundreds of times, and never get tired of)- that got me into jazz proper. Music just doesn't get any better than Johnny C.

Johnny C- Blue Train :love:

A Few of My Favorite Things... :hearts:

Johnny Coltrane- Mr PC :fire: :fire: :fire:

This perhaps could be challenged by replacing should with are inclined to, no? — Outlander

Sure... but whence this inclination? If there was no such thing as socially-enforced gender roles, would females naturally (biologically?) want to wear pink and wear dresses and bake cookies? I can't think of any plausible reason why this should be so; these sorts of gender norms are social conventions (and so are often arbitrary). The reason people are "inclined to" adhere to gender roles/expectations is probably because they've been raised and bombarded with these norms and roles for their entire life, and continually enforced by their environment.... not because females are biologically inclined to bake cookies or be nurturing or whatever. .

Stereotypes, perhaps. But averaging all peoples, men are generally of larger muscle mass and perhaps as a result tire less. Life, regardless of the plush comforts of society or in the context of a single person alone on an entire planet, requires physical work. Whether the result of our current biological inclinations can be changed/altered (enter the taboo topic of "genetic trauma" which can be redeemed as the adaptability and salvageability of the human condition) does this not hold true? — Outlander

Sure. There is no denying the statistical distribution of physical traits between the sexes. But it must be remembered that this is a matter of averages, not a black and white binary choice: there are women e.g. bodybuilders, athletes, etc that are absolutely ripped, and could probably bench-press me with one hand. And then there are little shrimpy guys with the muscle mass of a child.

So there definitely are aspects of gender roles/norms that have some basis in biological variation. But that doesn't mean that all differences in traits are due to biology, and most of the traits that have been mentioned here (e.g. being caring or compassionate, nurturing, aggressive, etc) are part of sociocultural gender roles, not biological sex. Simply insisting on this distinction between sex and gender is usually enough to utterly shipwreck these kind of anti-trans arguments: no one is denying biological sex, but the transphobe/anti-trans position almost always denies gender.

"But, biological sex isn’t as straightforward as they likely think, and there is no one parameter that makes a person biologically male or female" — Andrew4Handel

This was precisely the point of the Scientific American article I previously linked: the traits you're talking about as inherently male or female are often matters of gender and social expectations as much/more than biology, and even biological sex is not binary and is far more complicated than you've acknowledged here.

Because women and mens bodies differ that is good reason to expect their psychology to differ. Using outlying cases of developmental disorders that affect men or women (to create an imaginary spectrum) and using other species that can change sex or are hermaphrodite as examples is tool to undermine the importance or relevance of widespread sex differences. — Andrew4Handel

Well, no. Having different genitalia doesn't imply that their psychology is inherently different, especially not in the binary sort of way that transphobes like to portray. And what differences there are are matters of different averages and distributions (rather than a binary yes/no), and many of them are the result of socially-enforced gender norms (not biological sex).

As for the spectrum of biological sex, it is very real, and quite well-documented; denying this only serves to undermine your credibility and make you look more like a committed partisan with an axe to grind rather than a reasonable observer interested in the truth.

Right, there are differences in the statistical distributions of certain traits or behaviors between the sexes (including biological differences). This was already acknowledged. But given that both males and females exhibit these different traits or behaviors, and that these traits are part of normative social expectations (being enforced century after century) its clear that this isn't being driven by biology- there is no biological reason why women should wear dresses and bake cookies and wear pink or why men shouldn't talk about emotions/feelings, wear pants instead of dresses, and so on- but rather sociocultural norms and expectations. Gender, not sex. And of course there is individual variation as well.

So the distribution of different traits among the sexes is far more complicated than you let on, as is the matter of biological sex itself. And of course sociocultural gender remains distinct from biological sex: much of what you're talking about owes to the former, not the latter. Without accounting for these facts, your analysis/critique amounts to fan-fiction regurgitating tired social expectations and tropes.

And of course you were discouraged from being caring or emotional or other traits associated with female gender roles. Its just usually not explicit: its not like your parents or teachers come out and directly tell you that being caring or nurturing makes you an unmanly wimp (or whatever)... although this does happen occasionally- I was definitely told more than once that e.g. crying was for girls (and I know I'm far from alone there).

But usually its more implicit: gender norms/roles presented through culture and society, and enforced via social pressure- think of the comic book, cartoon, or action movie heroes that are presented as role models for young boys: tough, stoic, aggressive, violent: Batman beating up bad guys, action movies with Keanu Reeves or Bruce Willis kung-fu'ing the bad guys into submission, and so on. If a boy wears pink to school or cries during a sad movie, they are usually going to be mocked and teased for it. So, culture, and social pressure, enforcing normative gender expectations... not biology.

The best characteristics of a woman: compassion, forbearance, fortitude, generosity, humour, integrity, loyalty, mindfulness, patience, resourcefulness, truthfulness, understanding.

The best characteristics of a man: compassion, forbearance, fortitude, generosity, humour, integrity, loyalty, mindfulness, patience, resourcefulness, truthfulness, understanding. — Vera Mont

:100: :up:

Gender ideology doesn't make sense especially if you don't recognise biological reality as a basis for traits. — Andrew4Handel

The funny thing is that this sort of misguided critique of gender identity almost systematically ignores the distinction between biological sex and sociocultural gender (or, at a minimum, seeks to blur the distinction as much as possible). Obviously there are biological differences between the sexes, and traits that are biologically based: chromosomes, genitalia, differences in average height/weight/etc. No one is claiming that there is no such thing as biological sex, "trans activists" (i.e. reasonable people who are not transphobic) are not "denying biology". This common canard is a ridiculous strawman. But the other side tends to deny/ignore gender, and how it differs from biological sex.

And the kind of traits you keep talking about are generally not traits dictated by biological sex, but traits associated with socially-enforced gender roles and expectations- that women are caring and nurturing and so on, that men are strong and assertive and aggressive and all that.

But as Benkei already pointed out, these are traits that are distributed among both sexes (and so we're talking about statistical distributions, rather than a binary a "yes" or "no"), and are dictated by social expectation/convention, not biology (and so therefore the differences can probably be accounted for entirely by social convention, without invoking biology at all- we're talking about social norms that have been in place and been enforced for centuries, after all):

Men can be and often are nurturing and caring and creative. Women can be and often are assertive and aggressive and logical/analytic. And similarly for other traits associated with one particular gender role over another; these are matters of social convention, and so are in some sense arbitrary. These traits and roles are part of our normative expectation/model for how members are a particular sex are supposed to be like... not an accurate descriptive account of biologically-based traits. Again, social convention, not biology.

And even as far as biology goes, the story is far more complicated than you seem to realize: biological sex and sexual traits form a spectrum, not a binary male vs. female, so even the matter of biological sex (as opposed to gender) is not so straightforward as you let on.

This is what creates confusion for people. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure, the first time they hear the phrase "there is a possible world such that blah-blah-blah". Then someone explains it to them, and they're all good. The only problem here is your stubborn insistence that people can't or shouldn't use terms in a way you don't like or agree with. But that's a problem on your end: possible-world semantics works, it is a useful tool, and so logicians and philosophers are going to continue to use it. If you don't like it, you're free to not participate.

:up: Agreed. And you're certainly right that this cuts both ways, and it is equally obnoxious and counter-productive no matter who is doing it. Frustrating how so many people are unwilling to allow the other person to stake out their own position, in their own terms, without making assumptions about what they must think or believe on other topics in virtue of their being an atheist or theist.

I wasn't asking for definitions of statistical significance or Protestantism, I was asking you what exactly "practicing atheism as a kind of secular Protestantism" involves or consists of. What does this look like, in practice?

I suspect a statistically significant number (certainly not all) of atheists practice their atheism as a kind of secular Protestantism. — ucarr

I'm curious what this means, exactly; can you say more?

What I said was perfectly consistent with what I believed; you've merely been fooled by your willful ignorance RE how possible-world semantics works.

I mean, I'm sorry that you object to people using ontological-sounding language to talk about modality and possibility rather than existence, but you're not the language police, you don't get to tell people how they can or can't use technical technical terminology, or what their terms mean. If we stipulate that we're using phrases like "there is a possible world such that X" to mean "X is logically possible", then that's what we mean when we use those phrases- if you don't like it, too bad.

All you can do is yourself refrain from using possible-worlds talk, or you can stipulate that when you use possible-worlds talk you are using it as e.g. literal existential propositions. And the rest of us can and will continue to use them in the way that has been explained to you here, i.e. as a useful alternative way to talk/think about logical space that is not ontologically-committing.

You're right, you brilliantly saw through our subterfuge to the deeper conspiracy at work; our scheme to use modal possible worlds semantics to brainwash people into believing in the actual, substantive existence of logically possible worlds.. For some reason, since that's not a position I actually hold (nor is it likely one Banno holds, either). We're just that diabolical I guess. :roll:

I imagine there's a lot less to do in a merely possible world, for one thing...

This something I mentioned on the now deleted thread. — Andrew4Handel

I suppose now is as good a time as any to let you know that your posts to that thread were as much the reason for the thread's deletion as the OP. If those comments are representative of the sort of thing you want to say on this topic, you should find somewhere else to do it because that's simply not going to fly here.

There is increasing evidence that gender ideology is harmful and especially the surgeries are un ethical. — Andrew4Handel

Now this would (imo) be an angle or framing that could lead to an acceptable discussion/thread that doesn't necessarily violate site posting guidelines- there are certainly plenty of topics relating to transgenderism which would be acceptable. The point is that threads and comments cannot simply be disparaging entire groups, whether you're targeting trans people, or gay people, or members of a particular ethnicity or religion. If you want to debate the ethics of certain medical interventions, that's one thing... bashing trans people as a group is quite another, and won't be tolerated.

The assumption of static meanings is a foundational axiom of epistemology. If that axiom is rejected, then there cannot be a substantial and objective notion of epistemic error, beliefs cannot be identified with mental states and people can only be said to make predictions. — sime

Can you say exactly what constitutes a "static" meaning for you here? How long must it remain static? And how static must it remain- completely static? Mostly static? At least a little bit static?

What do you think an acceptable way to discuss transgender identities would be? — Andrew4Handel

That's going to depend on what exactly you wish to discuss or what you want to say about the topic. If, for instance, all you want to discuss is whether trans people are evil (or the legitimacy of trans people merely existing), or some such, then no, that's not a debatable topic for this forum as far as I'm concerned.

The topic would need to abide by the posting guidelines (and its worth being familiar with the guidelines for OPs as well), same as any other topic- including/in particular the rules against discriminatory language (or outright hate speech, obviously) or espousing/defending blatantly bigoted views.

Thanks, and yes, its true- philosophy is an incurable lifelong addiction... but at least one that can be fun and satisfying from time to time!

Empirical knowledge obtained in a given world cannot translate to empirical knowledge in some possible world without contradicting the conditions for empirical knowledge. Ever been to a possible world, observed what is already cognized as water, analyzed it to find H2O in it, or not? Unless that happens, knowledge by experience is utterly irrelevant. — Mww

Banno already covered this very well and I don't have much to add to what he said, except to emphasize that possible-world semantics- i.e. "there is a possible world (such that X, Y, or Z)" - are not actually making ontological claims (despite appearances to the contrary- "there is a possible world..." certainly sounds like an existential claim!), claims about the existence of some other world out there somewhere existing in... different dimensions or universes, I guess?

Instead, possible-world semantics is just a different way to think/talk about modality, a conceptual tool for thinking/talking about logical space: in other words, a way to think or talk about logical possibility (i.e.non-contradiction). We say that something is logically possible iff it does not entail a contradiction. And if something is logically possible, then we may also say that "there is a possible world" where that something is true or is the case. That's it. The bar for being a possible world is pretty low- as long as something doesn't entail a contradiction, then there is a possible world for that something. .

And possible worlds talk is admittedly quite confusing and misleading for people not familiar with this particular area of logic/philosophy- it sounds like asserting the existence of some unknowable world out there in the great beyond.. But its not. So ignore how it looks/sounds, and when you see the phrase "there exists a possible world such that X Y or Z" just mentally replace it with "X is logically possible" (i.e. X does not entail a contradiction) and a lot of these problems and questions should disappear..

Probably General Philosophy or Humanities and Social Sciences, depending on the angle from which you're approaching it.