Traditionally, all these men who start wars and call themselves heroic were raised by women during the most important moments of their upbringing. — NOS4A2

1. Modern psychology recognizes the limited impact of paternal influence on children.
2. Women, though disadvantaged by patriarchy, have often been brainwashed into being proponents thereof.
3. Children watch and learn from society and their father's as well. Parenting does not happen in a vacuum.

Hopefully that’s changing — NOS4A2

Do you have some particular problem with mothers?

Projection, projection, projection! — Tzeentch

Are you hoping if you just repeat yourself, you'll magically be right without paying any attention to the way Christianity has actually affected society and the way people behave/what they believe?

Of course it's projection. But not mine; it's how the majority of Christians follow the teachings of the Bible.

not to disadvantage them. — NOS4A2

The way men have tried to "protect" women has historically included keeping them in the house, telling them whom they can be friends with, what jobs they can do, not allowing them to vote, not allowing them property, and beating them when they get rebellious. If that's not disadvantaged, I dunno what definition you're working with.

Traditionally, men have toiled in work, given their lives in war, and gathered enough resources to supply their families with a decent life in order to protect them, not to disadvantage them. — NOS4A2

Women have toiled just as much, traditionally, and currently the female workforce does more labor than the male.

Men start wars and then call themselves heroic for getting blown up in them. Women are left to heal the wounded nation.

And, protect me from what? Other men, I assume. Also, hello paternalism!

Sounds like a job for feminism — NOS4A2

Bingo again. You're on a roll.

I would argue it benefits woman and children more than it benefits men. But of course there are upsides and downsides. — NOS4A2

Well, yes, because women have been more disadvantaged by patriarchy. There's less to fix for men.

Because they are women? — NOS4A2

Bingo. Or because they are black and women at the same time.

“poverty and natural hair rights”, also apply to men. — NOS4A2

Also, poverty affects black women in different ways than it affects black men, for example.

also apply to men. — NOS4A2

Feminism applies to men.

I know I talked mainly about women's rights, but feminism is also fundamentally about opposing patriarchy, which is widely known to benefit men, but also harms them in significant ways.

Or is the fact that the Virgin Mary, a symbol of purity and virtue, is female also oppressive to men? — Tzeentch

If God is the powerful rulers and also a man, then it suggests that men are powerful rulers--over whom? Women usually. Ergo, women become oppressed.

The Virgin Mary symbolism would simply absolve men of, but impose on women, the need to be pure (ie, chaste) and obviously, that's exactly how it's played out socially.

Although minority women have benefitted from the feminist movement, feminism is not intersectional because it does not work to directly address the needs of intersectional women. — Bridget Eagles

The female sex is a very broad umbrella and should, at least theoretically, cover everyone in it. — NOS4A2

Right, so two things:

1. All general women's rights issues are rights issues for all intersections of women.

2. In the past feminism may have neglected intersectional issues, such as poverty and natural hair rights, but I don't think that
a) that has been the case in the last 20 years at least.
b) there are any important feminists alive who would argue against the importance
intersectional issues.
c) adding intersectional issues to the core issues of feminism changes fundamentally changes
what feminism is really about. They are more like very useful, and much needed amendments to
the constitution of feminism.

Just go look ar Dr. Money's experiment. He told the parents to raise the boy as a girl because — Harry Hindu

One case is an interesting reason to look further into a subject. It is not proof of anything.

The parents determine how society treats the child. — Harry Hindu

The parents are not all-powerful. The child is still growing up in a world where people are treated differently based on their sex. Unless you're talking about an unusually stupid and incurious child, they pick up on these things.

As they develop they realize that they don't share the qualities of that sex/gender and this is what caused the mental anguish because they are confused thanks to their parents, not society. — Harry Hindu

This is just plain wrong. Unless you raise your child on a deserted island without books or music or any other form of human culture, the child is being shaped by society all the time.

If no man is an island, neither are families.

distressed at being forced to take on a male role — Banno

Can you define "male role"?

I've been reading other websites that also suggest the safety of even puberty suppressing (as opposed to gender-affirming) drugs is unknown and hard to ascertain. Clearly there are problems finding case studies and control group and doing any of the usual double-blind type things. It's kind of like studies about pregnancy and breast-feeding: the consequences are possibly too severe and irreversible for researchers to use people as guinea pigs. Especially since puberty, pregnancy, and breastfeeding are all time-limited.

"Within a few months of beginning hormone therapy, you must assume that you will become permanently and irreversibly sterile. Some people may maintain a sperm count on hormone therapy, or have their sperm count return after stopping hormone therapy, but you must assume that won’t be the case for you."

https://transcare.ucsf.edu/article/information-estrogen-hormone-therapy

Are you sure they're reversible? From a friend who's adult child is transitioning I heard that it causes sterilization. I could be mistaken, however.

Yes, I believe that's reasonable. However, it's not necessarily what all trangender people want. Some advocate for allowing preteens to start medically transitioning before their natural hormones change them in directions they do not believe they want. I disagree with the whole concept, but I can understand their position.

Right, but at the same time, why is identity wrapped up with the shape and style of one's underpants (and other garments)?

Or just tell them the truth like we do anorexic patients. You're not fat, so stop trying to use extreme methods of losing weight. You're not a woman, you're a man, — Harry Hindu

Ah, well, I guess you're applying the motto "when at first you fail, try and try and try again"?

This contention raises a few interesting questions. Like, why does clothing matter so much? Why would identity be contingent on clothing expression? And why is clothing gendered in the first place?

Increasingly, we view only "women's clothing" as gendered. Women can wear, I think, anything a man wears, and not be considered necessarily "cross-dressing." That's in part because patriarchy determines everything male as the standard or normal thing, and everything female as "other." But in any case, it means that we're really only talking about mtf and not ftm here.

I don't want to call it shallow for gender minorities of any kind to worry about clothing, but I do think it's creating wrong priorities. It suggests that being a woman/man is about clothing. But, even is the socially constructed view of gender, gender is so much bigger than that.

That being said, I agree with Hanover that people should be allowed to dress in what fashion they choose. But that surgeries and hormone therapies are too permanent and invasive to be options for young people. You can easily change a shirt, but you can't grow back body parts.


As to the OP, I think the most obvious response is "correlation does not equal causation." There are many things about gender minority's lives that could contribute to mental health issues that might go away in a more tolerant world.

And it is possible that there are actually mentally ill people, who perhaps aren't transgender, who are drawn to that idea because they hope it'll be an easy fix for their deeper problems. That does not mean that this applies to all or even the majority of gender minorities.

So that's what "S" stands for!

And, yes, especially about the superficial part. The irony is of course that equating people with any kind of disability with victims is just belittling and paternalistic.

is attracting meanness and nastiness from those who find it amusing (and I'm only reflecting what has already been found in this thread). — Serving Zion

Can you please cite actual examples to prove your case instead of slandering people in the abstract? I don't recall anyone being mean to him, though he claims we have. We simply don't agree with him, but last I checked that was not the basis of "meanness."

I think the actual injustice is going around and giving people unearned bad names.

I can live with all sorts of epithets, but I want to have earned them fair and square.

Are we allowed to have this conversation here or not? Because a bunch of posts, that I cannot identify as otherwise offensive, just got deleted. Yet his defamation is still here.

If you have one leg, you can't run, no matter how much you practice. :up: — Pattern-chaser

The makers of blade runner prosthetics beg to differ.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Oscar_Pistorius_2_Daegu_2011.jpg

I do not put myself down as an anti-phlogistonist or an a-flat-earther. — iolo

Because you do not live in a time or culture in which such a large group of people do believe in those things.

wouldn't be calling them respectful or expressing his general agreement — S

He only wants "respect" for religious views, not secular ones.

It's not even clear what "respect" is supposed to entail here. I think he means, "don't challenge them in honest debate" which is just entirely unphilosophical.

Let's face it: T Clark is not actually interested in seeing or understanding the other side here. He's just got it in his head right now that atheists are all wrong and mean to boot and theists/spiritualists/agnostics etc. can do no wrong. No matter how much they do the same things he's accusing atheists of doing.

You're basically just admitting that this whole thread is just trolling.

My purpose in this thread was to kick those I consider offenders, including Artemis, in the ass. — T Clark

Um.... Like when? You mean in response here to your purposefully inflammatory thread?

You make no sense. You are purposefully being a jerk and then people call you out on it and you pretend that's proof of your totally unwarranted position.

I am generally more to the 'spiritual-idealist' end of the ledger, but at the same time, I don't think a philosophy forum is the place to wield Biblical verses as an argument. One may from time to time refer to them as illustrative of a moral maxim and the like, but I would draw the line at Christian apologists posting them as part of an argument. — Wayfarer

I guess I have to think about that one a little more and whether I think it's proselytizing to quote Scripture in an argument.

I do think it's senseless, though, when you're talking to an atheist or someone who doesn't believe in your religious text.

I used to post on DharmaWheel forum and part of their ToS was 'no proselytizing'. I think that could be profitably added to this forum. — Wayfarer

Proselytizing is a difficult thing to determine. T Clark previously said:

"I'm not speaking for anyone. In my experience, many atheists don't see what they do when they try to win people over to their way of seeing things as preaching, they see it as rational discussion." -T Clark

Which implies that no matter what anyone says about religion, no matter how good of faith they are employing to stay within rational discussion, it's just proselytizing in his view.

You read it wrong then.

1. I gave an opinion to your discussion about the segregation idea. As in, it's stupid.

2. I pointed out that you are wrong to attribute sole responsibility to atheists. To which you basically responded that you'll make exceptions for theists acting like jerks, because....what? they were "triggered" by some OP that I didn't write?

3. I pointed out that your "evidence" isn't actually evidence. Last two weeks? Is that really a statistically meaningful sample size? And what does "anti-religious" even mean to you? Because you've also admitted to including free will discussions and stuff--so basically you just don't want there to be any secular discussions whatsoever.

Someone else pointed this out already, but if you want a Bible Study Group, I'm sure you can find one easily through Google or even in person in your area.

I haven't been angry. — T Clark

4) It pisses me off. — T Clark

Okay then.

\

I haven't yet seen any criticism of my posts that I consider valid. Most of the people who have responded have mischaracterized what I wrote. Maybe that means I wasn't clear enough, but I don't think that's it. I think they're responding to what a typical anti-atheist might write and not what I wrote myself. — T Clark

No. We're responding to exactly what you've said. It's just the ginormous chip on your shoulder that's hindering you from realizing it.

You haven't actually presented evidence, by the bye.

So because someone else opens a discussion in a way religious people don't like, I am allowed to be railed against, even though all I might have in common with the poster is the lack of belief in deities?

So, I guess, next time there's a radical theist on here I should rail against all theists in the discussion just because... That's your logic, right?

I've been on the receiving end of more than one diatribe by a theist or agnostic here, so "sole" is just plain false.

Doesn't this kinda amount to a truism? We'll all disagree a lot less when we only talk to people we agree with?

I think people opposed to those conflicted conversations can just self-segregate themselves from the offending threads.

Unkind is a weasel word, for quite a few reasons. I'll focus on one for now: it covers both neutral and mean actions. If I'm minding my own business and, say, just enjoying my yard for a few minutes, I'm not being kind to anyone in particular, but I'm not being mean either. If I'm in my yard and find a kitten and start stabbing it with a pitchfork, I'm just being downright nasty and thus unkind.

I think unkindness and unethical form a Venn diagram. Most unethical things are unkind and most unkind things are unethical. As petrichor points out, in the case of torture. Unless you have some superrogatory moral reason to be unkind, unkindness is (probably always) unethical.

Like it's unkind to lie, but it's more important to save the Jews in your attic and therefore you should lie to the Nazis when they come knocking.

But that type of enlightenment is not some destination to be reached, which was strongly implied through much of our discussion on the subject. — ZhouBoTong

Strongly implied by whom? Not me. I've consistently said it's a means and not an end.

But "objective" morality doesn't really make sense. What makes it objective? Don't like half of all philosophy people view morality as largely subjective? I am not saying I am right, but it doesn't seem that outlandish? — ZhouBoTong

I don't think "half of all philosophy people" (whatever that means? us here? academics? anyone who's ever had a deep thought?) view morality as subjective. But I haven't seen a poll either way. However, it's immaterial because it's an ad populum. People believing X doesn't make X true.

Moral relativism pushes the idea that I CANNOT judge another person's morals because it is all just relative to their situation. On the other hand, I feel comfortable judging other people's morals (at least to some extent) based on my subjective opinion (which may be based on certain objective facts). — ZhouBoTong

Moral relativism is an umbrella term that covers subjectively, culturally, historically, class-specifically, and all the other kinds of relativist views of morality. Most commonly people are referring to the first two.

However, if, as you say, you think a subjectivist could judge someone else for their actions, I don't see on what basis. I think at most you could be sort of aesthetically turned off by those actions, but your own metaethical position maintains that there is no objective morality and therefore that there is no objective standard to which to hold the other person, and you can't really hold another person to your personal subjective standard.

It doesn't matter what kind of relativism or subjectivism you're talking about, my critique remains thereof.
It's all focusing way too much on you, and not giving hardly any attention to the person/s being harmed.

To the to be murdered cow, to the molested child, to the beaten woman, to the tortured slave it really doesn't matter what your "subjective opinion" is. They would just prefer you get around somehow, someway to leaving them the heck alone.