I'm making the pragmatic point that many people are fairly impervious to reason and more swayed by rthetoric, so if "winning" in the marketplace of ideas really was just down to using reason, I'd agree with you, but I'm saying it's demonstrably not. — Baden

That would only happen if we as a society reject reason and logic as the arbiters of truth. If we were to actually value reason over emotion as a society, then we could get to the place I have proposed.

If you aren't interested in reason, then what are you really saying? Your words would be meaningless. If you are inconsistent, then how can you actually mean anything? How is it that your words become interesting or even valuable when you are inconsistent and emotional? It seems to me that we simply have a problem of not valuing reason over emotional rhetoric - which is a social problem - one that needs fixing if we are to keep away from hateful ideologies.

Keeping in mind that my focus has mostly been on interiority, and there are people in a better position than I to answer these questions -- — Moliere

EXCEPT when their interiority contradicts their exterior - as in when they believe that they are Jesus, an alien, or the opposite sex. Beliefs are interior and many of them are wrong. How do you go about consistently determining which feelings are accurate or not?

It seems to me that masculine and feminine are already separated from sexual differences. What does short hair, for instance, have to do with one's physiology? Sexual differences play a very minor role, at least when comparing the number of entities in the set of gendered entities, in marking what is masculine and what is feminine. — Moliere

Isn't short or long hair PART of your physiology, just as being bald is? The length of one's hair does not determine sex, nor gender, as it varies across sexual and cultural boundaries. It is simply a human, not a "gender", trait of which both sexes can engage in.

So removing them entirely from the set of gendered entities is all that would be required. Feelings, as vague as that term is, would be the arbiter of identity rather than physiology. — Moliere

So then the feelings that believers have would be the arbiter of the truth for the existence of their god? Again, how do you consistently determine which wide range of feelings human beings are capable of, are the arbiter of truth and which are not - other than the fact that human beings have feelings about certain things that often come into conflict and contradict others' feelings, like in the debate we have right now?

And don't forget my question (one that I've asked half a dozen times with no answer (and no it's not rhetorical. I expect an answer if you expect me to understand what you mean about "gender")) about those that talk about how they feel like a different "gender", yet go about changing their sex via surgery?

Harry Hindu has every right to label the mod team Nazis (in whatever sense) if he wants (here in feedback anyway). It's up to us then to argue back if we want. It wouldn't be sensible for either of us to take any of that personally, and I wouldn't even bother calling it "abusive" as that in itself could be deemed just another label. Come to think of it, aren't we in danger of labelling the labelers, "labelers"! — Baden

Exactly. That is why I said that we need to dispense with the labeling and engage in reasoning your way through arguments. Labeling does nothing other than reinforce your already deeply held beliefs (beliefs with emotional attachments).

and no, reason demonstrably doesn't always "win" when determining the truth in that plenty of people are convinced by its opposite and ultimate agreement on what the truth is anyway, especially wrt moral issues, is rare. — Baden

Wha-What?

What other method has provided access to truth better than reason? What other method, other than reason, has provided actual answers to anything?

The ironic thing is that everyone uses their reason to find answers to solutions. It is ONLY when they don't like the answer do they suddenly say, "reason doesn't provide all the answers." Reason itself dictates that your feelings are nothing when it comes to determining truth. We were never guaranteed answers that we like or are consolable.

When it comes to moral issues, you are in agreement with me without even knowing it. There are no answers to moral issues, because morality isn't objective. Morality has to do with our individual goals and how they are either inhibited or promoted by others. The best "answer" you can come up to any moral dilemma is whose goals get to be imposed on others?

Rubbish. We are trying to play chess while you refuse to acknowledge that the white pieces are different from the black pieces. — Banno

This is the most ridiculous analogy I've seen.

No, Banno. It's not like that at all. We aren't talking about race.

Remember, for the 3rd time, I'm using the terms as used in the dictionary. You are not.

You could say that I'm the one using the rules, and you are the one trying to tell me that you can move the King like the Queen whenever you feel like it.

If you can't figure that one out, you're really in trouble, as you are if you can't figure out why the mod team on this site are not the same as Nazis simply because we enforce certain standards, or why in general certain things like Nazism, pedophilia, rape etc. are wrong for obvious reasons that we don't need to go into here because we'd rather spend time on stuff that is actually worth debating. But, yes, feel free to go to other sites to try to figure out why Nazism is wrong. I hope you manage it some day. — Baden

There are things worse than Nazis. How do I know that you aren't a pedophile?

"The above guidelines are in place to help us maintain a high standard of discussion and debate, and they will be enforced. If you feel from the get-go that their very existence impinges on your right to free speech, this is probably not the place for you."

The fact that we're a moderated forum with standards that are enforced, and that you don't have an absolute right to free speech is not going to change. — Baden

There was a lot more to my post, that you cherry-picked, that establishes a different theme than what you seem to have gathered from it.

Nazis limited free speech. That is the similarity that your forum has, yes, but I was also referring to your "extremist" statements. Did you not argue that you should engage in extreme behavior to combat extreme behavior? That is what I was referring to in establishing a similarity between you and Nazis.

Sure, you have the right as a private owner of a website to establish certain rules and you don't throw people that break the rules into a concentration camp. That is obvious. It makes me think that you cherry-picked on purpose and misrepresented my post and me, to avoid having to address the meat of my post, or at least trying to insult my intelligence by thinking that I wouldn't know that difference.

You see, in a free society, where free ideas are allowed to compete and the winners are those that are coherent, reasonable and consistent, Nazism would never be able to gain a foothold. It is only when you allow a certain group or individual to gain a lot of power, that you run that risk. As long as true free speech and ideas are allowed to exist AND compete in the arena of reason (there must be a competition of ideas for progress to happen and to root out emotional ideologies like Nazism), then we don't really need rules for controlling it, do we?

Extreme reactions to extreme actions are not the answer. Reasonable reactions to extreme actions are the answer. You fight racism (hate) with reason, not reciprocal racism (hate). The emotions are not bearers of truth (other than the fact that you have them in certain situations). Reason is - and it is why reason always wins out when determining the truth.

Sadly, being abusive verbally has shown to be a good strategy in online argumentation. The objective being not to convince the other or make them accept that they made a mistake, but rather to be the one perceived as able to "school" rather than be schooled.

Since such argumentation rely on pre-existing groupthink dynamics and humour rather than a logical analysis of the content of the arguments, a site like TPF should (and does :up: ) restrict its use as much as possible, and encourage everyone to adopt the later form.

But as a tool, abusive argumentation remains very effective, if the objective is to score points with an known auditory. — Akanthinos

How is engaging in abusive behavior indicative of being able to "school", rather than be "schooled"? If you are combating abusive behavior with abusive behavior, aren't you really no better than who it is you are attempting to "school"?

It isn't a "win", nor did you score any "points" if all you did was reinforce what you and your group already believe. Scoring points entails persuading people who don't already necessarily agree with you.

Now, I'm not in any way suggesting violence be used with the Nazis of today, just pointing out that the appropriate way to deal with those who expose extreme ideologies may sometimes be extreme, or at least more severe than with those in the mainstream. And may certainly extend beyond the bounds of polite debate which in a way legitimizes their positions (and again that's why we don't allow them here).

In any case, out of curiosity, what rational arguments do you think Nazis and their ilk would be responsive too? Because, honestly, I don't think people at that level are open to rational argumentation. If you can manage to believe the holocaust never happened, and Hitler was actually a good guy, you are very likely too far gone to be convinced of anything to the contrary (on an internet forum at least). Having said all that, do whatever works. Anyone who reduces the number of racists, Nazis etc in the world, short of using physical violence to do it, has my unconditional support and appreciation. — Baden

Combat extremism with extremism? Hypocrisy. What makes your extremism any better than another?

Logic and reason are the only effective means of combating unreasonable beliefs. When the argument becomes political and/or ethical, then it simply comes down to what individual or group has more rights to see things their way than some other individual or group - which is why I rarely get involved in political or ethical debates. Shutting people up and banning their right to free speech is no different from what a Nazi would do, making you no different than Nazis.

Fight ignorance with reason and logic. WHY are Nazis wrong? WHY are you right? Answering those questions gets at the truth without having to resort to the same tactics you say that are wrong in the first place.

Where you say "or" here that is where the distinction between sex and gender lies. So as long as you understand that there are these two components -- physiological characteristics, and human expectations (of various sorts, behaviors are just easier to point to) -- then you should be able to understand the distinction between sex and gender. — Moliere

My point has always been that gender is arbitrary - as in the various ways humans expect other humans to behave, while sex isn't. So, gender is meaningless in many circumstances, especially in a culture that supports the equal treatment and expectations of both sexes.

I also pointed out that these "transgenders" change their sex, not their "gender".

I'm not sure how else to proceed other than ostensively, though. I don't have another tactic. I'm not throwing up my hands and blaming your ignorance, but I am ignorant on how else to proceed. — Moliere

Why don't you provide me the same courtesy I have shown you and try to address my points and answer my questions.

I haven't defined sex, either, but you don't have a problem there. — Moliere

That's because we aren't disagreeing that sex is anything more than biology. We are in disagreement whether or not gender is anything more than biology or the arbitrary ways humans expect the different sexes to behave within any culture.

I've been using a more ostensive approach -- by denoting the various things I mean to indicate with the words I am using. — Moliere

And I've been pointing out that your way of defining "gender" is incoherent. Doesn't that mean that you should maybe try a different tactic rather than throwing up your hands and blaming me for being to ignorant to understand your whack wisdom? Sounds like religion to me.

Now I will just say here that I don't expect to persuade you. But identifying where disagreement springs from is still a win, plus it helps us to better see our own beliefs. — Moliere

You can persuade reasonable people with reasonable evidence. I was a "born-again" Christian, took my Bible to school, involved in my church, etc. but I began to question the very basis of what I believed. Eventually, after many years, I considered myself an atheist. I did a complete 180. I was persuaded with better arguments and consistent answers. Have you ever done that? Can you be persuaded, Moliere?

So Harry Hindu refuses to make the distinction we are using in this discussion. That means he just drops out of contention. He is not saying anything worthy of much consideration. — Banno

This is just another poorly veiled ad hominem attack. How does it follow from refusing to make the same distinction you are making to my arguments aren't worth considering?

I am using the terms as they are defined in the dictionary. You are not.

I have argued that your definition of "gender" is incoherent and arbitrary and your only defense is ad hominem attacks and more incoherent vagueness on the part if Moliere.

When you can't defend your own arguments, or even make an attempt to answer the questions I posed, it is you who aren't saying anything worthy of much consideration.

That there is the primary point of disagreement. — Moliere

And the only reason I can't agree with you is because you haven't even defined "gender" in any coherent way.

If someone is male, but wishes to be treated as a woman, I don't see an issue. If someone is female, but wishes to be treated as a man, no problem.

But if they are male and claim to be female, or if they are female and claim to be male - then there is something worthy of further discussion. — Banno

I don't see a difference between wanting to be treated as a male/female vs man/woman. Look it up in the dictionary. A woman is an adult female human being, while a man is an adult male human being.

Sex is gender and then there are arbitrary expectations (norms established) of men/males and women/females behaviors that contradict each other. There are also varying degrees of punishments for not abiding by those expectations. In some countries it is punishable by death, while others have no laws limiting what both sexes can do.

IF someone is saying that they want to be treated as a woman for example, and imply that it is only their culture's treatment and expectations of women, and not others, then they must not really mean that they ARE a woman because that would be inconsistent. But then, what does that question even mean in a country where both sexes are treated equally? In a society where the sexes are treated equally doesn't "gender" become meaningless?

I have to point out here that this is something you have no problem with, but if we includes me then part of we does. — Moliere

So, you have never told someone that they were wrong, or contradicted their belief, or otherwise engaged in some debate where someone's deeply held belief was questioned? And "deeply held beliefs" are the ones in which feelings are attached to and cannot be uprooted without compromising those feelings. What about the feeling associated with being correct and the subsequent bad feeling of being wrong when your beliefs contradict reality? I can probably point to many instances on this forum where members are rude, condescending and indifferent to people's feelings, of which you could be included?

It's not sex that's being claimed. Sex is distinguished from gender is distinguished from gender-identity. Sex is biological. Gender is social. Gender-identity is psychological. Biology has to do with what you're talking about in getting pregnant and giving birth, but it's more complicated than that even. If a man cannot impregnate someone, because he is impotent, does his sex change? If he has erectile dysfunction, does his sex change? — Moliere

If a man has sexual reassignment then they are changing their sex, not their gender. So it is about sex and not gender as gender is arbitrary.

If a man is impotent or has erectile dysfunction, he is still a man because any surgery to try and change his sex ends up with the body trying to revert itself back to it's original form. This is why men have to use stents to keep their wound open (its not a vagina, it is an open wound). Just as there are men with physical disorders, there are men with mental disorders - something you seem unwilling to admit or be consistent about. The disorder doesn't make them less of a man, or more of a woman. That is determined by biology alone.

When someone claims to be Jesus then there are facts to the matter which are ascertainable outside of the psychological profile of someone. I would believe the person feels like Jesus if they claimed they are Jesus. But there's more to the matter than the statements the person makes and the actions they take -- that he is the son of God, that he was resurrected after being crucified, that he has a second coming to judge the living and the dead. There is something else to look at. — Moliere

The something else to look at would be the person's sex.

In the case of gender-identity there is not. And the feelings someone has are as much a part of reality as the chair I'm sitting upon. And since the feelings aren't making claims about physiology (sex) there is no contradiction. — Moliere

I still don't see a distinction. For someone who believes they are Jesus - their feelings are real too. As I pointed out, their claims ARE about sex, as they try to change their sex. Their claims are about being the opposite sex.

You end up having to make it about "gender" to avoid attributing some psychological disorder to transgenderism, yet you can't even come up with a meaningful definition of "gender".

I'm just going to note here I don't believe that gender has a fixed essence -- so any behavior can potentially be associated with the gender "man" or "woman", be it shaving, wearing makeup, making decisions, dieting, exercise, or what-have-you. In actuality there are certain behaviors temporarily affixed to genders, but they change over time and with place. — Moliere

Then "gender" has no meaning if there is no fixed essence. Any behavior could be "gender"-related, and trans-people can adopt any behavior they want and still be the sex that they are born with, but many don't want to stop there.

They claim that they are a woman or a man, which are claims about sex. If there are no clear distinctions between how they wear their hair, make-up, what clothes they wear (meaning there is no physical barrier to doing these things) then why are they making claims about being a man or a woman when these behaviors are not restricted to just a man or a woman? When men can have long hair and wear make-up, then why is their claim that they are a woman just so that they can have long hair and wear make-up, when men have no restriction to doing any of these things? IT IS about sex, no matter how much mental gymnastics you try to perform, you cannot escape this fact.

To me it just follows naturally from how I should take the statements people make about themselves. Feelings may change over time, but the person (usually) in the best position to say they are what they are or that they have changed or that they were different is the person feeling them.

What other aspect of identity comes under scrutiny like transgender identity does? It seems to me that we have no problem with people who identify as Christian, men (when their sex is in alignment with their gender identity), Democrat, liberal, stern, black, a foodie, an artist, and so forth. There is a certain ambiguity involved in all such identities, and can even be contradictory when we consider the multitude of people who identify as such. — Moliere

Any aspect of identity that contradicts reality - like claiming that you are actually an alien, Jesus, President Obama's secret mistress, feeling like you are morbidly fat and need to starve yourself to loose weight, or that you are the opposite sex. When someone's feelings are not a true representation of reality - that is when we have a responsibility to question the claims of people.

Shouldn't the question be: "What is it about SEX that keeps us from scrutinizing those that feel as if they are the opposite sex, when we scrutinize all other feelings that are not consistent with reality?"

People can come to the wrong conclusions about the meaning of their feelings. We have no problem telling religious people that their dead loved ones don't exist and that there is no afterlife and we often get the same reaction that we get from the trans-people. We are told that there is a "War on Christmas", that you are "hater", "you don't know what love really is", etc. This is evidence that we are talking about a delusion (in both cases) - when ad hominem attacks are their only defense to what you are saying and they are fearful of questioning their own conclusions.

No one has been able to define "gender" in a meaningful way that implies any of what you have said. Gender is not some feeling of being the opposite sex. It is the behaviors unique to a certain sex that cannot be duplicated by another - like getting pregnant and giving birth.

Dressing a certain way, or wearing make-up, or shaving your legs are things both sexes can do and therefore aren't related to gender or sex. If it were then you are telling every woman that has ever existed, and that presently exists in other cultures, that they aren't actually women if they don't wear long hair, make-up and shave their legs.

Fear is what keeps people from asking the right questions - fear of being labeled a bigot and being disowned by your friends or social group. Fear and feelings should be the furthest thing from one's mind when trying to determine the truth.

Science does not produce "Truth." It produces predictive value through repeatable experiments. That's the point. Anyone can test your claims and if you did the experiment wrong, they will demonstrate it under carefully controlled conditions which minimize people's personal biases. — Terran Imperium

Science does produce truth - when done correctly and without external influences like we had from religion in the 15th and 16th centuries, and like we have today when it comes to this particular issue. It really is a shame to see the best method at getting at truth being used for political purposes, or influenced by these inconsistent ideologies to come to inconsistent conclusions.

Again, (and I'll keep pointing out these facts as they are continually being ignored by the "other" side (and I put "other" in quotes because they still haven't made their position clear about what "gender" even is :gasp: )) men have been sporting long hair and wearing make-up for thousands of years. In some cultures, women shave their legs and armpits while in others they don't. The behaviors expected from each sex are arbitrary. There is no such thing as an objective, transcendental sexual disposition. It is purely biological - natural (as is everything, but that is a topic for another discussion). Any feeling of being the opposite sex is the result of either some genetic and/or developmental cause.

They want to keep calling people, "bigots", "hateful", etc. while ignoring the fact that these acts are the very definition of being hateful and unreasonable. They are ad hominem attacks and the result of intellectual laziness and/or dishonesty. I have pointed out their hypocrisy in their claims that we should be sensitive to feelings. When it comes to the feelings the religious people have about their (mass) delusional beliefs, and the offense the believers take when their belief is questioned, their feelings don't count somehow - as if believers are less human and don't deserve equal treatment when it comes to hurting people's feelings by telling them the truth they don't want to hear. This hypocrisy just proves that it isn't about hurting feelings.

And it shouldn't ever be when trying to get at truth. The truth isn't dictated by our feelings - which is just another contradiction on their part. If truth were dictated by feelings, then all the various gods from each religion must exist.

This is how mass delusion works at propagating itself and rooting itself into a culture - by labeling non-believers essentially as heretics and outcasts. This is how religion spread and entrenched itself in various ways in different cultures.

They want to ignore the double-standard in how we treat anorexic and schizophrenics, and those that believe that they are Jesus or King Elizabeth, and how it isn't disrespectful to correctly diagnose those conditions, but somehow it is when it comes to believing your the opposite sex. It is compassionate to correctly diagnose a medical condition so that you can actually use a treatment that works for the benefit of all, and it is callous to use someone's medical condition to further your own extreme
"progressive" <- NOT (another topic for another thread) agenda and even worse to hijack science (which has improved our lives more than any other method of seeking knowledge when done correctly) for your own ends.

Conway's argument, which is based on convergence of various features across non-related species such as eyes, is that evolution would have led to something like us even if the dinosaurs had not gone extinct. Gould's argument was that evolution would most likely result in completely different life forms. The canonical examples here are from Australia, such as Koalas, Kangaroos and Platypuses. — Marchesk

It is interesting to contemplate these kinds of ideas. It really is a toss-up between either option simply because we don't have enough information to even begin to lean one way or another. Let me just say that the marsupials would not be able to compete with the placental mammals and would have died out had they not been cut of from the the rest of the world "down under", so they would not be a good canonical example. We still don't know exactly how life started and how likely it is to start on any given planet, etc., so it can still go either way.

There's an even deeper question here. Rewinding the clock to rerun evolution is counterfactual, as Losos points out. It's a thought experiment. As such, is it more in the domain of philosophy than science? Is this topic a philosophical one? — Marchesk

That's the thing: What IS philosophy without science to prove or disprove philosophy's musings? You can sit and ponder all day about the likelihood of humanoid reptiles building a civilization, or how the mind relates to the body, etc., but it doesn't get you anywhere without acquiring more data, forming an educated guess, and then testing that guess.

It seems to me that philosophy is a science. The conclusion of one branch of the investigation of reality must not contradict those of another. All knowledge must be integrated.

At root, science identifies and integrates sensory evidence (which is the nature of reason). Science is essentially based, not on experiment, but on observation and logic; the act of looking under a rock or into a telescope is the quintessentially scientific act. So is the act of observing and thinking about your own mental processes--a scientific act is completely private. (Proof of one's conclusions to others comes later, but that is argumentative, not inquisitive.) Science is willing to accept and integrate information from any observational source, without concern about persuading other people.

It seems to me that philosophy hasn't come to any conclusions. It is science that provides those while philosophy is more like the impetus for seeking those answers, and asking more questions based on the new knowledge science has provided - like the one in your OP. You just have to wait for science to acquire more data and objective means of testing hypotheses derived from the initial data. Philosophers can be so impatient sometimes. :wink:

Take for example having long hair and wearing make-up, a dress, and high heels. We tend to think of this as being the traits of a woman despite the fact having long hair and wearing make-up, a dress, and high heels has nothing to do with having XX chromosomes or a vagina. We have this idea of what it means to be a woman that transcends biology.

So let's say someone with XY chromosomes and a penis decides to have long hair and to wear make-up, a dress, and high heels. You might look at their biology and say that they are of the male sex (and they will agree), but they look at the social aspects of their lifestyle and say that they are of the female gender.

As soon as you start to talk about women's and men's clothing or the like you've lost any ground you have in trying to reduce it all to biology (for the most part; something like bras being used to support breasts can be an exception, although given that flat-chested women often still wear bras and large men with "breasts" don't, even that's debatable). — Michael

If a man can wear a dress and make-up then obviously these acts are not what it means to be a woman that transcends biology. There is no transcendental aspect to being a man or woman. It is determined by sex. Gender is simply an arbitrary set of rules for the expected behavior of the different sexes in some culture. You either follow them or you don't. The fact that we can break these rules should be evidence of this. We cannot break the rules of sex though. Once you are born a man, your body tries to revert back to a man after "sexual reassignment surgery" and is why the man has to have stents in his wound in order to prevent it from closing.

It seems to me that many of those terms overlap each other. The complexity is a result of our ignorance on this topic. Occam's Razor dictates that the best explanations are the the simplest. One could say that transgenders are delusional and western society has adopted the delusion and propagated it into a mass delusion to the point of verbally assaulting and labeling those that don't participate in the delusion, all while arguing that we shouldn't put labels on people. :brow: Go figure. :roll: It's just that most people are incapable or too lazy to reflect upon what they believe and think and how that relates to the rest of their beliefs and the way they behave. Too many people have inconsistent thoughts and beliefs in their heads and their actions and what they say reveal that. The complexity and incoherence of this list is a great example of that, too.

The ironic thing is that most people that talk about the feelings of a transgender not being hurt on have no quarrels about trampling on the a religious person's feelings about their beliefs and the stress it causes them for someone to say that their beliefs are false. Sometimes I feel like I'm taking ice cream from a child when I engage in debates with religious people and argue for the non-existence of their god, but I don't let that deter me as I only seek the truth without worrying how people feel about it, and try to ensure that what I believe is not only consistent with my experiences, but also with the other knowledge in my head. The truth was never guaranteed to be consoling to our feelings. The truth is the truth and how we feel about it is another matter entirely.

People aren't their gender or sex by a feeling or body. They are so by the meaning of their sex or gender itself.

Feelings, sensations, thoughts are just how people are aware of the s meaning. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I don't understand this part of your post. People aren't their gender based on feeling or body, but by the meaning of sex or gender itself? People are their sex or gender based on their physical and behavioral features. People are also delusional based on the criteria set forth by the medical community itself. People can be deluded about many things, and they don't necessarily have to have a mental condition to delude themselves. Just look at the religious folk.

People who we label as transgender don't just want to act like the opposite sex, they want to BE the opposite sex, which is why they go through sexual reassignment surgery. If it was only about gender, then they would be happy as just dressing like the opposite sex. Shouldn't we be making a distinction then, between transGENDERS and tranSEXUALS? - and is there really such thing as a transsexual when they never fully become the opposite sex - just an fake version of the opposite sex?

Do people that just dress like the opposite sex still claim that they are the opposite sex internally, or do they do it just to feel more comfortable with themselves (as a result of how they were raised and the norms that were established for them at an early age - like their parents treating them as the opposite sex)

Wanting to act like the opposite sex just reinforces the gender dichotomy - as you aren't really trying to break down the barriers between sexes - you want to BE the opposite sex.

Somatic type: delusions that the person has some physical defect or general medical condition (like believing that your body is the wrong sex)

The following can indicate a delusion:

The patient expresses an idea or belief with unusual persistence or force, even when evidence suggests the contradictory.

That idea appears to have an undue influence on the patient's life, and the way of life is often altered to an inexplicable extent.

Despite his/her profound conviction, there is often a quality of secretiveness or suspicion when the patient is questioned about it.

The individual tends to be humorless and oversensitive, especially about the belief.

There is a quality of centrality: no matter how unlikely it is that these strange things are happening to him/her, the patient accepts them relatively unquestioningly.

An attempt to contradict the belief is likely to arouse an inappropriately strong emotional reaction, often with irritability and hostility. They will not accept any other opinions.

The belief is, at the least, unlikely, and out of keeping with the patient's social, cultural, and religious background.

The patient is emotionally over-invested in the idea and it overwhelms other elements of their psyche.

The delusion, if acted out, often leads to behaviors which are abnormal and/or out of character, although perhaps understandable in light of the delusional beliefs.

Individuals who know the patient observe that the belief and behavior are uncharacteristic and alien.


Additional features of delusional disorder include the following:
It is a primary disorder.

It is a stable disorder characterized by the presence of delusions to which the patient clings with extraordinary tenacity.

The illness is chronic and frequently lifelong.

The delusions are logically constructed and internally consistent.

The delusions do not interfere with general logical reasoning (although within the delusional system the logic is perverted) and there is usually no general disturbance of behavior. If disturbed behavior does occur, it is directly related to the delusional beliefs.

The individual experiences a heightened sense of self-reference. Events which, to others, are nonsignificant are of enormous significance to him or her, and the atmosphere surrounding the delusions is highly charged. — Wikipedia

Transgenders exhibit most, if not all, of these symptoms - especially being oversensitive about their belief and accepting it unquestioningly - similar to the religious.

Any attempt to contradict the belief is met with hostility. Society has even adopted this symptom - just look at the responses to my posts on this forum. Again - no different than the religious.

In diagnosing their condition correctly, we aren't being disrespectful to anyone, just like we aren't being disrespectful when we diagnose an anorexic correctly. We are attempting to help the patient instead of hurting them more by reinforcing their delusion to the point where the pay a doctor handsomely to cut them up. People that don't get this are inconsistent are actually the haters they label others to be.

So the debate is between two groups in the same culture having different feelings about gender. Whose feelings win out? Whose feelings are more important to console? What about the feelings of those believe in the cultural norm to be upheld?

This is an unaswerable question - just like every ethical question. This is why we should just rely on the simple truths of what a man and woman really are as a product of their physiology.

So if I was transgender and have changed my name and have started taking hormones and began my transition, you would still have the audacity to call me a woman? What if I say I am not a woman and that I am, consequently, a man?! What if I feel better as a man? What if I am uncomfortable in my own skin looking in the mirror every day seeing something incommensurate with what is on the inside? — Blue Lux

Your feelings to not determine the truth. If that were the case then the feeling Christians get means their God exists. Truth is not beholden to your feelings. The truth is not necessarily consoling to one's feelings. Any logical and objective person understands this simple fact of life.

There is absolutely no connection between gender and sex. This is a metaphorical correlation and is absolutely non-sequitur. So because someone cannot have children they are thus genderless?! — Blue Lux

No, they would still be a man or woman that has a physical problem, just as a transgender is still a man or woman that has a mental problem.

You are sick. — Blue Lux

ad hominem attacks don't win arguments.

I won't be responding to any more of your or Pattern-chaser's post. You are both unreasonable and have a problem with constantly committing ad hominem attacks. You aren't worth my time.

AND, if "gender" is the different roles the sexes take on and are considered the norm for that culture, AND you are also saying those rules can and should be broken, then what you actually argiung for is the abolition of "gender" - that you are trying to say that "gender" it ultimately meaningless and arbitrary. This what ivw been saying all along and that sex is the only objective truth that does not change across cultures.

Gender IS related to sex. It is the cultural norms we expect each sex to follow. Cultural norms differ across cultures and over time. Sex does not. No matter what culture we are talking about each one has the women being pregnant and giving birth while the men are the ones that fertlize women because that is what nature dictates. Any change to the way we procreate will require a different name for our species. In other words, we would no longer be humans.

I don't even understand the whole host of what the problem of gender is. What is that people are complaining about? If a man wants to wear a dress so what? It's only when he actually believes he is a woman that a problem arises.

What do we do in the case of schizophrenics and anorexics? We try to change the mind because that is where we know the problem is located.

Not only that, but there are plenty of stories of regret in going through with reassignment surgery. So it clearly isn't a fix for everyone. AND isn't it ironic that before you are allowed to go through the surgery you have to pass a psychological exam and get approval from a psychiatrist? You don't need that to get a tumor removed.

What does that even mean to say there is a mismatch between mind and body? It seems no different from what I have said. And again it just begs the question: "How do you know that it is the mind that is right and the body wrong", especially when the body tries to revert back after surgery and you have to use stents to keep the wound open?

You still have not explained the cultural aspect of sex (aka gender). You just described different types of physiology that influence behavior. But humans have the same physiology (roughly) but their behavior changes. A man does not have act like a prototypical man, nor does a women. A seahorse does, therefore their sex greatly influences their behaviors. Humans have a wide variety of ways they act, that has changed between cultures. Sex does not cover that at all, which is why gender was/is used to separate it. — yatagarasu

Human beings are known for their wide range of adaptable behaviors. But they are still limited by one's body and shape. A man can never bring an infant to term. A woman cannot fertilize herself. You're confusing the range of things we can do with what we can't based on our size and shape.

Sure, cultures can vary in what women and men wear, or the jobs that they can do, but they can never change the way we procreate and the specific jobs each sex has in procreation. That is what sex is about. Any other behavior isn't related to sex and therefore would not fall under your definition of "gender".

Behaviours simply aren't relevant because being a gender (or not being a gender) isn't an account of behaviour. Nor does the presence of a certain behaviour define a gender (hence the absurdity and falsification of claims like "only men/women can do that" ). — TheWillowOfDarkness

Nonsense. Only women can have be pregnant and have babies. That is a result of their physical features and how those physical features give rise to certain behaviors only allowed by those physical features. No matter how hard you try, you can't fly without wings. You can't use your nose as a hand unless you have a trunk. You can't manipulate nature unless you have opposable thumbs, etc. Your capacity for any behavior is governed by not just the size and shape of your body, but also the processes that go on inside it, like the level of certain hormones and chemicals flooding your brain at any given moment.

A man who transitions into a woman doesn't have a real vagina. They have an open wound that they have to keep open with stents to prevent the body from doing what it naturally does - heal itself. That is what women don't need to do. It is what men with a delusional disorder have to do after having a doctor cut off their penis and makes a hole and calls it a "vagina" - a miscategorization of the Nth degree.

Isn't the body telling you that you are a man by trying to revert back to it's old form? Having the notion that you are really a woman and that your body is wrong, just begs the question: "How do you really know that the body is wrong and your mind is right? Could it not be possible that it is the other way around?"

They do have a drastic effect(all human events, actually, given that any human reposes involves their body reacting), just not the sort of of essentialist, reduction to singular meaning of gender behaviour or social value effect some people like to imagine. Gender and sex constructionists are well aware of the presence and effects of bodies. They are not interested in denying our bodies are our bodies.

Instead, they are drawing out the distinction between bodies and meanings/categories of sex and gender. A body is not a category of sex. A body is not a category of gender. Bodies are what they are no matter the category they are sorted. They are defined independently of any sex or gender categorisation.

In the respect, the sex/gender split is rather unhelpful. Not because there isn't a difference between sex categories and gender categories, but in the distinction asserts that gender is "constructed" while sex is supposedly immutable aspect of the body itself.

The sex/gender split is still caught in confusion of the body with categories into which bodies area placed. It doesn't recognise sex isn't the body at all. — TheWillowOfDarkness

This is total nonsense. We categorize bodies all the time. How do you think we make distinctions between species and between sexes of the various species? Some species don't even have males and females, and that will dictate their behavior in their social structure.

Human males do not have the capacity to be pregnant and give birth, nor do they face the possibility of the father leaving, or cheating with another female. These are all behaviors based on our physiology and are different for other species with different sexual physiology.

I merely think it pointless to question claims of others regarding what they think themselves to be if it poses no threat of harm, and that we usually do a disservice to ourselves and others when we disturb ourselves over matters which aren't in our control. — Ciceronianus the White

So then why do we point out to schizophrenics that they have a mental condition and that their hallucinations aren't real? Why aren't we concerned about their feelings when their hallucinations aren't threatening to anyone?

Why do we point out that anorexics aren't really fat and that they have a mental disorder without concern for their feelings about who and what they are?

Is lying to someone about their condition just so that you can avoid being labeled as a bigot, harmless?

It definitely does drastically effect the roles we play/played but those roles are much more fungible at this point. They may not have been before, but they are definitely more fluid now.

It makes it more confusing but at the same time more precise. It lets us explain discrepancies in individuals roles or behavior. What other way would you differentiate sexuality (physical), from everything else (cultural/social)? Without that extra dimension you don't have a way to describe discrepancies in different cultures that also share the same biological sexes. — yatagarasu

It doesn't make it more confusing. There are males and females. Then there are the ways that they behave in some social structure based on their physiology. For instance, in the animal world females tend to be more picky when it comes to choosing mates as they have to spend the more resources and time in raising the young. Seahorse males are the ones that carry the young so the roles get flipped in a seahorse society. Human males do not have the capacity to get pregnant and give birth. Men are physically stronger, etc.

So there are just males and females and then there are males and females with mental problems that enable them to think that they are anything from the opposite sex, aliens, tigers, Elvis, etc.

This isn't complex or contradictory and explains the current conditions perfectly.

True enough... That reflects my feelings towards asking him. I'm concerned he'll think I'm invalidating him. What if they don't know the answers? That would be troublesome for their psyche and could cause the volatile reaction I'm so worried about. — yatagarasu

That is just another name for "fear of the unknown". Religious people experience this and is part of the reason they just accept their beliefs based on faith because NOT knowing is scary.

I feel that the truth is more important than one's feelings. Who is to say that they won't feel better when they realize the reality of their condition and can then take action to address it instead of lying to themselves (humans are capable of lying to themselves and being misinformed of their bodily and mental states) and allowing others to propagate that lie?

Why don't we think of a schizophrenic's feelings when we diagnose their condition correctly and tell them that their hallucinations aren't real?

Yet we question orher people's feelings and understanding all the time and that isn't considered taboo. It is the result of fear. Christians fail to question their feelings and beliefs out of fear. That is what is keeping today's society from questioning the claims of transgenders - fear - the fear of being labeled a bigot or a hater.

It seems to me that one's physical state and reproductive functions have a drastic effect on the socisl roles we play.

It seems to me that making a distinction between gender and sex the way you did is part of the problem and creates the confusion.

Those that accuse me of being a hater, bigot, transgenderphobe, or just implying that I am trampling on someone's rights when I question the validity of their claims - like you are doing.

Again, its not about equal rights. Its about the soundness of claims being made. Schizophrenics have equal rights, however that doesn't require me to believe their claims and behave as if their claims are true.

How does a man even know "what is like" to be a woman to make the claim that they are really a woman in a man's body and vice versa?

Again (I need to repeat myself because you seem a bit thick-headed) I am not questioning their rights. I am questioning their claims.

Affirming and reinforcing someone's delusions is the same as lying to them. Now, who is the hater?

Uh, no. We don't treat all CLAIMS that people make equally. No one ever questions the validity of what it is that they are actually saying when a man says they feel like a woman or a woman says that they feel like a man, yet you question the validity of so many other PERSONAL and SUBJECTIVE claims made on this forum. Yes, that makes sense.

What you are doing is engaging the the unequal treatment of others by implying that a certain group has special privileges where their claims can't be questioned yet others' claims can. I can imagine what you would say if a Christian said thet their claims can't be questioned and you have to treat them as if their claims are true. Hypocrisy. At least I'm being consistent.

So, its NOT harmful to encorage someone's delusions to the point where they allow a doctor to cut them up on a surgical table for profit?

The point is that being a man or a woman is not a mental state-of-affairs. It is a physical and behavioral state-of-affairs. This is why raising your child to behave as the opposite sex creates a dichotomy between their phyisical state and their behavior. They want act like the opposite sex, its not that they actually are a mental version of the opposite sex.

A woman trapped in a man's body. — Banno

What this statement implies is that a woman is a mental state-of-affairs and a man is a physical state-of-affairs and that one can placed inside another.

Someone claiming that they are a man in a woman's body would contradict the previous statement. It would be implying that a man is a mental state of affairs and a woman is a physical state of affairs.

To remove the contradiction we could say that being a man or woman is a combination of a mental and physical state of affairs. When someone says that they are a man in a woman's body or a woman in a man's body what they are really saying is that they are a man or a woman, respectively, with a mental illness, or raised in a way to diverge their mental and physical synchronization (parents raising their son to dress like a girl and play with girl toys).

Meaning is the relationship between cause and effect. Tree rings (the effect) mean the age of the tree because of how the tree grows throughout the year (the cause). What you mean by your use of words (effect) is what you intend to convey (cause).

I think science is a philosophy, to use your terminology. Science is actually a tool developed under the auspices of the analytic/objectivist/logical-positivist disciplines of philosophy. And it's a great tool. Its successes are well-known and obvious to all. But it isn't the only tool we need, and it shouldn't be used when another tool is more useful or appropriate. — Pattern-chaser

Well, which is it? Is philosophy a science, or is science a philosophy? The key to understanding the relationship between philosophy and science is to realize that philosophy is a science. And the conclusions of one branch of the investigation of reality must not contradict those of another. All knowledge must be integrated.

At root, science identifies and integrates sensory evidence (which is the nature of reason). Science is essentially based, not on experiment, but on observation and logic; the act of looking under a rock or into a telescope is the quintessentially scientific act. So is the act of observing and thinking about your own mental processes--a scientific act is completely private. (Proof of one's conclusions to others comes later, but that is argumentative, not inquisitive.) Science is willing to accept and integrate information from any observational source, without concern about persuading other people.

What other tools are there and when would they ever be more appropriate than using logic/reason to integrate sensory information? Many people make this same claim but when I ask what other methods there are and when they would be better to use, I don't get an answer. Can you do any better?

And even then, I would wonder whether an objective worldview is a good thing to aim for. — Pattern-chaser

Objectivity is knowledge incarnate. Subjectivity is ignorance incarnate. Socrates said that knowledge is the greatest good and ignorance is the greatest evil. So, to have knowledge means you need to limit your subjective world view in favor of a more objective one.