I am not sure what many, including yourself, are suggesting for gender dysphoria. There is often such an emphasis on protecting the feelings of those who are offended by gender dysphoria and those who claim to identify outside of the binary.

So much seems to be based on opinion rather than any clinical basis. For example, you say that 'antidepressants do more harm than good' which is merely your viewpoint. Surely, there is a need to step back and look at evidence as critically as possible, not picking and choosing what to select. Part of the problem is that there is so much information online. In order to offer approaches which are intended to aid those who are struggling with gender identity issues, there is a need to look at the issue from various angles.

I suppose it is also worth considering what both the concepts of chance and destiny mean, because at times they are used in a rather vague way, almost as if they are opposites. To some extent I see the term chance as conjuring up a lack of direction and purpose. Destiny may be about some fixed end, but they may not be opposites entirely. There is starting points and ends, which may be where the concept of causation comes in. It could be asked if causes and ends are in a straightforward linear process or to what extent the goal is inherent in the understanding of the causal process?

One important question may be what is the link between aesthetics and ethics? I am not sure how it stands as a question in the context of this thread but it does seem to have some potential relevance here. There is the comparison between aesthetic and moral beauty. However, there Is a danger that the idea may be stretched towards trying to make ethics pretty, if it is only about superficial appearances rather than a deeper search for appreciation behind surfaces. Certainly, the lives of the artists may reveal many flaws, especially in how their artistic quests led them to in towards the uncanny and strange lands, sometimes almost with disregard of social and moral norms...

I suppose we should take it all with a sense of humour as it is possible to think so hard about all these issues. Threads start and fade and if we agonise over them we won't do ourselves any good. So it may be best to take it in the strongest philosophy stride, as a mixture of chance and manifest destiny.

Just before I log out, in case anyone gets confused and sees it as some kind of sexual pun, when I said that I don't like playing sport it is meant as field games, such as football!

Also, I think one has to be a little careful of some aspects of sexuality, especially self disclosure. That is because online discussions are very different from those face to face. Most importantly, it is not a safe therapeutic space because it is a philosophy site which the public can read. It may be worth you thinking about because the more I use this and sites in general I am aware of a need for a certain amount of caution in what I say.

Not that I am recommending silent suppression of speech. I am simply saying that the nature of too much self disclosure on a public philosophy site is worth reflecting upon, mainly for how it may impact on you at some point rather than just those who read it.

Good night,
Jack

I will leave the discussion for now because I need to get up early tomorrow. It does seem from what you have said that your life has involved a lot of struggle. To end on a light upbeat note, we have one thing in common, as I can't bear playing sport at all either. Good night!

You seem to be making the mythical assumption that people who change gender are just people who can't accept homosexuality. It is not that simple because it is not necessarily about the body one is attracted to but to how a person feels about one's own body prior to any sexual relationship with another, or independently of actual relationships at all.

Why can't a person with a female body identify as a gay man? Some, such as Poppy Z Brite, a famous author who wrote, 'Lost Souls' has transitioned and is living as a gay man. There are many male to M to F individuals who identify as lesbian and F to Ms who identify as gay men. That is because gender identity and sexual preference are distinct from one another. Life is full of diversity.

It does startle me how people seem to have so much of an issue with what other people do. It may be that 'oddness' in itself is the problem as it was always those who were outside the norm who came under critical attack and subject to moral panic, like the way people seized upon Aids to condemn the gay and bisexual community. In the past, the bearded ladies, dwarfs and those who looked different were cast into the role of circus freaks.

In some ways, there have been the romantic deviants, like the sexually ambiguous pop singers. But, there is still a strong shadow of hatred and many people who look and act outside of the norm are subject to forms of bullying and violence in many places in the world. Those who continue to wish to be allowed to express their issues with the deviant 'others' often overlook this aspect of the power dynamics at play. They do not seem to link this together in their analysis, because they don't wish to consider the issue of prejudice and the nature of projection.

As I know that you are in England now, I am wondering if you are aware of the most controversial trans legal case of Kiera Bell. I would imagine that you have heard of it but as it is in England I will point it out for anyone who is not familiar with it. Basically, this is a young woman who is detransitioning, after taking puberty blockers and testosterone and having chest surgery as an adolescent. Kiera was living as Quincy and at age 21 regretted this treatment.

As a result, Kiera, as she is now known, sued the adolescent gender clinic. She argued that as a teenager she was not stable enough to have the capacity to consent. She won her case and it has far wide ranging effects. Of course, it does seem that her medical treatment happened so quickly and much of it is irreversible.

However, it has become a source of activism and it does seem that many, including Christian groups, have seized on it as a means of supporting gender fundamentalism and she has become a celebrity. There are even T-shirts with the slogan, 'Queen Kiera Bell'. It does seem to have become a culture war between those who are stressing gender rights and those who are wishing to assert fundamentalism. The aspect which I wonder is how will people navigate their own personal searches while the issue of transgender is seen as a political one rather appreciating the complexity of it as an aspect of personal identity and psychology.

Yes, Thailand is interesting and it does seem that there is increasing intolerance to those who question the binary. It may be partly that more people are wishing to express androgyny. On the other hand, I do wonder if so much opposition is about a gradual wish for more totalitarian powers and suppression of human freedom.

Yes, the case of Reimer is an interesting case in pointing that gender goes beyond cultural issues. It was certainly a problem that intersex people were not given a say in their own choice of gender. However, it is questionable to use it to oppose trans identities.

It does seem that in the current cultural backlash many individuals think that they have a right to insist on their views as the ultimate one, often based on citing examples of online research. Having worked in mental health care, including working with trans identified individuals, it does seem that the voices of professionals and their patients are often pushed aside It is matter of politics rather than about the well being of those who turn to the medical profession for support. So many media sites seem to be platforms more for people to vent their opposition to people with gender identity issues and most trans people just wish to live their lives rather have to face transphobia daily.

I have just read that the author Louisa May Alcott, famous for writing, 'Little Women' and 'Jo's Boys' was probably non binary and wished to be male. It is likely that people with some kind of dysphoria have existed in all times in history and various cultures. It is simply expressed differently and approached in varying ways.

In some cultures, like India and North America, there are gender neutral communities. These may comprise people who are born intersex or choose to live as the other gender than they were assigned to at birth. In Western society, gender dysphoria is probably approached differently because the medical technology is there to enable them to be more physically at ease witg their bodies, especially if social attitudes reflect intolerance of people's choice of gender identity.

I think that the wind has just thrown the thread into the lounge as an invisible hand of destiny somehow!

Yes, there is probably a link between causality and the issue of chance. However, to see chance as a cause is probably missing many other aspects, and it is about the many variables. It may be like if it is a strong windy day and a tree blows down and kills a person it is not possible to attribute the death to the wind or the tree alone because it is the interaction between the two and that a person was in the vicinity.

With regard to the idea of predestination, it has probably developed differently in various philosophy contexts. However, as far as I understand in the Judaeo-Christian tradition it often was in relation to the idea of sin, salvation and of the afterlife. It was based on the assumption that God, as designer, crafted each person and had a role in being responsible for the individuals.

This led to the question as to whether God was accountable for whether human beings could overcome sin. This moved onto the complex issue as to whether human beings were destined to enternal life in hell or heaven. It raised a lot of issues about the nature of evil and most thinking about chance and destiny. It is so different from the way most people think of the issues today, based on the knowledge of science. Beyond the issues of physics, which led to Einstein's query, 'Does God play dice?' the dynamics of philosophy have altered so much.

Quantum physics has looked at the issue from so many different angles. Einstein's ideas about the existence of God were ambiguous, and some physicists like Stephen Hawking have come from a materialist angle whereas others like Paul Davies and David Bohm have challenged materialistic determinism. The main difference with quantum theory is that so many questions have arisen. There is Heisenberg's emphasis on the uncertainty principle and so many theories, including chaos theory, which suggests some underlying order within the background of chaos and unpredictability.

One overriding understanding emerging is the systems point of view. This may involve perception of the various aspects of the issue of chance in the natural order and in human life, including free choice. In particular, in thinking about human nature and behaviour, the bio-psychosocial approach may be important. This involves thinking about the basic aspects of biology, including genetics as well as the various aspects of psychological development, including cultural and factors in social life. This is such a big contrast with the Christian notion of predestination which relied on a belief in the source and God, as a deity and creator, behind the scenes of nature and life.

Your argument about Putin's mother and father in bed is part of the idea of predestination. With the act of reproduction it involves the genetic elements and how this comes into play in the creation of a unique biological being. However, it goes way beyond this, with the circumstances in which they met.

When two people come into a relationship it involves the chance aspects of them meeting. For example, I know people who have met a partner in some unusual place, like a launderette or a couple I know met when the girl was running and the boy came to her rescue. So, it can include the unlikely aspects of life and probability.

On an experiential level I sometimes find that what happens goes beyond the scope of probability. For example, I often find that I get stuck in situations in which whatever I do I land up in the same predicament. I am not saying that there is no possible movement ever but when people have repeated experiences of a similar nature it can challenge the idea of chance and randomness. Nevertheless, it could be that the subconscious plays a role in the process and, in this way, intention in its deepest sense may have some role in the nature of will and chance in human consciousness in our lives, and it may be a bit different in nature and physics.

In some ways, it could be argued that it is a waste of talent if people don't make use of it. I know of someone who was a very good violinist but just decided not to do it any longer. If someone doesn't make use of their potential there is the possibility that they may regret it later, but to see it in a moralistic light may be unhelpful because it just leads to unhelpful guilt.

The trouble is that creativity is not something which mechanical, but it can be in the sense that people may go through the motions in a repetitive way. That would be an emphasis on art as a product. It may be how art and the arts are seen in a consumer society, but that is different from the process.

In some ways, the process of making art may go beauty, and aesthetic techniques. It can be a way of expressing the sublime and beautiful but as a journey it may go beyond this and also about experiencing and living with ugly and the darkest moments of experience and existence. This area was opened up in particular in the postmodernism of the twentieth first century. Each of us may have preferences, whether it is visual art, literature or music. For example, sometimes people are surprised that while I like classical literature my music tastes incorporate goth, metal and punk.

This is where subjectivity comes into it. I read Kant's, 'Critique of Judgment last year and was surprised how he recognised the subjective aspects of aesthetics. The issue may be that each person has their own subjective balance or symmetry rather than it being an 'out there' objective measure, even though there are shared intersubjective cultural aspects. These may involve shared social meanings but the beautiful and the ugly are based within the personal mind of the perceiver, even though there are likely to be overlaps based on the pleasure or displeasures of sensory experiences. In creating art one is making one's mark in the cultural niche but a prescriptive approach to what one should create may extinguish the source of creative inspiration.

Thank you!

I didn't know that there is a Sheldrake website, so thanks for telling me that. It may prevent me from building up more and more piles of paper books!

Even though Sheldrake speaks of fields his understanding is parallel with Jung's idea of the collective unconscious, as memory inherent in nature. I discovered his writing while I was reading Jung and thinking about Western religious ideas. What I found helpful was that it was a way of connecting the ideas of Jung with nature and spatial reality rather than the collective becoming an abstract metaphysical void of disembodied spirits. Now, neuroscience seems to be the way of connecting perception and reality, especially in relation to the idea of qualia. But, the morphic fields provide another interesting angle, but it does seem that many disregard his writings.

It is probably because he does have a leaning towards the esoteric. I was in 'Watkins', an esoteric bookstore in London and saw that he has written some new books on consciousness. I avoided the temptation to buy any on that occasion but I would like to read the development of his ideas because I have only read his early work, mainly 'The Presence of the Past'. I read some of, 'The Sense of Being Stared At' and it does seem that so many people can pick up if they are being stared at from behind. It may involve the subliminal mind and it that this is connected to the existence of morphic fields.

I am familiar with the story of David Reimer and it is such an unusual one as I read his autobiography which he wrote some time before his suicide. Thinking about it now, the idea of raising a child who had lost his penis, in a circumcision accident, as a girl seems atrocious. But, for many years the case was important in sociology to show that gender can be learned socially. Money's work with Reiner was considered to be a great success.

It was only later that it was known that Reimer suffered so terribly. Even though he had been given surgery and hormones he still was extremely masculine and got made fun of for being so hairy. He did transition to male and I believe that he was going to have a phalloplasty and he struggled with depression. I knew that his brother had schizophrenia but I didn't know that he died of an overdose. It is not surprising that the twin suffered with all that had happened, especially the suicide of his brother.

I read an article in the news recently in which there is some possibility that the male chromosome may become extinct. This has led to some speculation that men may die out. However, there are some species in which the male chromosome has faded away but what happened was not a disappearance of males but the evolution of a new species.

Gender in its various forms may be part of evolutionary pathways. The various differences, including intersex and gender dysphoria are aspects of nature, just as homosexuality is, so independent of how people choose to act, including transitioning or not, it may all just be seen as diversity in the spectrum of evolutionary possibilities.

The idea of cause as being chance would imply no direct line of action and consequences. It is questionable whether the idea of chance is more a reflection of theism or atheism because some theists have believed in predestination and some atheists have maintained materialistic determinism.

Darwin's idea of natural selection in itself is not random entirely because the survival of the fittest is like an inherent biological imperative within nature. And, in connection with God, Darwin was not necessarily an atheist even though his ideas may have influenced others to become atheist.

It is hard to know how to see the specific roots of causation. Aristotle saw God as the first mover. However, it would also be possible to ask what caused God to exist in the first place? To some extent it may come down to whether mind or matter are primary. Many Eastern thinkers, especially the Buddhists, see causality a little differently because they don't see the material as being the primary force, even though they don't believe in a specific deity. In Hinduism and Buddhism there is the idea of karma, which is fairly complex involving both inner and outer sources of causation, although the idea is, 'As you sow, so shall you reap' which would imply chain reactions as opposed to chance.

It is good to see you again on the forum and I think that many have missed you. As for the fields, my interpretation is that they have wide reaching implications for the understanding of the way in which consciousness evolves. The fields are like memories in nature and about links between minds. It may be about patterns which exist in nature, as opposed to being 'supernatural'. Sheldrake's ideas which he is continuing to develop are fairly radical, with some support for aspects of extrasensory perception and even a leaning towards panpsychism.

You seem to class surgery and suicide together, as if they are similar when they are not. Surgery may be the healthy alternative to suicide for many. There is such a tendency especially in social media to focus on those who are unhappy with their gender transitions rather than having regrets. Also, some people just get on with their lives afterwards and don't make a big thing out of it. Many pass as their chosen gender and don't even need to tell people most of the time, except for intimate relationships or in a medical context.

Also, from what I have read about detransitioning, except in cases like Kiera Bell in England, who changed too early in adolescence, many who do go back to their natal gender do so on account of the social intolerance which they experience

I am not sure if you are trying to advocate moral anarchy. If you are, that is in itself prescriptive to some extent.

As far as chaos is concerned that may be the general background from which all development emerges, but even chaos theory points to patterns of order. Human beings develop moral ideas, which are different from the instinctual behaviour of animals. This involved the evolution of language in culture and is the basis of conceptual thinking and rationality. So, to say that morality is ignorance is contradictory because to cast morality aside would be the abandonment of reason in favour of irrationality.

It is interesting to think would the AI beings and even the transhuman beings of the future be binary beings or androgynous? The further one goes beyond the basics of biology the more likelihood of beings beyond stereotypical gender. Some of the fantasy/science fiction authors, including that written by females, including Marion Zimmer Bradley and Ursula L Gun, create characters who incorporate characteristics of both gender, which include physical androgyny. This may be an echo to the archetypal or mythical hermaphrodite. The prefix trans is involved in transgender, transhumanism and may correspond with the idea of transformation as well.

In some ways you frame the idea of morality within the Christian mythic assumptions. This has an underlying Nietzschian stance, with the idea of 'going beyond good and evil. He was speaking mainly of the customary expectations of so-called 'virtues'. However, if the idea of going beyond morality was taken to the extreme it would be ethical chaos. The underlying premises of morality are based on social factors, such as the principle of the golden rule of treating others as one would wish to be treated, as well as morality existing socially as a form of social contract.

I see someone like Judith Butler as being a person living out the existential dramas of conflicting ideas and stereotypes. It is so easy for people to criticise trans people for what they are doing. After the times of liberation there is a backlash against transgender people. The thing is that in previous times, especially in the Christian church there was so much hostility towards gay people. Even now, in some cultural groups there is still extreme hostility towards gay people.

In many ways it is about the construction of 'otherness'. In the first post reply to me you mention women bearing children. Of course, that is true and it would be foolish to dismiss biology. However, all these aspects are about political power and the women's liberation movement is also about addressing sexism. Addressing sexism and racism are important political realities. History is about dominance and even this thread could be seen as sexist because it is largely men talking about women.

If anything, it would be interesting if women wrote on the the thread as opposed to being written about, in order to bring balance. Sometimes, the gender threads on this forum become popular with all kinds of hostile views about gender, almost as dumping grounds. This may because the issues arise emerge as a form of cultural wars, from the midst of individual and group dynamics of projection.

Men and women project so much onto each other and there are so many cultural aspects of gender. For this reason, Judith Butler, spoke of gender as performance. Stereotypes come into this, including ideas of psychology and ideals of the perfect body. It is likely that the media and popular culture feed into this and it may contribute to the rise of gender dysphoria.

The emphasis of a binary of gender divisions goes back throughout history but it may be that freedom from stereotypes may create greater creative expression of uniqueness beyond the confines of biological attributes. It is hard to think completely beyond gender and those who are seen as gender deviants and outlaws may be those who experience the harshest negative cultural treatment.

Historically, women were treated as inferior and there was such vast changes, especially with feminism, in the twentieth first century. There was postmodernism, with the idea of deconstruction of gender. In the twentieth first century there are probably remnants of all previous forms of prejudice and homophobia, and many individuals are struggling to make sense of the nature of difference, especially in its most basic division of males and females, as well as all binary distinctions, including the negative and positive, like the interplay between the yin and the yang.

I am not opposed to statistics and evidence based research on creativity. It is simply that it can sometimes be so reductive and the spark of creativity and its depths may be beyond empirical investigations. Statistical analysis may have some importance but the aesthetic embodiment of creativity and numinous experiences may be important in the arts, and even in science. Even though science may be based on the empirical it also incorporates metaphorical thinking.

Gender? It may be that the issue is not simply about this division and all aspects of difference. I know an art therapist, Vicky Barber, who has written on art therapy and race. In thinking about all experiences in daily life, as well in aesthetics and reasoning, culture and difference have such an impact. This may involve the various cultural meanings and backgrounds which shape our own symbolic worlds, alongside the political aspects of equality and inequalities which come into play in the realisation of creative expression in social life.

I am replying mainly to your reply saying that you always wish to help people from committing suicide. I come from that angle too, because apart working with suicidal people in mental health care I have experienced suicidal ideas and known people who committed suicide. It was while I was a student that I knew 3 people who committed suicide when I was a student that led me to train in mental health care.

In ethics, there is the ongoing issue of autonomy of choice and this may be related to the legal issues surrounding capacity to consent which is often seen as the benchmark of the ethics involved in psychiatry. Critical psychiatry may have taken over in the aftermath of the decline of the antipsychiatry movement.

On the subject of suicide, one book which I found useful is, ' Suicide and the Soul", by James Hillman. What he looks at is the way in which while suicide comes amidst despair it may also contain a hope or wish for transformation. To some this may appear as idealism but it may also involve the tightrope of the suicidal person's existential predicament as a search for choices which may go deeper than the surface of autonomy as theory bringing it more in line with the quest for authenticity.

I am not sure that the statistical analysis of creativity would be particularly worthwhile. It would probably involve as much bias as IQ tests. Creativity is subjective to some extent. The one gender issue which might be relevant is the question of technical vs emotional intelligence within the creativity equation.

There is also a risk of stereotyping and, as far as gendered aspects of creativity are understood, there is the question about how much is innate and how much is dependent upon social learning and cultural expectations. Some people who have been creative, ranging from Virginia Wolf, Oscar Wilde, to some of the flamboyant pop singers, may have been gender outlaws.

There is also the possibility that creativity may be about the yin and yang as the integration of the anima and animus. However, as June Singer argued in her book, 'Androgyny', this does not have to include physical gender ambiguity and may be about going beyond the psychological aspects of the self stemming from stereotypes.

I am not sure that creative people are more 'messed up' than others. It may be more of a myth and a not particularly helpful one. It is associated with the products of creativity, such as the masterpiece and the notion of genius. In reality many would like to reach such heights but many seek it and only a minority achieve it. But for most of us as 'ordinary' people wishing to be creative it would probably be rather foolish to think about creativity simply as works rather than a creative approach to living.

You cannot possibly generalise whether men or women are more creative. Historically, women may have been given less opportunity, just as other socially disadvantaged groups were. Also, I remember a history teacher saying that at one point it was believed that men have souls and women don't...

It definitely seems that many creative people aren't happy. Colin Wilson's, 'The Outsider' is filled with the stories of the torments of the unhappy creatives, including Van Gogh, Camus and Nietzsche. The singer, Todd Rundegrun, made an album called, 'The Ever Popular Tortured Art Effect'. There is decadent glamour of the sufferings of the creative bohemians. Sufferings come in the form of many troubled creatives, including the trials of sex, drugs and rock'n'roll and some philosophy thrown in. Tbe philosophy is not a mere afterthought because it may be that is what is needed to balance all the fire of the creativity before it explodes or implodes.

I do have an book called, 'The Book of Destiny' by Barbara Meiklejohn-Peters and Flavia Kate Peters. I have consulted a couple of times and found it helpful psychologically. I decided to consult it earlier today because I was feeling low in mood and despondent. This involved opening a page at random and the one I got was titled 'Doors'. It seemed particularly relevant because it was about seeing open doors rather than closed ones. I have felt as if I am at a deadend recently and it may that I need to see new opportunities rather than dwell on things which have ended badly.

Connecting this to the idea of the Tarot and other oracles, what may be important is intuitive guidance or wisdom. In my own example that doesn't mean that I wait for doors and complain if none appear as such. It may be more about framing and the need to approach the future with a positive attitude and intent, probably as a basis for navigating new possibilities.

This is a particularly unusual story because it involves a transgender person and assisted suicide. I am startled that the person was given an assisted suicide, unless it was the mother. Assisted suicide is particularly complex and controversial, just as euthanasia is. Part of this may be because people may be pushed into it with others as a way of rejection, especially the elderly and people who unable to look after themselves. In this particular case it seems like there were critical family dynamics which needed experience and, perhaps, some professional family therapy interventions could have been offered to work with the various family members as opposed to the focus being on the one individual in isolation. I am not sure where this took place because it seems an extreme story.

Suicide itself is a very tricky area. I have worked in psychiatric nursing and it is often the opposite to this scenario. People are often wishing to kill themselves and if a person is viewed as a suicide risk they are often placed on close levels of observation, such as having a member of staff at arms length 24/7. I have known people being nursed in this way for over a year. Of course, it is not as if anyone can be on such observations permanently and often the people who do kill themselves don't tell anyone their intent and plans.

As far as needing assistance, some people try to kill themselves and don't succeed, and may even end up disabled in the process. Others may make what is believed to have been most likely a gesture for help, such as an overdose, and die accidentally.

To be able to be creative 24/7 is something which may be possible but is not easy to achieve. I certainly don't find that I can be. I get stuck so often, end up sitting at the bottom of my bed, staring into space, as well as meandering around the charity shops. I know some people who watch so much television and I don't do that. But, I definitely need wind down time, lying down listening to music. Some people go as far as reading about and trying to use time management, which I find to be too regimented.

But, I would like to be able to get down to more creative tasks. Also, unfortunately I sometimes spend too much time reading, and writing on this site instead of vacuuming my room, and doing basic chores and this can be counterproductive as my jumbled chaos doesn't create an environment conducive to creativity. But, I guess on a deeper level creativity is also a wider perspective on how we cope with life experiences, decisions and, even then, while these may involve regrets, the mistakes may be part of the experiential learning process and the raw material for creative changes.