How is it rational see a biologically male sex and a psychologically female gender as a woman, or a biologically female sex and a psychologically male gender as a man? — praxis

Notice how I said "IF," that's a conditional It isn't rational within the context of our current linguistic paradigm. And I have actually said here that it is not proper for trans to be appropriating an established linguistic paradigm and expecting us to use it. However, if we can peaceably conclude a rational element to it, then there isn't a problem, we'll just be able to integrate it into our paradigm without negating it.

Do you think other people owe it to you to accept you and comprehend you?
— baker

They owe it to themselves to understand themselves, because failing to do so will cause unhappiness both in isolation and with others. — Joshs

And who gets to be the judge as to whether they correctly understand themselves or not?

And who gets to be the judge as to whether they correctly understand themselves or not? — baker

Garrett Travers.

Don't be silly. You're putting forward the same type of model as the traditional ones. So you're, basically, doing the same thing as those you oppose, you just add a couple of more models, nothing more.

The traditional model expects biological males to operate in a particular perceptual-affective style considered "male", and biological females to operate in a particular perceptual-affective style considered "female". You switch this up a bit so that even biological males can be considered to operate in a particular perceptual-affective style considered "female", and biological females to operate in a particular perceptual-affective style considered "male".

But neither the traditional model nor you encourage one to, you know, just talk to the person. Instead, you both encourage people to act within scripted roles, and to interact with eachother in terms of those scripted roles (because this is what "perceptual-affective styles" are, scripted roles).

Remember, you said:

We are born with many personality traits that are robust and stable. to recognize them in others is to see their style, the art of their being with you. Recognizing the art of their personality style allows you a greater intimacy with them. Gender behavior is an art of being, and not seeing it deprives both you and others of this intimacy of relation. — Joshs

Do you believe there is such a thing as psychological gender, apart from biological chromosomal sex?
Paychological gender would refer to a brain-wiring that produces what I call a perceptual-affective masculine or feminine style. This difference in behavior is what allows dog experts and breeders to tell male dogs from
female dogs based on their behavior. — Joshs

No, people who have dogs and several other species of animals often tell them apart by their biological sex by looking under their tail/between their legs. Not by behavior.

Do you think the same brain-wiring difference separates human males and females?

There's a reason why a certain school of psychology was called "rat psychology", with all its pejorative implications.

What ignited furor was — Hanover

No. What "ignited furor" was the superficiality level at which the entire discussion should take place, and the bad faith in which it should be conducted.

Just shows you what lengths people will go to to find self-acceptance in a culture where the concept of psychological gender is still uncomprehended. I’m glad you at least comprehend the distinction between biological sex and gender. You will help to one day make such surgeries unnecessary. Because, of course, that’s the only thing that’s really going to stop it. — Joshs

Such surgeries have always been unnecessary.

It’s interesting and perhaps revealing that your description of gender mentions only who one is sexually attracted to, and nothing about what I would consider to be a more central aspect of gender for many in the gay community , which has to do with a global perceptual-affective style, of which sexual attraction is merely one small aspect. For those who dont grasp this , it is incoherent to talk about gayness outside of sexual attraction, and I think that is part of the problem. — Joshs

Many heterosexual people have the same view of their own gender identity -- that's it isn't merely about whom they are sexually attracted to, but "who they really are, as persons".

Women's magazines, for example, are full of descriptions and prescriptions about what "a woman" is supposed to be like. From what I've seen on websites for "manliness", there is a similar model focus as to "what it means to be a man".

All in all, I see this as an obsession with roles, models, basically, play-acting. As if "who one really is" can and should (!) be defined with a model, and then an actual person is supposed to fit themselves into some model, which functions as a Procrustean bed.

Garrett Travers. — Joshs

Go on....

It isn't rational within the context of our current linguistic paradigm. — Garrett Travers

Linguistic paradigms are ever-changing; they are not determinate objects. Even if they were not constantly evolving, who could be qualified to establish the supposed boundaries of a linguistic paradigm?

Linguistic paradigms are ever-changing; they are not determinate objects. Even if they were not constantly evolving, who could be qualified to establish the supposed boundaries of a linguistic paradigm? — Janus

No, you're misunderstanding entirely. You've practically just reiterated my exact point and then criticized a conclusion that I didn't express. Let me clear up my writing: Paradigms that have already been established by the exact ever-changing evolutionary processes you and I both acknowledge, are not subjects that anyone will tolerate threats being used to changed. You, all of you here, need to understand that just such a proposition is not only exactly what has been being posited all over the world - even made law in Canada - but is exactly what this whole debacle has been about for 7 or so years now. Specifically that proposition, nothing else.

To be even clearer:

Changing the paradigm through organic means and peaceful communication is not the problem. The problem is the paradigm being associated with threats of forcing me to participate by law, calling me names for not participating, getting me fired because I don't participate, asserting that science is non-existent, exposing young children who aren't your to this in any more than a descriptive manner, or talking young children into undergoing life-altering modifications of anykind through manipulation. There is not, and has never been, any other issue than that.

Do we understand one another?

Do we understand one another? — Garrett Travers

OK, seems I misunderstood you.

OK, seems I misunderstood you — Janus

No worries. People get heated about stuff, especially this. Propaganda feeds the hatred, my friend.

That may well be true, but doesn't apply to my case, since I wasn't getting heated. I was merely pointing out what I thought was an inconsistency with actuality in what you were saying. I hadn't realized you were talking about others with authority stipulating the boundaries of the current linguistic paradigm (or, more accurately imagining that they are).

That may well be true, but doesn't apply to my case, since I wasn't getting heated. I was merely pointing out what I thought was an inconsistency with actuality in what you were saying. I hadn't realized you were talking about others with authority stipulating the boundaries of the current linguistic paradigm (or, more accurately imagining that they are). — Janus

Yes, it doesn't actually require it taking place, humans need only perceive such a threat to respond in defense. That's why when you're dealing among the general populace, it's essential that communication is extended as a voluntary proposition, this is the basis of ethics, as well as business. My consciousness (and everyone else's) has too many self contained neural data sets that constitute paradigms of navigating through the world and maximizing self, and valued other(s) homeostasis. And it belongs to me, not people who want me to adopt their paradigm. Consider such in Mormon terms. What's more reasonable, to approach your door with the presupposition that if you don't want to adopt, or even talk about adopting my Mormon paradigm, then I should peacefully vacate your purview? Or, threaten your job because you won't accept Joseph Smith as prophet? There is nothing different between any paradigm.

Or, threaten your job because you won't accept Joseph Smith as prophet? There is nothing different between any paradigm. — Garrett Travers

Yes, or threaten your job because you do accept Joseph Smith as a prophet, for that matter.

Yes, or threaten your job because you do accept Joseph Smith as a prophet, for that matter. — Janus

Yes. It's very funny too, because, even those doing the threatening are doing so out of some perceived threat of the exact same kind, just inversed. New, freshly integrated paradigms that are hot off the coals with a bit of coherence and some corespondence think they have the fucking world figured out, and when you say "nah, sounds dumb, leave me alone," bam, inner explosion leading to outward aggression. You've just insulted a new, heavily emotionally valenced coherent network of data that individuals perceive as a part of their identity itself. The key around this, is to know what one's brain is doing. But, people aren't being educated on such things, now are they?

Yes, or threaten your job because you do accept Joseph Smith as a prophet, for that matter. — Janus

A more apt analogy would be for them to threaten your job for being anti-Mormon, which they probably would.

A more apt analogy would be for them to threaten your job for being anti-Mormon, which they probably would. — Hanover

That's why I led with that. In this analogy, it is the people of one Kuhnesque paradigm of language (traditional male/female biology and norms) being threatened, by and large, to accept a new one (identity ambiguity) that hasn't been established in any Kuhnesque manner, or in any manner they seem to be willing to coherently agree upon. Which is oddly, a sort of break in the Kuhnian paradigm shift model, as paradigms are usually replaced with paradigms of greater coherence and breadth. A paradigm shift predicated on one of ambiguity replacing a coherent one is a recipe for extended paradigmatic friction. It's been 7 years or so now of endless friction. To put this into perspective, the paradigm shift that took place as a result of Hubble's constant being introduced to cosmology took a full ten years, but was in its peaceful transitional phase within 3. Guess we'll see where this goes, eh?

A reference: https://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/Kuhn.html

The key around this, is to know what one's brain is doing. But, people aren't being educated on such things, now are they? — Garrett Travers

Is it necessary to know what the brain is doing, neurally speaking, in order to know what we think and to assess whether or not it is rational? No amount of examination of neural processes, even if you could reliably equate them with specific trains of thought, would enable you to distinguish between an irrational and a rationally valid train of thought I would hazard to assert. Well, at least it doesn't seem possible to imagine any way that could be done, in any case. One might argue that we don't know what the future of neuroscience might bring to the table, but I think it is precisely for that reason that we should stick to what it is capable of right now. Promissory notes as premises do not good arguments make.

A more apt analogy would be for them to threaten your job for being anti-Mormon, which they probably would. — Hanover

Well, the difference there is that one is a matter of personal faith and the other is an example of bigotry. For a Mormon to threaten your job because you don't accept Joseph Smith as a prophet might be seen by a Mormon as being justified because that position is anti Mormon, but that conclusion would be unjustified unless you showed some signs of actually being against Mormonism, in which case you would be fired for bigotry, which I think would be justified, especially if the job in question were an administrative position in the Mormon church.

would enable you to distinguish between an irrational and a rationally valid train of thought I would hazard to assert. — Janus

Yes, in the sense of some sort of observation. I can distinguish between my own rational thoughts that I employ to inform action, as opposed to emotion. But, each person's rational capacities are so different that we would all mistake eachother's rationality for irrationality. You see this just in people's arguments.

One might argue that we don't know what the future of neuroscience might bring to the table, but I think it is precisely for that reason that we should stick to what it is capable of right now. — Janus

Yes, because the current paradigm of understanding is pretty consistent and supported. There's no real reason to challenge. It isn't as if new research is being conducted that challenges the paradigm. There may be ambiguous stuff that arises that can easily be placed within the scope of the paradigm, but no anomolies that need to be totally addressed independently.

Promissory notes as premises do not good arguments make. — Janus

Exactly. The idea is simple, if one is going to take the path of the philosopher, and therefore most rational: provide evidence of something that challenges current established science, or yield. When evidence is presented, it becomes our duty to investigate things. But, people do not need to confuse ambiguous evidence, with anomolous evidence. Ambiguous evidence is simply evidence that seems incompatible with the current framework, but is actually compatibe. Like quantum mechanics and relativity.