All @hypericin is doing is ad hoc defining and redefining bigotry because they want it to be bigoted because they view the position that transgenderism is a mental illness as too extreme. I have no problem with people continually refurbishing their definitions (as that's part of the refinement process); but this is just bad faith to me on their part.

Thanks, I will take a look.

All hypericin is doing is ad hoc defining and redefining bigotry because they want it to be bigoted because they view the position that transgenderism is a mental illness as too extreme. — Bob Ross

I think that's right. The label "bigot" is being used as a means to the end of a particular form of censorship, without any regard for whether the labeling is true or false. Whether or not it is true that you are a bigot, it's expedient to say that you are.

That said, @hypericin is at least willing to consider his own view and attempt to provide reasons for that view. That's to his credit, and it is something that few others in this thread have managed.

I'm curious where this leaves cross-dressing in your view. Clothes/makeup/jewelry are surely nothing more than symbolic expressions of gender. And so choosing one set of symbols over another cannot be "gravitational", and so can only be a morally neutral expression of personality. Do you agree?

I don’t think attire and aesthetic accessories are purely social (viz., purely how we symbolize gender). For example, makeup is closely connected to women making themselves beautified as a part of their role as the object of sex (which is not to be confused with saying that women should be objectified in the colloquial sense of the term).

A lot of the ways we traditional or even liberally dress are related to masculine vs feminine traits. For example, a traditional dress covers the legs and butt to express female modesty.

To be fair to your point, I don’t know exactly how much of our clothing choices is truly gendered vs. socially constructed; and there definitely are socially constructed aspects to clothing choices.

And so, what to make of male nurses, female engineers, females who gravitate towards being providers and protectors? Insane? Immoral?

A person that exhibits sufficiently the oppose gender of no fault of their own is not doing anything immoral but it is bad. A tomboy girl is a masculine girl, which is bad even if they have done nothing immoral. Ideally, all men would be masculine to a perfect degree and same for women with femininity.

A person that purposefully mimicks the opposite gender is doing something immoral by trying to will what is bad for them; but this isn’t too say that it is a sin like murder.

Wow!!! You will have to cite me some sources on that one. By that last sentence, do you mean, you can't take a shit after???

That can happen too, but that’s a temporary inhibition. The long-term effect is that it loosens the anus which makes it have a hard time keeping poop in.

To be a mountain biker is to sustain injuries, many of which can entail significant impairment later in life. It goes with the territory

Not necessarily, unless you are doing stunts or something. One can safely bike through mountain bike trails without hurting themselves; and just because doing something opens up one to the risk of injury does not mean that it is immoral to do. If that were true, then everything we do would be immoral basically. There has to be a sufficient probability that an act is going to go contrary to the natural ends of the body for it to be unwise and immoral.

Every day of our lives would be thereby be swimming in immorality, and the concept would dissolve into meaninglessness.

We are swimming in immorality. We have no disagreement there.

Ok, but what is a ‘nature’ then? — Bob Ross

For Epicurus the human nature is more fixed (though fixed by atomic combinations so the possibilities for what a human can be is pretty large). I'd rather say that "Human nature is a tendency" while noting the useage I mean is with respect to the locution "human nature"; it's the sort of thing we mean by what something is, as you note. I just don't believe that there's exactly a set of necessary/sufficient conditions or secured by the essence of its type. Rather we have to come to some sort of understanding between ourselves in a particular conversation with respect to a question to contextualize our interests instead of thinking about human nature qua human nature.

What concepts are we considering with respect to human nature? What environment do we find these humans in already? If we're to speak biologically then we'd be talking in terms of natural selection, but in terms of our history we'd be reflecting on a different body of texts, and a different body of evidence that displays what human beings do.

For the purpose of Epicurus human nature is our tendency to get wrapped up in our desires to the extent that we are the cause of our own suffering.

"Tendency" since there are no necessary/sufficient conditions to include a member in the set "humans". That does not thereby mean that the human is not a natural human: they could participate in other tendencies. And, really, descriptively speaking, because we treat someone as a human basically everything they do is an example of human nature in some circumstance or other: the outliers are just as much evidence for our nature as the ones which follow norms as they are a possible tendency.

But that's because we treat them as such, not because they are such-and-such a thing.

No, I have not given an account of why someone should accept realism: I was noting that you are a nominalist and you are an epicurean that accepts eudaimonia which requires realism. You are holding two incompatible views. — Bob Ross

Why does it require realism?

I'd say it just requires wanting a tranquil life. For Epicurus he went out and actively recruited people due to his realist commitment, but I don't think we have to be realists to utilize an ethic. We could just want what the ethic wants.

Let me reword it in a way that you might be on board with: the anus’ natural functions are such that it secretes and holds in poop. That’s what it does for the body. You may divorce the functionality from teleology, but let’s start there. — Bob Ross

"Natural function" is the same as teleology. It'd be the sort of thing I'd deny as knowledge. Instead I think we can use our body however we see fit within its capacities: Rather than purposes there are things we have the power to do and the will to control these powers. The purpose a body has is the purpose towards which I put it, not the purpose which a theoretical device can define.

Basically the same response in noting how teleology is used in biology: Sure it is! And it's just a way of organizing our thoughts rather than the ontology of speciation. We're the ones who think in terms of form-function and that's how we make sense of the world. There's a sense in which a teleology arises but they also fall in the same sense so it's not like there's an actual proper function -- extinction is as much a part of evolution as birth, and that's when all the functions stop.

Nominalism is the view that essences are not real: you are denying realism about essences, so you are a nominalist. Semantics aside, you are still affirming realism about natures in a way that doesn’t seem coherent; but I’ll wait to elaborate on that until you give me your account of what a nature is. — Bob Ross

I associate more with nominalism than the belief "Essences are not real", so that's why I protested. If they are one and the same then no problem. (for instance I can make sense of "wholes" without "essences", which would count me out as a nominalist in some uses of that word)

How can it though if you are claiming that Epicureanism is Aristotelianism without the social obligations derivable from one’s nature? — Bob Ross

I don't agree with your characterization there -- rather there are different social obligations in different social worlds -- but in terms of hedonism it's because people want to do these things. Sometimes Fathers actually like their kids and so want to sacrifice themselves for them out of a sense of love and care. The pain isn't so bad in light of this pleasure.

BTW, in attempts to better clean up the issue of “more normal for Nature” not being equivalent to “more natural for Nature”:

Language can at times have a way of befuddling philosophic issues via metaphor and the like.

“Normal” stems from “according to rules”. Nature, the natural world, has its rules (natural laws as prime examples). The supernatural can be in certain perspectives deemed to not adhere to the rules of the natural world (or, at the very least, certainly not to the rules of the physical natural world); such that the paranatural (synonym for the supernatural) thereby gains the synonym of “the paranormal”. Example: Marian apparitions (here assuming that they might in fact occur for some, rather than all of them being outright lies) are outside the sphere of the natural world, the natural world then being the normal state of affairs as regards human experiences (this only where one allows for the possibility of veritable, extra-natural experiences)

In such means alone, an association is then made between what is natural and what is normal, namely: the natural state of the world/cosmos is the then the normal state of the world/cosmos, this in terms of human experiences.

Then, there’s a a slippery slope that gets slipped on whereby the two terms “the normal” and “the natural” become interpreted by some to have one and the same semantics: because the natural world is the normal state of affairs, this as previously outlined, that which is normal (i.e., ordinary, common, etc.) gets interpreted to therefore be that which is natural.

And it is exactly in this that the irrational bias of equating “normality” to “naturalness” becomes established in far too many. Redheads do not have the normal hair color of our human species, nor do gray eye-colored humans have normal eye-colors (one of my grandfathers had gray eyes), nor do AB negative blood type humans (1% of the human populous) have normal human blood types (most normal being O positive and A positive) … but all this has absolutely nothing to do with the naturalness of being a red-haired human, or gray eyed, or AB negative, and so forth. — javra

But this is how YOU used the phrase. I already understand the difference between "normal" and "natural", which is why I offered to use the term, "common" rather than "normal".

Everything is natural, including the mutations that occur when copying genes. In fact, it is those very mutations that are "filtered" by nature - leaving behind more stable or adaptive variations over time. But that does not mean that vestigial traits are not natural. It means they are not common (the norm) or adaptive.

The distinction of what I am getting at becomes clear when you ask yourself, "would you classify intersex an adaptation?" The same can be asked about being born with a tail, missing a finger or toe, or being born with cancer. Are those adaptations, or mutations that are typically filtered by natural selection if humans did not build such strong social bonds that allow those born with these conditions to continue to live and even have children if possible.

As a quick divergence from the thread's topic to address one of the points of your post, I would even go as far as claiming that even the supernatural is part of the natural. After all, what does the supernatural mean outside the light of the natural? If the supernatural exists and has a causal effect on the natural world (god created the world) and the events in the natural world have a causal effect on the supernatural (doing good on Earth gets me into Heaven), then we are talking about these two things being part of the same reality. Maybe we are simply talking about different dimensions (what if god was merely an extradimensional alien?)

To cut to the chase: Do we then agree that the issues at hand have nothing to do with either “normality” or with “naturalness”?

If so, as currently appears to be the case, I’ll then assume that what’s instead being implicitly addressed is the issue of dysfunctionality.

This issue of dysfunctionality, of itself, is an extremely complex issue. For one example: You at some point mentioned schizophrenia as a mental illness and compare it to sex and gender issues. Not only are the causes to schizophrenia still unknown, but, as I previously mentioned, there would be no reason to presume that the Biblical Moses and modern-day psychics, as just two readily known examples, are not all cases of schizophrenia (they all claim to see/hear/etc. things that normal people don’t) were it not for the fact that they all are/were fully functional human beings. With some being far more mentally healthy than the average Joe. The point to this being that the seeing/hearing of things that are not physically there is an extremely complex issue, one that is in no way cut and dry, and it does not of itself signify mental insanity (as per the examples just provided).

That said, when it comes to being intersexed, intersexed people, as a general rule, are fully functional. As is the case for homosexuals. As is also the case for transgender people. This save for the pushback against their very being in society which many a “normal person” engages in. Again, these diverse expressions of the human, though functional, are nevertheless all different from the norm … with many in society treating that which deviates from the norm as “unnatural”—with this very proclamation being that which many of my posts in this thread have been ridiculing.

I get that they might not be “perfectly” functional, but then who the hell is?

And yes, things such as mental insanity is indeed dysfunctional. To not get into the more extreme cases of conjoined twins and such.

But I don’t here want to start on the issue of “what ought to be done about the dysfunctional folk” in society … were there to be significant debate on this matter, it would too easily bring to mind the extermination camps of the Nazis who, after all, were in pursuit of a future heaven on earth (this, obviously, via quite authoritarian means—and there’s plenty right about the dictum, “the means do not justify the ends”) where all human souls get birthed into a human-envisioned “ideal human nature” … reputedly, to include the ideal human nature of everyone being blue-eyed blonds world over.

This issue of dysfunctionality, of itself, is an extremely complex issue. For one example: You at some point mentioned schizophrenia as a mental illness and compare it to sex and gender issues. Not only are the causes to schizophrenia still unknown, but, as I previously mentioned, there would be no reason to presume that the Biblical Moses and modern-day psychics, as just two readily known examples, are not all cases of schizophrenia (they all claim to see/hear/etc. things that normal people don’t) were it not for the fact that they all are/were perfectly functional human beings. With some being far more mentally healthy than the average Joe. The point to this being that the seeing/hearing of things that are not physically there is an extremely complex issue, one that is in no way cut and dry, and it does not of itself signify mental insanity (as per the examples just provided). — javra

Sure. They could have been high on hallucinogens. Religions might have been founded on the ideas of insane or high people.

That said, when it comes to being intersexed, intersexed people, as a general rule, are fully functional. As is the case for homosexuals. As is also the case for transgender people. — javra

I didn't use the word, "functional". I used the word, "adaptive".

Define functional here. Sure intersexed people, homosexuals and trans are functional as human beings - they can live their own lives without the help of others, but what they cannot do is have children without the help of others. That is my point. You could make the point that trans that are gay would fit into this but a trans-woman and a trans-man can have children without help precisely because they are heterosexuals (and this is probably an extremely rare case as most trans are gay). You could also argue that intersexed and homosexuals still play a role in raising the next generation, as they can provide healthy and stable homes as any heterosexual couple can, and you could even say that they (as well as any straight couple that are incapable of having their own children) are doing society a great service, as functioning parents, by adopting.

I get that they might not be “perfectly” functional, but then who the hell is? — javra

Again, it depends on how one is defining, "functional".

But I don’t here want to start on the issue of “what ought to be done about the dysfunctional folk” in society … where there to be significant debate on this matter, it would too easily bring to mind the extermination camps of the Nazis... — javra

Oh, come on. Don't start conflating my points as fascist. I am not saying that people with schizophrenia, or who are born with disabilities deserve less than anyone else. I am fine with supporting a safety net for the disabled, but at the same time would agree with society's goal in promoting research in trying to eliminate these disabilities from occurring in the future (no I'm not equating sexual preferences as a disability. I'm talking about physiological disabilities, like intersex). Would you tell a woman she does not have a choice to terminate their pregnancy if test indicate a high probability that the child will be disabled? When we tell an anorexic that their body image is not true, we are not attempting to single them out for a "shower". We are merely trying to get them the help they need.

Sure. They could have been high on hallucinogens. Religions might have been founded on the ideas of insane or high people. — Harry Hindu

Or, there might indeed be spiritual dimensions to reality. Take your pick. But don't presume to have definitively evidenced it. That is, not unless you can, philosophically speaking.

Define functional here. Sure intersexed people, homosexuals and trans are functional as human beings - they can live their own lives without the help of others, but what they cannot do is have children without the help of others. That is my point. — Harry Hindu

So ascetics world over, who cannot have children due to their own hardcore physiological imperatives, are to then to be deemed in terms of functionality/adaptiveness ... what exactly? Notice that such an ascetic has zero fitness biologically speaking. All due to "mental" reasons and choices.

As to definitions, this link gives what I intend by "functional". You'll note that is can well be a rough synonym for "adaptive"

Oh, come on. Don't start conflating my points as fascist. I am not saying that people with schizophrenia, or who are born with disabilities deserve less than anyone else. I am fine with supporting a safety net for the disabled, but at the same time would agree with society's goal with trying to eliminate these disabilities from occurring in the future. When we tell an anorexic that their body image is not true, we are not attempting to single them out for a "shower". We are merely trying to get them the help they need. — Harry Hindu

I am not conflating your points as fascist. It's the notion of X, Y, and Z, not fitting a human-envisioned "ideal human nature" that we ought to actualize which gives me the heebie-jeebies. This for reasons aforementioned. As to the rest of this paragraph, I'm glad to hear - but, again, I don't find rational grounds for the intersexed, or homosexuality, or the transgendered to be "disabled" or else mentally insane. So why then "try to eliminate" these expressions of being human? And then, if an alternative rational reason is provided, "eliminate" them how?

So why then "try to eliminate" these expressions of being human? And then, if an alternative rational reason is provided, "eliminate" them how? — javra

Consider X and Y. If they are equal, then neither one is preferable. If X is better than Y, then X is preferable. If X is better according to some criterion, then X is preferable according to that criterion. If the proportion of X-outcomes and Y-outcomes is beyond our control, then it is pointless to prefer one to another even if it is better.

Is any of that objectionable?

So now let X = heterosexuality and Y = homosexuality. Does everything I just said about X and Y still hold good?

As soon as we accept the premise that X-outcomes and Y-outcomes are not beyond our control, and that X is better than Y, we have logically excluded the position which says that we cannot prefer X to Y (or that it is pointless to prefer X to Y).

So for example, if we accept that there are bisexual people who can choose between a heterosexual monogamous relationship and a homosexual monogamous relationship, then we must recognize that it is eminently rational for such people to discern whether X and Y are equal or unequal. Similarly, if we recognize that LGBT-identification has risen substantially in line with changing social norms, then it becomes very hard to claim that the proportion of X-outcomes and Y-outcomes is altogether beyond our control.

At this point, if we accept that there are bisexual people who can choose, and that social norms have a strong effect on how much sexual orientation identification occurs within the society, doesn't it follow that we would be interested in objectively assessing the relative value of homosexual and heterosexual arrangements? If we are interested in the health and happiness of the society itself, would we not be interested in such a thing?

Thanks for clarifying. I thought I had another question after those, but I'm finding it really hard to put into words.

A tomboy girl is a masculine girl, which is bad even if they have done nothing immoral. — Bob Ross

Jamal is being charitable. I would have banned you by now.