Fine. I imagine in your circles people make a clearer distinction in speech between female and woman. — I like sushi

I'll stop there and re-introduce Zaachariaha Fielding. I don't know Zaachariaha personally, but I'd be very pleased if I could call him a friend. Zaachariaha uses both he/him and she/her pronouns.

“With my family, I didn’t even come out … There was no reason for it. My brother reminded me of it a few years ago – he said, ‘You know, you didn’t really come out to us.’ I didn’t really verbalise it, I was just more being it.” — Guardian, as quoted

Zaachariaha is just being Zaachariaha . He transcends the silly stuff we have been discussing here.

There’s room for everybody but the modern world loves building walls and categorizing everything. Am I a man, a woman, are we an Indigenous band, a queer band? All these boxes feel like barriers and we just fly right over the top on them… sorry suckers! — Zaachariaha

No, in my circles people generally don't make a fuss about such things.

Enjoy this:

I admit i will never fully understand what it's like to be a woman, so the same applies to someone who's a man, but either doesn't want to be a man or doesn't feel like they should be one. — ProtagoranSocratist

I will never fully understand what it is to be a human. I still have views and opinions about humanity and humans though.

This is part of the reason why this is such a contentious issue. — ProtagoranSocratist

It is contentious due to bad actors or do gooders believing that are good actors. Where each of us fall is neither here nor there in terms of how language functions and how we ought to (normative logical sense of 'normative') use language in this or that given situation.

The deifition of what it is to be a human is going to become a serious concern in the near future. The whole issue of trans genderism will evaporate when people can genetically alter themselves to such a degree that they can become female.

Of course. There are bad actor for and bad actors against. I do not really see what the big deal is, but can easily imagine how someone or more conservative values may react defensively to this just as they have to many other societal nuances they were previously oblivious too.

To repeat, I have never met anyone who annouced their gender to me upon meeting. I would find it strange if they did. If someone walked up to me in the street and said 'I am hetrosexual' or 'I am a cis woman' I would tell them to fuck off or perhaps ask why the hell they felt the need to announce this to me (probably the latter as it does interest me, but I expect I would probably end up walking away wishing I had just gone with my first instinct :D). The person's age, attractiveness and many other factors would effect how I engaged for sure!

For now I just see trans women as a category of women. They are clearly not polysemous linguistically or there would not be two terms. Bananas are fruit! Fine. So what? I don't really care. In legal terms 'banana are fruit!' may start to actually matter if a green grocer is insisting they are advertising they are selling a 'variety of fruit' meaning 'many bananas', or in the case where foods were listed as 'organic' because they were trying to pass of the use of 'organic' in chemistry as equivalent to what most people assumed when reading the packaging. NOTE: I am not equating either of these to trans women. I am just presenting a selection of difficulties and misuses of language.

I think we have made each other reasonably clear to each other on this? My contention is based in the use of language and how people attribute meaning in given contexts.

:smile:

I think this is not the way to go at all. We can say we ought not needlessly conflate language. That is at the heart of what is being said here. — I like sushi

Thank you. That was the conclusion of this discussion.

This is precisely what is being contended. Conventions of language in the future MAY lead to people assuming 'woman' means practically anything in terms of gender and they may prioritse this over everything else. Then the word would likely become redundant or be converted into some form of trivial greeting like 'Hi woman!'. — I like sushi

Correct. I've said as much several times through this discussion.

If you wish for the use of language others do too. This is perfectly normal. I just do not see, in this particular case, the use. In fact, I see the opposite. I have no issue with saying 'trans gender women are women' in the context of gender. It is farcical to suggest that 'woman in the woods' vould rightly mean a trans woman. I think you will find the correct phrasing woudl be 'a trans woman in the woods'. The confusing point in amongst all of this is that I may very well see a trans woman in the woods and say I saw a woman. The very same could be said of many other items where I seea reflection and believe it is the actual item. — I like sushi

Correct. And this is one of a few arguments as to why 'woman/man' unmodified is interpreted to reference sex and not gender.

I am starting to understand the OPs frustration here now. It is far more complicated than it first appears. — I like sushi

Thank you. My frustration isn't even necessarily that Banno disagrees with this point. I even noted previously in our discussion that while I personally would think most people would agree that "Woman in the woods" was a reference to sex and not gender, I had no proof. And so I told Banno we could agree to disagree here as without proof, the conversation could not really continue along that line.

My frustration is that after what I felt was one of the better discussions I've had on these boards, Banno started to play dumb. It was because we got to a point in the discussion where I believe he was afraid of continuing, likely because he knew that rationally he might be forced to say something he personally didn't agree with. I didn't belittle him for it, but I did inform him implicitly and without threat or insult that if he did not continue to put forth effort or answer the final question where we ended, that my point would stand and the conversation would be over.

He knows I've also made more arguments than this particular example, but he's still pretending I didn't because again, he's afraid of the conclusion this leads to and doesn't have any other way of resolving that. Fear leads to anger, Yoda stuff, and then an attempt to use underhanded tactics by insulting the other person and implying they did not give any arguments or bring a genuine thoughtful engagement to the discussion. That's what I'm frustrated by. Banno is an intelligent person, but he stopped acting like it.

Anyway, you have the right idea here. My overall point is the language as it is today in historical, linguistic rules, and even normative use imply that woman/man unmodified by adjectives means a sex reference. As such, "Trans men are men" as of today and without any other context as implying that trans men are adult human men. This is an ambiguity that needs to be resolved, and if you step outside of the philosophical circle, obvious. The debate rages repeatedly over social media and in talks with other people. It is creating anger, division, and a resentment towards trans individuals that they do not deserve. All because of a desire to hold onto a poorly constructed phrase. But I will replay to Banno more on this shortly as I think he cares about this aspect more than the language discussion.

I don't see any reason to do so, and indeed given that doing so would offend many of my friends, — Banno

The broader debate is over at this point, and I have kept out anything emotional or personal as I find these things inhibit free thought. To explain, first we discuss rationally while throwing emotions by the wayside. After we reach a rational conclusion, we reintroduce emotions. It is not that emotions, friends, family, and values of togetherness are not important. I have just observed in myself and in others that they prevent free thought. If you cannot freely consider the rational possibility that killing a puppy for fun is morally acceptable because of emotions, you're not going to come to a rational conclusion, but an emotional one. We should be against killing a puppy for fun both rationally and emotionally, and we must not fear that throwing emotions away will reveal that we cannot rationally support it.

While it may seem cruel, it is essential. I have found that examining things without emotional restrictions first helps me understand my emotions better when I add them back in. So I will do this now with the emotional appeal of why what I am proposing to think about is not prejudiced, about exclusion, or some attack on trans people to hurt them. I am doing this because I see in the world that trans people are losing good will in the world and more and more people outside of the community are starting to think they're mentally ill despite the push from doctors and upper society.

One of the issues that people are angry at is the conflationary language. "But some gender paper says...", they don't care Banno. They don't see it as relevant or important. And no, they're not stupid or bigoted. They see men trying to get into female spaces, and its pissing them off. The idea that they are being accused of bigotry because they say, "No, trans men aren't men", because they're using man as a sex reference, isn't persuading them to supporting the transgender side. And no, these are not people who 'never would have supported trans issues anyway'. This is even driving away people who initially supported the movement. Its making the trans community seem insane and controlling. When you have a people that are already seen as mentally ill, the last thing you want to do is have them support and spout irrational thoughts and phrases that only add fuel to that fire.

I think the trans community has trapped themselves in stranglehold by insisting 'trans men are men' and there is no debate, clarification, discussion, and you're a meany head if you think otherwise. The trans community needs to think, adapt, and survive. They need to start coming out of 'but my feelings' mode, and start thinking a little harder before its too late. A battle over a poorly worded phrase that creates contention in the culture is a foolish fight. Trans people should be working on how to integrate into culture and society by decreasing points of conflict. And rationally, there is absolutely nothing wrong with clarifying the phrase to mean, "Trans men are adult human females who take on the gendered role of adult human men". From my point it can be simplified even further to "Trans men are gendered men."

But baby steps because as far as I know, the only reason the community holds onto the initial phrase is because of a sort of religious ideology. Breaking it is blasphemy with the speaker being a trans apostate. This is wrong. I was hoping in the conversation here that when I got to the clarification question, that someone would give me a rational reason why clarifying was wrong. They did not. Which only confirms my observation. The attachment to the phrase is not a rational one, but an ideological one. Holding onto such things tightly is like a person who reaches into a vending machine to grab a candy bar, but cannot pull their hand out while their fist is closed. They need to start letting go.

By the way, there are trans individuals who agree with me entirely. If your interaction with others requires irrationality, they are not going to respect you. They might follow along for small interactions, but they're going to think you're crazy and look down on you. And a movement should not rely on conflationary language, an insistence that the broader culture should change how they use basic language because of feelings, or hold onto poorly worded phrases. The trans community will in my mind receive much more support if people come away interacting with them as people who understand the broader culture, speak rationally and inclusively, and have tight rational arguments that hold up on close analysis.

Finally to your friends. Offend them. Then you will find out who your friends really are. Once upon a time I was a Christian Banno. One of the good ones. I didn't use the book to discriminate, but volunteered to help people of all stripes in need. To this day I genuinely don't care what type of individual or background you have. I will treat thieves and murderers like people. But I have always been resistant to irrationality in ideologies. I took it upon myself to investigate Christianity because I wanted to demonstrate it was rational and true, and specifically went to atheists to discuss. Other people around me told me, "You can't help them," which I thought was against the message of the religion.

It is only by thinking rationally about things that I was a good Christian to begin with. And eventually I concluded decades ago that unfortunately there wasn't enough evidence there to support Christianity or even the idea of a God. The phrase, "I don't believe Christianity is real" offended many people around me. Was I intending to hurt them? No. Did I tell them their religion was a farce, they should die, have their rights to worship removed? Of course not. But many were afraid just like you are. They let emotions cloud their minds, and some no longer wanted to speak with me anymore. Would I ever compromise my logical thinking because I was afraid of not being liked by other people. Not in a million years.

The trans community can keep its internal belief systems and phrases within its own community. Everyone has the right to a belief system. But if it is going to persuade people that it isn't a cult or secular religion, its going to need to step its game up. It cannot rely on the idea that disagreement means bigotry. It is not a 'sin' to question. And emotional attachments to phrases that objectively are interpreted in ways that are not intended by society is not going to change societies interpretations. Much better to recognize pain points in communication and adjust to be more clear to get people to agree with you.

As such, "Trans men are men" as of today and without any other context as implying that trans men are adult human men. — Philosophim

In logical terms it is just like saying "banana fruits are fruits". I see no big deal with this. The context is clear enough itis just that people have trouble with understanding the logic of sentences; nothing new there.

I only care about the logical use of language not the political baggage.

There’s room for everybody but the modern world loves building walls and categorizing everything. Am I a man, a woman, are we an Indigenous band, a queer band? All these boxes feel like barriers and we just fly right over the top on them — Zaachariaha

The interesting thing is that this actually reflects a non-binary attitude, rather than representing a typical trans outlook (not that I'm assuming there is such a thing). The idea that the problem is the boxes themselves doesn’t describe the experience of a lot of binary trans people, for whom the issue isn’t “why do we have categories at all?” but “why am I being put in the wrong one?”

As we know, the situation for many trans men and trans women is that they seek recognition according to the common gender binary. This is crucial to their dignity, safety, mental health and day-to-day life. So a slogan like “we just fly over the categories” doesn’t really speak for them.

That’s not a criticism of anyone; it just shows that “trans people” don't speak as one.

The idea that the problem is the boxes themselves doesn’t describe the experience of a lot of binary trans people, for whom the issue isn’t “why do we have categories at all?” but “why am I being put in the wrong one?” — Jamal

Because they are mistaking that people categorize by gender over sex. Its the reverse. Most people categorize by sex, then have an expectation of how you'll act by your sex. To be clear, I'm talking about trans gender individuals, not trans sexuals.

As we know, the situation for many trans men and trans women is that they seek recognition according to the common gender binary. This is crucial to their dignity, safety, mental health and day-to-day life. — Jamal

I believe we do a terrible disservice to trans people by agreeing to this. The lessons of sexism should have taught us that the reality of our bodies should not be violated by the expectation of how we use those bodies. "Women shouldn't work" has nothing to do with the reality of their body. That was gender. When Mike gets picked on by his team members for not being man enough because he likes ballet, that's gender over the reality of his sex.

In each case I would take the individual in question and state, "How someone expects you to act based on your sex, does not change your sex or bodily capabilities."

As a man, you can like ballet despite the gender expectation that you don't. As a woman, what in your DNA says you can't have a job outside of the kitchen? You are your body, and you are not obligated in any way to follow the expectations of what you should do with that body based on your sex.

The mental distress is in being rejected by people because you don't fit in with their prejudice and sexism towards your body. I would never tell a woman, "Well, since they're angry at you for working, stop working and cook in the kitchen." I would never tell a man, "Since they make fun of you for liking ballet, stop liking ballet." If someone is having issues because they do not align with prejudice and sexist expectations of them, the last thing we should be telling people is they should align with those expectations.

Instead we should stop giving any credence to people's prejudice and sexism, or gendered outlooks. Men can wear dresses, lipstick, be flighty, and talking a high voice. The point is to get society to accept that. Not to double down on sexism and say, "Well since you like those things, we're going to say you're a woman now." I genuinely find this idea to be a doubling down on sexism and prejudice an incredible mistreatment of trans gendered individuals. We don't tell people they aren't their body because they don't fit the social expectations of what others think they should do with it. We can absolutely say that you are acting in the gendered expectation of the opposite sex, but to jump to the idea that it makes you the opposite sex or gender? That's ridiculous. It just means you're your own person and shouldn't care what people expect from you.

To be clear once again, this does not apply to trans sexuals, which people often conflate with trans gendered individuals. You can be both a trans gendered and trans sexual individual, but it is not necessary at all that you be both.

That’s not a criticism of anyone; it just shows that “trans people” don't speak as one. — Jamal

Exactly. There are trans gender people who agree with my OP and much of what I've stated here. Its important that we have views that are not motivated by gender bias, but seek a way out of the bias that gender upholds.

Sure, but those for whom it is an issue because they are trans are unfortunate victims of unthinking prejudice. — Janus

The majority of trans people are not victims of anything but the unfortunate situation of having a mental illness. That does not deserve disrespect, but it explains a massive amount of what I presume you're trying to point to.
TRAS are bigoted, aggressive, regressive, sexist, misogynists. It's extremely hard to look for reasons to be sympathetic when they aren't obvious to those who run between circles. The media does a great job at making people think other groups are victims. But this is a circular discussion.

"live and let live" should apply to not having males in female spaces at all. The one's wanting to change the norms are the ones needing to justify the changes. They are unable in this case.

As we know, the situation for many trans men and trans women is that they seek recognition according to the common gender binary. This is crucial to their dignity, safety, mental health and day-to-day life.
— Jamal

I believe we do a terrible disservice to trans people by agreeing to this. — Philosophim

Also a disservice to language, clear thinking, cultural norms generally, sex as a concept, sex as a set of classes, females particularly, and most of our uses of the scientific method.

A good point, so I'll address it first.

I waved a hand in the direction of Charlotte Witt earlier. Here's a ChatGPT response to "Summarise Charlotte Witt in a hundred words":

Charlotte Witt argues that woman and man are fundamentally social roles rather than biological kinds. What unifies women as a category is not shared anatomy but their socially enforced position within a gendered system that organises agency, norms, and expectations. She calls this the “unified social individual”: among our many social roles, gender has a practical primacy, structuring how one is recognised and what one can do. Thus, woman is a role constituted by social norms and practices, not chromosomes or identities alone. Gender categories are relational, normative, and institutional, grounded in lived social positioning rather than biology. — Chat

Witt is challenging to the anti-essentialist motive I've expressed here, because she uses a form of essentialism in a defence of feminism.

Gender is important to trans folk, as you say, Jamal, since they go to so much trouble to display their preference.

What isn't "fussed about" is who gets to decide. The expectation that gender follows necessarily from the contents of one's underpants is absent. There is a recognition of the separation of sex and gender.

This is found as much in Witt as elsewhere.

"Flying over the categories" is yet another option among many.

The majority of trans people are not victims of anything but the unfortunate situation of having a mental illness. — AmadeusD

I'd like to see a direct response to this from @Philosophim, @I like sushi, @Outlander, @ProtagoranSocratist, and @Jamal as well as @Janus.

For my part, I see Amadeus as hiding his prejudices in medical language.

Banno started to play dumb. It was because we got to a point in the discussion where I believe he was afraid of continuing, likely because he knew that rationally he might be forced to say something he personally didn't agree with. — Philosophim

If there is something that you think I've yet to respond to, set it out.

I've pointed out that even if most people would understand "woman in the woods" as referring to a female, doing so is not a necessary consequence of either logic or grammar. This is shown by the fact that "the woman in the woods" might be a trans.

"The woman in the woods" is not a rigid designator.

My overall point is the language as it is today in historical, linguistic rules, and even normative use imply that woman/man unmodified by adjectives means a sex reference. — Philosophim

Have another look at this. You had previously agreed that language is no algorithmic.

If you need to, go back to A Nice Derangement of Epitaphs and reconsider the place of going against the rule in language.

Then consider why I might think that you have "slipped back" to a previous way of thinking.

I'm sorry, I found that post too long and meandering to follow. If there was a core point, it escaped me.

We are addressing concerns about language use and societal integration. We are clarifying the phrase “trans men are men”. We are engaged, I hope, in something approaching a rational discourse.

If a trans woman uses their standing in order to coerce others, the key problem is the coercion. If someone uses deception to invade a space they are not entitled to enter, then exposing the deception is entirely appropriate. But this does not justify treating all trans women as deceptive or illegitimate. The existence of bad actors never licenses the rejection of the genuine.

The majority of trans people are not victims of anything but the unfortunate situation of having a mental illness.
— AmadeusD

I'd like to see a direct response to this from Philosophim, @I like sushi, @Outlander, @ProtagoranSocratist, and @Jamal as well as @Janus. — Banno

This is an overreaction Banno. There is a fine line between mental illness and mental health issue. Technically gender dysphoria, which is what is what transition seeks to treat, is no longer classified under 'mental illness' in the DSM V. Its now a mental health condition like depression. We need to really be careful that we're not using 'prejudices' in a boy who cried wolf scenario or a cudgel in an attempt to silence honest discussion.

I notice you didn't comment on any of his points directly. That's what I'm talking about. We need to be talking, not accusing unnecessarily. Your approach is the approach to something minor like this in a general forum is that of the totalitarian Banno, not a man of free thought.

If there is something that you think I've yet to respond to, set it out. — Banno

No, I think you and I are done talking about this situation. You have not been discussing that topic in a good faith or honest manner from my viewpoint. We resolved that point a while back, then you pretended it didn't exist, were disrespectful to me and our discussion and misrepresented my points and conclusions. To my view, I have not misrepresented your conclusions. You still insist that I am taking an essentialist view or 'rigid designator'. I've been over this enough times with you. I have other things to do.

I'm sorry, I found that post too long and meandering to follow. If there was a core point, it escaped me. — Banno

Not everyone has the mind for these things, that's ok.

We are engaged, I hope, in something approaching a rational discourse. — Banno

You were. You did not end that way. I don't feel you are now either.

But this does not justify treating all trans women as deceptive or illegitimate. — Banno

And this is evidence why. I never claimed this. If you express the inability to comprehend my points, then pull something I've never said and attack it, this is the evidence of someone who is floundering. Perhaps another day and topic Banno.

Being transgender and gender dysphoria are not the same. "Transgender" is an umbrella term for people whose gender identity differs from the sex assigned at birth, while gender dysphoria is the distress or unease caused by that difference.

So we agree that is in error.

I don't see that I owe a reply to Amadeus, given his blatant hostility. It's a shame that you think his quite offensive post "minor" - especially given the pleading you put in to being treated respectfully.

You have not been discussing that topic in a good faith or honest manner from my viewpoint. — Philosophim

Rubbish. That looks to be a merely rhetorical move on your part, an attempt to excuse yourself from the discussion.

I'm here. If you have substantive points to make, or if there is something I have not addressed, set it out.

The majority of trans people are not victims of anything but the unfortunate situation of having a mental illness. — AmadeusD

You have asserted that trans people are mentally ill. Do you have an argument to support that assertion?

Cheers.

The majority of trans people are not victims of anything but the unfortunate situation of having a mental illness. — AmadeusD


I'd like to see a direct response to this from Philosophim, @I like sushi, @Outlander, @ProtagoranSocratist, and @Jamal as well as @Janus.

For my part, I see Amadeus as hiding his prejudices in medical language. — Banno

Since you asked. I think the following reply is quite reasonable:

This is an overreaction Banno. There is a fine line between mental illness and mental health issue. Technically gender dysphoria, which is what is what transition seeks to treat, is no longer classified under 'mental illness' in the DSM V. Its now a mental health condition like depression. We need to really be careful that we're not using 'prejudices' in a boy who cried wolf scenario or a cudgel in an attempt to silence honest discussion. — Philosophim

I mean, just look at it from a layperson's perspective. Life is hard. People are cruel. Most adults are basically just large, wrinkled children. Mentally and morally. Freedom inherently means living an unexamined life, until one chooses (and why would someone go through the effort when lowbrow primal pleasures are so easily and readily available) to. We bully people. Sometimes without any actual intention to harm, sometimes with that being the one and only purpose (sometimes for advancement of survival and gain of resources, sometimes just for sheer entertainment, which is advancement of survival per quality of life/emotional homeostasis, despite the fact it being deplorable). Historically, women are considered weaker, smaller, "fairer" now that intelligent people have managed to survive long enough amongst the presence of mindless brutes. So, it's common for a dominant gender (currently the male gender, hence the claims of patriarchy) to express that dominance in the form of bullying (whether lighthearted or truly pointed as far as harmful intention) to other people, typically weaker or smaller persons. This makes these persons who experience constant bullying (which is actually just a buzzword for what's really happening, constant prodding of the "flight or fight" response in intelligent beings, which if done without rest can cause mental re-wiring ie. detriment or "mental illness" colloquially) to question if they "belong" (see ostracization) and so naturally makes the mind consider if they are "not like others" (since it's a common verbatim to insult a person by comparing them to another gender, per systems of hierarchy, this is what is questioned and leads people victimized by ostracization to be the first thing they "re-consider" about themself).

This is all basic, codified science. Nothing new or strange here. So, that aside. Back to a simplified laypersons view. If you're born a human (no matter what sex) and you look at a dog and start thinking "oh maybe I'm a dog". That's weird. It's irrational. It's not supported by anything observable, logical, medical, or scientific. Ergo, a delusion. It's reasonably and rational perceived as a form of unwellness. Now if you happened to take a step further and say, cut the ears off a dog and staple it to your temples because you truly insist you were "supposed" to have been a dog and this is how you have to go through life. That just makes you look violent and crazy. We are physical beings who require our bodies to maintain their integrity otherwise we die. That's why horror movies are so disturbing. It's removing or altering (or destroying) the flesh we were born into. It's not fair or reasonable to act like people who find it "odd" (or outright disturbing and explicitly indicative of mental illness) are guilty of some sort intentional or specifically non-organic, non-biologically "understandable" sentiment or ideology. Can you see the validity and truth of that last sentence, at least?

There are over 6,000 species of mammals that exist or have existed. None of them are inherently intersex. It's just not a function that mammals evolved. It's an aberration. So, someone thinking they for some reason are the first mammal out of billions of others, who show NO physical signs of "being intersex", was "supposed to have been the opposite sex" is not rational. Like a child imagining themself as a dinosaur or something they admire or wish to be. It's just not supported by facts. That makes it a mental aberration. That's a fact. Whether that aberration amounts to the level of detriment severe enough to be classified as an illness is not something I feel a need to comment on.

So you are happy to conflate transgender with gender dysphoria.

And to support that with pop scientism.

Ok. Thanks for your reply.

Some humans have brain disorders and others do not. I do not see transgenderism as a brain disorder.

Amadeus is like a magic eight ball. When he gets shook up he will just say shit. Most of it doesn't stick. I don't waste my time on them anymore.

There is something to be said for social contagions and teenage girls. This has no bearing on what interests me here though.

So you are happy to conflate transgender with gender dysphoria. — Banno

What happened to your claim that words don't have essential meaning Banno?

Transgender can mean:

Trans gender, like defined in the OP
A person who has transitioned
A person thinking of transitioning
A person with gender dysphoria

Right? He can't possibly be conflating anything then. I would think you would defend him.

Amadeus is like a magic eight ball. When he gets shook up he will just say shit. Most of it doesn't stick. I don't waste my time on them anymore. — I like sushi

:smile:

You might say that. I couldn't possibly comment...

What happened to your claim that words don't have essential meaning Banno? — Philosophim

That meanings need not be essential does not imply that words do not have any meaning.

He can't possibly be conflating anything then. — Philosophim

He said:

The majority of trans people are not victims of anything but the unfortunate situation of having a mental illness. — AmadeusD

Looks pretty clear. Most trans people have a mental illness.

You might consider what it is you are defending.

What happened to your claim that words don't have essential meaning Banno?
— Philosophim
That meanings need not be essential does not imply that words do not have any meaning. — Banno

He gave you meaning. You claimed it was conflationary. Why? How could on meaning of the term have any primacy over another meaning Banno? :)

He said:
The majority of trans people are not victims of anything but the unfortunate situation of having a mental illness.
— AmadeusD
Looks pretty clear. Most trans people have a mental illness.

You might consider what it is you are defending. — Banno

I was quoting your reply to Outlander not AmadeusD. Try to review your cited quote next time to avoid mistakes like that. You called the person in for his opinion than contradicted your own viewpoints you made earlier to slight him. Do you see why I'm not seriously debating further with you? Your bored Banno and I can take your lumps, but please don't invite people into the thread then mock them for their answer.

:brow:

I was quoting your reply to Outlander not AmadeusD. — Philosophim

What you think your point is, I have been unable to make out.


You are under no obligation to reply to me.


Who did I invite to the thread?

I think you have to understand this in the social context. As I mentioned, there are clear instances of social contagions among teenage girls; through eating disorders to self-harm. Currently we are seeing something like this with gender identity.

Anorexia and bulimia are undoubtedly highly concurrent with instances of body dysphoria. We could suggest here that this is related to gender identity in many cases too (ie. a woman shoud look like this or that). There is always going to be lesser and greater degrees of overlap in different cases across a whole spectra of aspects.

I would call gender identity a brain variation. It is pretty damn clear in the cognitive neurosciences that neurogenesis is HIGHLY dependent upon hormonal balance. It does not take a genius to figure out that teenagers go through a rather dramatic hormonal change. It is no wonder there are instances of social contagions in teenage girls. More so girls probably due to the general difference in hormonal balance between the sexes.

The main point Banno seems to be making here is there is a clear difference between stating something is logically true and making a judgement call. Ironically he agrees with Jordan Peterson here, but doubt he would like such a comparison! :D I am sure I would agree with Amadeus on many point too, but that does not mean I think they hold much weight in any conversation.

If someone says they are gay or transgender we have to have a really good reason to frame them as suffering from some form of mental disorder > which is a separate item to transgenderism or sexual orientation as far as we currently understand these phenomena.

The same issues prevail in so many aspect of human life. What defines a human life? Is a fetus 'human'? What is a 'human'? Will augmented humans in the future be 'human'? Along these lines I think we will see a whole plethora of problems arising that mirror this whole confusion around trans women as women. So it will be that 'augmented humans' (CRISPR and/or neural implants) will be 'humans', but there will be a difference we have to take into serious consideration.

Maybe many people here do not appreciate that this century people will very likely be able to literally switch their bodies from male to female. You can guarantee that some minority of transgender activists will denounce this for various reasons, because this is how humans behave. People care about their identity. Anything that makes people question their own identity is usually met with opposition (primarily negative). This all makes perfect sense in the greater picture of humanity and how animals interact and function in general. We are weird animals!

Anyway, I have things to get to work on so will be avoiding this interesting distraction.

Would be nice if someone started a thread regarding what the future may hold in regards to defining humans in the eyes of the law, the social functions and how language may change. If no one does I am sure to eventually ... WAY too busy atm.

BYE :)