- In which Akanthinos shows a rare moment of lucidity, calling himself and all French inherently arrogants, only to then commit French exceptionnalism.

:halo:

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

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

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

A man can never bring an infant to term. A woman cannot fertilize herself. — Harry Hindu

Actually, medical 'science' is able to bring about both of these things. <shudder>

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

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

But gender is not sex so it would not relate to the biological side of things. Gender is about the "performance", the gender roles we take on, not about the things that we cannot change (easily). The range of freedom we have to perform is what shows that our gender is not fixed. Our sex is (relatively), but not gender.

Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women. I use that definition of gender, so it seems like it does cover it, it is not about sex, it is everything else.

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

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

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

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

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

You are sick.

The woman of liberty must free herself from two forms of imprisonment: one, the assumption that in order to be independent she must be like men, and two, that socialization through which she becomes feminized. The first alienates her from her sexuality. The second makes her adverse to risking herself for her ideas/ideals. Attentive to this current state of affairs, and to the phenomenology of the body, Simone De Beauvoir sets two prerequisites for liberation. First, women must be socialized to engage the world. Second, they must be allowed to discover the unique ways that their embodiment engages the world. In short, the myth of woman must be dismantled. So long as it prevails, economic and political advances will fall short of the goal of liberation. Speaking in reference to sexual difference, Beauvoir notes that disabling the myth of woman is not a recipe for an androgynous future. Given the realities of embodiment, there will be sexual differences. Unlike today, however, these differences will not be used to justify the difference between a Subject and his inessential Other.

The goal of liberation, according to Beauvoir, is our mutual recognition of each other as free and as other. She finds one situation in which this mutual recognition (sometimes) exists today, the intimate heterosexual erotic encounter. Speaking of this intimacy she writes, “The dimension of the relation of the other still exists; but the fact is that alterity has no longer a hostile implication” (The Second Sex, 448). Why? Because lovers experience themselves and each other ambiguously, that is as both subjects and objects of erotic desire rather than as delineated according to institutionalized positions of man and woman.

From plato.Stanford.edu

I agree with what you are saying with regard to sex and am actually someone that thinks the idea of gender should be done away with. We are not at that place however, so until then differentiating the two is what we have to do. Sex does not change, gender does. People that are transgender want to take on the roles of the opposite sex and the easiest way to do that is to actually try and be that gender. This is impossible on the sexual front (may change with technology), so they go for the gender roles/norms we have and follow those.

The problem is that people do not want to accept them for following those norms. IF they did, then this wouldn't be an issue (as much). People are extremely uncomfortable with others doing that, hence the issue. Let alone that transgender people also try and undergo sexual changes to complete the process.

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

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

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

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

You are sick. — Blue Lux

ad hominem attacks don't win arguments.

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

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

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

No one's feelings. These matters a lre a question of a logical turth/meaning. People aren't their gender or sex by a feeling or body. They are so by the meaning of their sex or gender itself.

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

What about linguistic gender? Why is tree masculine and plant feminine in German? What are these demarcations of knowledge?
They are arbitrary. — Blue Lux

It doesn't relate to the subject at hand at all. The comparison is shallow, you cannot compare a tree to a human in linguistic, they each have a different weight, a male would be masculine and a female, feminine. Is it hard? I'll answer for you. No.

Realism is easy to understand, it's in the name, its based on reality. On facts and logic. It doesn't always apply to everything, I truly wish it did but in this case, it applies.

And I am glad you dropped the passive-aggressiveness of your earlier posts. This one is much better.
EDIT: Although you literally just restarted that behavior a few posts after, this time with Harry. Seriously?

But language is a character performance, really. We show who we want to show, in the end. If I'm at a stripper bar in Montreal I stop using my French accent and switch to my French-Canadian backwater town lexicon. Its just safer. We all perform the language. If its too hard for you to change your performance slightly to help someone who has or has had issues that you are lucky to never have, then I dont recognize in you the same great culture that has fostered tolerance and defended human rights. — Akanthinos

Again, it's a shallow comparison, the accent doesn't relate to this at all. It has no basis in reality, unlike pronouns.

I do not particularly care about the recognition of some random joe on the Internet, I have an ID that proves I am French, I was born in France and I grew up with French people and it is my culture.

It is not, you cannot force me to change how language work nor agree to your political view. You can do all of those transgender things, it's your choice, it's your freedom to do so, but don't go imposing on people to follow along with you.

I am completely tolerant of these people as long as they don't step on my freedom of speech rights as well, human rights don't have any relation to this subject. I am not stepping on their right by calling them with the 'wrong' pronoun. What comes out of my mouth is what I want for it to come out. Regardless if you feel offended or not. People get offended every day by someone who says something that you think is inappropriate either unintentionally or intentionally. So what? A truly wise person, won't even argue and will do as a mature person will do. Ignore the person that offended you, you know that there isn't a synergy between you, so why force it? No one is forcing you to interact with that person.

So if I grow a fake pair of testicles, a phallus, I cut my hair down and say to everyone that I am male, they should accept that? Or that I can just easily enter the men's bathrooms because I am a man now?
It might not seem 'serious' because of double standards but try it the other way around with a man.
He is growing a fake pair of boobs, let his hair grow, put some make-up on and start crying out that he is female. Should he be allowed in the women's bathrooms or the women's changing rooms? I'll slap the shit out of him if he dared to do so

It's an example where transgenderism is getting way too far, we'll have so much fewer problems if they just kept it in and didn't bother people because it hurts their feelings, because they are feeling inadequate, insecure in their original sex/body. Seriously. What about non-binary people? Should their new assigned bathrooms be the dump? Or are we going to comply to their little fantasy inner-world and we're going to build entirely new bathrooms uniquely for them. And, yeah how about 32 more types of bathrooms for each gender too. If we comply now, I'm pretty sure they are going to demand that soon enough, I mean I've seen more and bolder claims everywhere right now by the feminists and the transgender people.

And here I was hoping humanity got past such things, that we were going for the betterment of our lives, of technology and science and where rational thinking rules. We are thinking of sending astronauts to Mars, to capture an asteroid, we broke through the petaflop barrier for computers, we sequenced the whole genome of a cancer patient including the tumor. And what are we doing here on Earth? Complaining about gender identities. No, seriously, no.

and I am shallow? Actually, the idea of tree and plant was from Nietsche's On Truth and Untruth, not from me. Nietzsche is shallow.
:rofl:

It doesn't relate to the subject at hand at all. The comparison is shallow, you cannot compare a tree to a human in linguistic, they each have a different weight, a male would be masculine and a female, feminine. Is it hard? I'll answer for you — Terran Imperium

Not only does this make little sense, it is absolutely ridiculous.
Hmm what reference should I use this time?
Jung. Ahh... What a solid reference!

The 'anima' is the feminine aspect of the unconscious mind, the feminine, anthropomorphic archetype of the collective unconscious. The 'animus' is the masculine archetype. Both the anima and the animus are intertwined, constituting the totality of the psyche. The totality of the psyche cannot be masculine or feminine. This is an utter illusion. Masculinity only exists in relation to a feminity: both are included in the minds of everyone, one being manifest and one in a sense latent.

The child realizes that the anima, what Jung calls "of the will to life", is manifest in his relation to the mother, whom is the source of their life and their satisfaction. The idea of being with another emotionally is manifest originally in the mother. And so, with the male, the anima becomes unconscious, anassimilated into the personality due to the realization of his incapability to possess the mother, and that he lacks something that the 'father' has. The child does not realize this explicitly, but reacts to this implicitly and develops accordingly realizing that a very important part of the mother is directed elsewhere, and that his life is forever contingent upon that manifestation.
But through development this becomes concealed. Throughout the life of the heterosexual male, he is always looking for the possession of the anima, that feminine aspect that would lead to his totality or, biologically speaking, unconsciously, the peace, the stasis, the homeostatic balance of the conditions inside the womb. He seeks this, and becomes alienated by this feminine aspect, which is always a part of him, but outside of him to be ascertained in an apprehendable form, namely that which regards intimacy... And this is the case after puberty. The libido, a psychical energy of manifestation and expression, has as a focal point the sex organs. These organs are part of what would attach us to another person, and in sex, the acquiescence and emphatic nature of subject becoming object, in relation to Hegel's master-slave dialectic, provide an excellent example of how every person is both feminine and masculine, capable of an exchange, a yin and yang perhaps.
The animus can be explained to be the configuration of a heterosexual male's conscious mind, as it is in relation to a female, the conception of a female, not the ideal or form of a female, but that which a female is with regard to the male's specific desire for his own totality and mastery.

The female also desires the mother but realizes that she does not have something specific that whatever the mother's psyche and an understandable realm of the mother's mind is directed towards, namely the penis of the father. The girl realizes that she does not have a penis and then competes with the mother for the possession of the father. This is Freud

In terms of Jung, the female becomes differentiated. The male becomes differentiated as well. Both become differentiated because of the parents. The anima that the girl has as a configuration of her psyche is in relation to the animus that was never possessed, because the female is fundamentally in a state of sexual acquiescence, and she desires the male for her totality. She wants to take. The male wants to give. This is heterosexuality.

So we have found out that males and females are not connected physiologically but psychologically. And that both males and females have the same psychological aspects.

It is the case that this is not always the case!

Jung speaks specifically of an undifferentiation of the psyche, people withholding neither the anima nor the animus but an androgynous archetype that can set the tone for a myriad of sexual identifications and desires! All of which are authentic!

But hey, that's just Jung. And I have a lot more in my philosophical arsenal. :yum:

@Akanthinos

Should he be allowed in the women's bathrooms or the women's changing rooms? I'll slap the shit out of him if he dared to do so — Terran Imperium

And you would be charged with assault. So much for being tolerant.

So if I grow a fake pair of testicles, a phallus, I cut my hair down and say to everyone that I am male, they should accept that? Or that I can just easily enter the men's bathrooms because I am a man now?
It might not seem 'serious' because of double standards but try it the other way around with a man.
He is growing a fake pair of boobs, let his hair grow, put some make-up on and start crying out that he is female. Should he be allowed in the women's bathrooms or the women's changing rooms? I'll slap the shit out of him if he dared to do so — Terran Imperium

And that is because you are a piece of sh$t.

Again, you are upon a completely impoverished epistemology. Gender IS NOT sex organs. It is psychological.

My friend Ryan is a he.
There is no aspect of a woman in him.
You look at him and the last thing you think is woman.
He is transgendered.

You are an unphilosophical cretin who should not be on a philosophical forum but back in church.

And what? I too, a homosexual, am a sexual deviant? Is this because I do not conform to conventional standards of sexuality?

According to your empirical realism, the only way a sexuality is authentic is if it regards the 'natural complementarity' of sex organs, which would amount to the birth of a child.

This is ludicrous.

Natural? That is your base isn't it? Let me tell you something. Natural? Tornados? Murder? Mutilation? Genocide? Domination of other species? The absolute abject reality of survival of the fittest? Natural? Nothing about being human is natural. It is precisely being in opposition to nature that being human is! Living in conformity with outlets of power and control over the world as opposed to being some passive, impotent object of objective processes, determined and fatalistic. This is a disgrace to the human intellect to base "what ought to be" or 'what is authentic and not a disease' on the 'natural.'

This sort of materialism is nauseating.

Tell me this. What is being? You don't know. Nobody knows. You think you know because you can metaphorically correlated and think you have a knowledge so to be God but you don't.

Although I disagree with @Terran Imperium and find them a lot less open then they claim to be, I don't think calling them those things will change anything. The same goes with @Harry Hindu. It just breeds more toxicity and doesn't change their minds. Some just want things to stay the "natural" way, even though I, as well as you it seems, see a lot of incredible good that can be had by tossing those conventions to the side.

:cool:

:cool:

@Harry Hindu

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

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

Hmmm... Well, there are a lot of benefits to giving up the standard conventions. Much of the interplay between the sexes and the advantages/disadvantages could be mitigated. It's more flexible and we are most likely heading towards an androgynous future anyways. (can't imagine AI caring much about their gender roles haha) People that want to abide by those natural ways still can, and they will find mates that also think the same and favor the norms simplicity. As a critic of gender though, I find it difficult to support the transgender movement when I see it is also indirectly holding up/feeding into the cultural norms. They seem to support the establishment of gender as much as the average person, for they have to have a gender to become. Still, I feel like the positives outweigh the negatives, not to mention I am somewhat of a social libertarian, so I could always argue that angle if I wanted.

What do you think? I've had many friends resist this movement because it takes a simple idea and makes it more confusing (at least to them). But sometimes things have to be that way in order to make social/cultural progress.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following can indicate a delusion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

The illness is chronic and frequently lifelong.

The delusions are logically constructed and internally consistent.

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

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

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

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

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

We encounter an explosive proliferation of gender identifications:
• Agender
• Androgyne
• Androgynous
• Bigender
• Cis
• Cisgender
• Cis Female
• Cis Male
• Cis Man
• Cis Woman
• Cisgender Female
• Cisgender Male
• Cisgender Man
• Cisgender Woman
• Female to Male
• FTM
• Gender Fluid
• Gender Nonconforming
• Gender Questioning
• Gender Variant
• Genderqueer
• Intersex
• Male to Female
• MTF
• Neither
• Neutrois
• Non-binary
• Other
• Pangender
• Trans
• Trans*
• Trans Female
• Trans* Female
• Trans Male
• Trans* Male
• Trans Man
• Trans* Man
• Trans Person
• Trans* Person
• Trans Woman
• Trans* Woman
• Transfeminine
• Transgender
• Transgender Female
• Transgender Male
• Transgender Man
• Transgender Person
• Transgender Woman
• Transmasculine
• Transsexual
• Transsexual Female
• Transsexual Male
• Transsexual Man
• Transsexual Person
• Transsexual Woman
• Two-Spirit

To understand this phenomenon it is possible to apply an approach developed by Foucault in "The history of sexuality": "It is the multiplication of discourses concerning sex in the field of exercise of power itself: an institutional incitement to speak about it, and to do so more and more, a determination on the part of agencies of power to have it spoken about, and to cause it through explicit articulation and endlessly accumulated detail. An imperative was established ... you will seek to transform your desire, your every desire into the discourse."

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

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

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

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

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

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

The complexity is a result of our ignorance on this topic. Occam's Razor dictates that the best explanations are the the simplest. — Harry Hindu

I admit your point about our ignorance. Yet, it is impossible to ignore the problems discussed in this thread. I think it would be useful to apply analytical tools and concepts developed by Foucault, even though they look too complicated.

and I am shallow? Actually, the idea of tree and plant was from Nietsche's On Truth and Untruth, not from me. Nietzsche is shallow. — Blue Lux

And that is because you are a piece of sh$t. — Blue Lux

You are not worth my time if you continue being so hostile. There is a complete disregard of my arguments, you are openly insulting me. I don't see why I should even read your posts anymore. I will ignore you from now on.

So much for being civilized.

And you would be charged with assault. So much for being tolerant. — Akanthinos

Are you going to take it literally? I wouldn't slap anyone in reality unless they really went overboard, in this case, I"ll just call the police since there is a pervert lurking around in the women's private areas.

So much for someone entering an area that is not meant for him, that's just plain perverse, I will not tolerate something like that, should he be allowed in women's public baths too? Because he feels like a woman? No.

Look, if you are just going to comment without actual arguments, I will not take into account what you say as well.

I said it in the first line of my first post. You obviously ignored it for some reason or another. Both you and Blue Lux.

This is quite a controversial subject to most people, if you get offended easily then I politely ask of you to ignore this thread. Thank you. — Terran Imperium

Although I disagree with Terran Imperium and find them a lot less open then they claim to be, I don't think calling them those things will change anything. The same goes with @Harry Hindu. It just breeds more toxicity and doesn't change their minds. Some just want things to stay the "natural" way, even though I, as well as you it seems, see a lot of incredible good that can be had by tossing those conventions to the side. — yatagarasu

I apologize if I appeared like a close-minded bitch but when two people in a debate have a constant passive-aggressive or sometimes outright aggressive behavior, it makes one angrier than they should be and they answer in kind which I kind of did.

The best thing I can do is ignore them, I guess.

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

Exactly, you are so much more eloquent than me really, I don't think I could have explained it better than you just did now.

As Harry demonstrated in one of his earlier posts, they have a severe case of delusional disorder. The transgender movement is based on ideology rather than sciences. Transgenderism amounts to just playing pretend since sex change is biologically impossible. Sex can’t be reassigned because it wasn’t assigned at birth in the first place. It is a physical reality observable prenatally, the denial of which is indicative of psychological problems and often leads to further psychological distress. Modern science shows that our sexual organization begins with our DNA and development in the womb, and that sex differences manifest themselves in many bodily systems and organs, all the way down to the molecular level.

Cosmetic surgery and cross-sex hormones can’t change us into the opposite sex, They can affect appearances. They can stunt or damage some outward expressions of our reproductive organization. But they can’t transform it. They can’t turn us from one sex into the other. They merely amount to the donning of counterfeit sexual garb.

The scientific community even got a name for this illness: Gender dysphoria (GD), or gender identity disorder (GID), is the distress a person experiences as a result of the sex and gender they were assigned at birth. In this case, the assigned sex and gender do not match the person's gender identity, and the person is transgender.

You can try to argue with science, its the goal for the overall betterment, somethings may not be absolute, its a common rule but to refute something, you need to have a proof, something tangible that everyone can understand otherwise, you are just speaking with your feelings. You cannot argue with your feelings.

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

The scientific method can be used to disprove/discard false notions. Several hundred years ago, people believed that Classical (Newtonian) Mechanics explained the whole universe. Then it was discovered that really massive objects or really fast objects or really small objects obeyed their own laws. We didn't throw out all of Newtonian Physics. But we did make those rules more accurate. One more step forward.

Right now, we are taking steps backward rather than forward because we are accepting an illness as 'normal'.

I apologize for insulting you but it seems that you are intransigent and do not want to take into consideration psychological dispositions that 'science' cannot adequately explain with recourse to biology. This irritates me because I have friends who are transgendered and they are not defined by the biological determinants, i.e. their facticity.

Right now, we are taking steps backward rather than forward because we are accepting an illness as 'normal'. — Terran Imperium

Mental illness refers to a wide range of mental health conditions — disorders that affect your mood, thinking and behavior. Examples of mental illness include depression, anxiety disorders, schizophrenia, eating disorders and addictive behaviors.

Many people have mental health concerns from time to time. But a mental health concern becomes a mental illness when ongoing signs and symptoms cause frequent stress and affect your ability to function. (Mayo Clinic)

The only definition of an illness you could be referring to is a psychiatric illness, and I recently gave you an analysis of gender based on the thought of the most important psychiatrists of all time. You reject this.

Trans people function just fine. There is absolutely no correlation between their being transgender and frequent stress or inability to function. There is absolutely no aetiological correlation. If you say there is... You are lying.

Gender is assimilated and understood as a result of psychical activities. It is related to sex in a very peripheral way. Furthermore, gender relates very much to sexuality, namely how one relates to themselves and to another in terms of the libido, which is the energy of expression, commitment in relationships and, in a sense, empathy.

There is a reason MDMA was given to couples for couples therapy. There is a chemical aspect, namely serotonin and oxytocin, of an emotional relationship between two people, but these chemicals, namely the ones released by a female in sex and by a male in sex, do not determine a healthy sexuality nor a sexual relationship. These chemicals cannot define us, they are rather a correlated mediation, an objectivation of what perhaps could amount to a conception of what we are. Resorting to a representation replacing the real is a seriously fallacious way to understand human life and human relationships, and furthermore an understanding of the self and the personality.

The personality is fluid. It contains all sorts of potentialities. Consciousness is potentiality. Consciousness consists of it's relation to its potentialities. A consciousness and furthermore a personality is not defined by the expressed. The authenticity of an individual is between the expressing and the expressed. A person expressing themselves to be a certain way is in a sense based upon an appeal to the willing of an inapprehendable object; however, it is this relationality in terms of the object that defines the mode of consciousness associated. Therefore gender, of the transgender, which means literally 'to go beyond gender,' implies that willing of an inapprehendable object, which would be the being of the will, the exhausting of the will to be something. Nobody is something. The meaning of reaching a goal will inevitably not be the apprehension of that which is desired but the reaching of the goal itself. In this case the meaning of life in relation to the most inevitable possibility of consciousness, death, will be the time in which one approaches death. One is reminded of Leo Tolstoy's The Death Of Ivan Ilych. In the end he is dying, and finally says to himself 'DEATH IS FINISHED!'
Death is thus not in dying, when the lights go out, but the time in which dying is defined, that is, the experience of dying, which is not atemporal.

In relation to gender, this is the same. When you close your eyes you realize that everything you claim to be is contingent on what you think defines you, in relation to others. But the single fact is that, aside from all of this, you are something greater and that you yourself contain every identifyable condition or potentiality, and with this one can identify with their personality and understand who they are themselves, aside from the seemingly contingent nature of understanding oneself. In realizing ones absolute freedom from concepts one can be whatever the feel to be, and they can act and behave and conduct themselves in whatever manner comes about, and if this manner becomes defined by others, so be it, it is authentic.

If you want to say that trans people have a higher rate of suicide or depression... Obviously you would be asserting that there is a correlation between being transgender and experiencing mental illness. This is a logical pre-observation of a potentiality.

I am gay. In being gay I have been told that 'my condition,' as if who I am is some sort of definable, psychiatric quality that needs to be tested in a lab for the purpose of intrusive pontification, makes me more susceptible to mental illness. This relates to gender very well, as it is completely non-sequitur. It is a metaphor.

The reason homosexuals and transgendered people have a higher risk of mental illnesses like depression and anxiety, etc is not because of some deterministic, fatalism of their genetic coding... This has not been proven and nor will it ever be proved.

The conditions of a trans or homosexual life, in relation to a populace and interaction with others whom are different in this extremely meaningful aspect become a source of serious alienation. Depression and anxiety is most often the result of the environment, namely the environment disagreeing with the conditions of the personality; the ideal mode which would allow what Jung calls individuation, or a full apprehension of the self and its integration into the world.

I myself have depression and have been diagnosed. The aetiology of my conditions, PTSD and major depression, are not related to being a homosexual.

In terms of gender, there is no absolute causal relationship capable of being logically adamantine between sex and gender. It is a metaphor.

The personality is fluid. It contains all sorts of potentialities. Consciousness is potentiality. Consciousness consists of it's relation to its potentialities. A consciousness and furthermore a personality is not defined by the expressed. The authenticity of an individual is between the expressing and the expressed. A person expressing themselves to be a certain way is in a sense based upon an appeal to the willing of an inapprehendable object; however, it is this relationality in terms of the object that defines the mode of consciousness associated — Blue Lux

Does it mean that you deny the existence of the permanent "subject" of consciousness?
May I reformulate your point in the following way: consciousness is a resulting vector of an assemblage of different, even non-human factors?