It seems to me that people switch the idea of the body and soul unknowingly. Soul is identity and maybe we can never know our own for sure but as Paul says in the Bible, we have no certainty in anything. I think everyone is either male or female in their true inner identity, but the body is not our direct identity. The body is us but we are not our body. If we are to say that the heights of our soul is beyond gender, then it is only the lower parts that feel gender identity and the person could never say what he is except as an example of God (genderless).

Are we to see gender disphoria as part of a social institution or it is part of people's spiritual lives? The priests of old who catrated themselves may have drawn the gender disphoric into their flocks

I think that it would be worth you doing some research into trans issues. The whole medical process of changing gender is to address the experience of gender dysphoria, which is the discomfort of one's experience of being a certain gender. It requires a whole assessment process by psychiatrists.

Jung's understanding of gender is coming from a different perspective altogether, and is more a perception of androgyny as a spiritual quest, or as an archetype. He was drawing upon Gnostic ideas and was writing from a historical context, and this is rather different from the modern day trans movement, although that may go back to the essential archetype of the androgyne, but mainly in a secular context

I think everyone is either male or female in their true inner identity, — Gregory

You look to be making stuff up. The difficulty is that you may then expect others to conform to your myth.

Take a look around, instead. There are people who do not conform to your made up stuff.

The notion that women are just castrated men is profoundly corrupt.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Males are those who have genitalia that is not necessarily male. Females have genitalia that is theirs, but without contradiction they could have either genital while the male is neither. Anyway someone can be female or male and maybe something else but I don't know what that other category would be

Can we say gender identity is impossible?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

A female form is whole and represents simplicity of soul. The male form does not. We need to settle that there forms in these matters

If I say "male form is like this" or whatever, is their a standard of what a home sapien is?

What is 'simplicity of soul'? I am not sure that many women would be happy with such an idea applied to them.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

The notion that women are just castrated men is profoundly corrupt. — Banno

Come on. You know he didn't say that.

I think gender is made from identity but the body embodies it in two forms, make and female. The female is reversible in that it can have a vagina or penis but the male form has one. I don't see how we can have gender identity without concepts about the body

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

It seems to me that people switch the idea of the body and soul unknowingly. Soul is identity and maybe we can never know our own for sure but as Paul says in the Bible, we have no certainty in anything. I think everyone is either male or female in their true inner identity, but the body is not our direct identity. The body is us but we are not our body. If we are to say that the heights of our soul is beyond gender, then it is only the lower parts that feel gender identity and the person could never say what he is except as an example of God (genderless).

Are we to see gender disphoria as part of a social institution or it is part of people's spiritual lives? The priests of old who catrated themselves may have drawn the gender disphoric into their flocks — Gregory

I don't have any opinion on the issues in this discussion. I will say this - I don't think what you are saying is disrespectful to men, women, or transgendered people. You are getting jumped on by people who can't stand you not using the exact acceptable words to express your opinions about a sensitive subject.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I was referring to Platonic forms. Many think these are real only for numbers. I think they exist somehow in how they relate to sexuality

There seems there are too many qualities to the ideas of male and female to define them

I don't see why you started the discussion about transgender. Perhaps, it would have been better to start with the basis of gender because you are probably making it so much harder for yourself. I think that many discussions on this site focus on trans issues for some reason, and perhaps it is a way of avoiding thinking about what it means to be a man or a woman.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

No, you are able to talk about infinities although you don't understand infinity. We can something about sexuality perhaps but if these questions just frustrate people then its not fruitful and I'll go do something else instead

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Who recognize that a reasonable discussion cannot take place without some preliminary aids being set out. I.e., he is asked to clarify his own usages. — tim wood

The forum is full of threads where the poster doesn't do a very good job of defining his terms. I would say it's the rule rather than the exception. In this case, I believe it is the possible political implications of the content that is setting off the horns. Gregory isn't toeing the acceptable line.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

It's your fallacy that not knowing everything means not knowing anything. Might as well own that

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I think we all have some idea of male and female. A female has breasts by form for example. But if you are saying its all just a blur because we can't understand it completely, there no point elaborating

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

We have some understanding of human male and female-ness. That breasts are female and not male is obvious, except you are saying that what breasts are is inherently blurry beyond recognition. Since you won't wonder about the subject, any description of a sexually individual body will, I feel, be dismissed.

I will add that in our abortion discussions in the past you've always retreated behind the idea that personhood is an inherently opaque concept. It seems you don't desire to find anything objective in these subjects

I mentioned trans individuals because people often say we can choose our gender but then turn around and say gender is not a thing. People get very confused about this. If its not something you can reach, why are trans individuals looking for the proper gender identification to start with? Post modern people want to whole subject to be blurry beyond repair

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.