Workers could select the technology they wanted were they in charge, but that's just not the case in this world. Therefore: — Bitter Crank

This presupposes the alienation of concern to the neo-ludites is limited to or primarily from the technology encountered in the workplace.

My personal ludite sympathies are from what I see as a deterioration in personal relationships and interaction, which presumably would exist in a technologically advanced Marxist economy as much as a capitalist one.

This interaction is a case in point. I interact with you and many others on this Board as much as anyone, yet know very little about you, certainly never havi g seen you or heard you.

That alienation where I can't even see my cellmates, so to speak, but can only see their occasional scribblings is as real an alienation as there can be, far beyond what Marx could have imagined.

So I get it. People want to unplug and re-engage into the actual world.

I'd also have preferred the OP would have referenced the Amish as an example of the intentional ludite as opposed to Ted Kaczynski. It's not necessary that every radical be malevolent.

Should we use the scientific method to prove the validity of a supernatural power, that power will no longer be supernatural, but will be natural, and our inquiry will then turn to better understand this newly discovered physical property.

That is, we don't abandon science when we come across new data that challenges our prior theories, but we modify our theories to meet the new data.

So, if I can read others' minds, then we'll need to track down how that is. Given we have tremendous preexisting data on this topic, it is unlikely there is a way previously undiscovered.

So I went down the Google rabbit hole on this one a bit, and I found that this question is a major topic in anthropology.

See, for example https://journalofchinesesociology.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40711-018-0073-x

One obtains a birth certificate for a baby by means of a ritual of 'registration', which ritual confers the status of citizenship on the infant. Rituals are typically social enactments that change status and relationships. — unenlightened

In my limited research limited to the past 15 or so minutes, this seems an over expansion of the ritual concept into the secular. The definition of ritual is:

"A religious or solemn ceremony consisting of a series of actions performed according to a prescribed order."

What I take this to mean is that a ritual is not any performative act (like decreeing and conferring citizenship upon completion of an act), but it's more, which suggests a mystical and metaphysical change (as opposed to just a socially recognized change) in the individual from the act. So if I must drink of the lion's blood or run the gauntlet before being declared a man, that is only a "ritual" if one believes it imparts something from the gods and changes the individual, as opposed to it just being a procedural requirement, like submitting the form in triplicate with a $5 fee.

I do suspect that as we philosophize on the terms, we might make them more abstract and elusive, but I would think the actual social sciences that explore these issues prescribe less mutable definitions to their terms for their purposes.

Of course should my research double to 30 minutes, my views may change

[

Jesus Christ: A Lunatic, Liar, or Lord? The Logic of Lewis's Trilemma has pretensions to philosophical content, but like Jesus as a great moral teacher? fails to deliver. — Banno

The failure of this thread lies in the fact that all that can be said has already been said in the short Wiki article, particularly in the criticisms section.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis%27s_trilemma#:~:text=Lewis's%20trilemma%20is%20an%20apologetic,talk%20and%20in%20his%20writings.

In time, the person fills the mode with Jesus or Allah or Krishna. The mold is filled, complete. — Art48

This is an empirical claim, not a philosophical claim. You are attempting to summarize human spiritual development, but you've offered no sources or studies, so why should I find your musings persuasive?

So, devise an explanation, believable or not. Offer it and then quickly change the subject. — Art48

Again, this is an empirical claim as to how people react when faced with Biblical inconsistency, yet you offer no sources showing that this is how they react. It's in fact plainly wrong. If you're interested in how the various traditions have responded, you may look it up, as you may also look up how secular biblical scholars have addressed those issues. You act as if no one has taken more than a cursory glance at the text and has taken seriously the challenge of interpretation.

A final thought: the last major God mode filler is now about 1,500 years old, in that about 1,500 years ago, Allah became known and assumed the position of a major God. I say “became known” to avoid the question of if Allah (and other person Gods) are fictions or not. In either case, Allah entered history about 1,500 years ago; Jesus entered history about 2,000 years ago; etc. Is it time for another God, perhaps a God that breaks the mold? — Art48

You act as if the attributes of God haven't varied over time and over denomination,, as if the Mormon concept of God is the same as the Southern Baptist, the Branch Davidian, the Hasid, and the Universalist God. You also act as if Allah is easily definable and you've been able to distinguish that definition from various other God definitions.

Just a very simplistic post.

I generally disagree with your distracting Nazi analogy, as if to suggest a moral equivalence between your community's lack of care for this disabled individual and the Nazi's attempt at genocide, which included the intentional and systematic murder of millions of innocent people.

Be that as it may, to the extent you want to know your moral duty in caring for this individual, I am willing to accept your efforts as super-moral, but not morally demanded. Just like rushing into a burning home to save someone is a super-moral act, it is not immoral to refuse to do so.

In terms of why your community prohibits you from having guests of this sort I don't know, but it raises the question of why your home is so highly regulated and why your community would have such rules. I am not immediately willing to accept that the rules they have are needlessly callous and unreasonable because it is possible that the rules have been imposed for some greater public health or safety reason. Again, I don't know, but I would like to hear from the other side on this issue as to why this person is unwelcome.

If the net consequence of his living with you is that you both become homeless, I'm not entirely sure what has been accomplished other than that you can claim to be more moral than your neighbors. My inclination would be to do as you have, which is to work with public healthcare agencies and housing enforcement to see if I could arrive at a way in helping the person without resorting to defiance. If, on the other hand, your community's code enforcement is as lax as its public health response, a whole lot of nothing is going to happen by having him live there.

We just aren’t caused but have reasons for why we do something. — schopenhauer1

My dog's behavior appears intentional. I've never found the attempt to categorize humans in an entirely special class persuasive. It appears just to be one of degree.

Speaking as a member of the underclass and a layabout by trade, I can assure you that my revolutionary fervour is fed by starvation. This is not a new theory I am promoting - bread and circuses has long been known as the basis for a peaceful society. — unenlightened

Yeah, but it's not the starving street dwellers that are committing the serious crimes and stirring up revolutions. They're mainly looking for their next fix.

Moving up a rung on this social ladder, we have those who already do receive public assistance, and there being a correlation between crime and poverty, we see these folks in our criminal justice system disproportionately. So you argue we need a better class of underclass, so let's increase their public assistance until they have a pleasant enough existence to be incentivized to choose their current existence over a prison cell.

The better solution, I'd suggest, is to correct the inequities so these folks can meaningfully participate in this society we've created and enjoy it's great wealth, as opposed to leaving them with few other options and then offering them just enough to pacify them. Our charity under the envisioned system of greater public assistance is not rooted so much n altruism as it is in crowd control,. But as they say, it matters less why you feed the hungry than just that you do I guess.

My concern with your suggestion is that it will ignite a different revolution, this one from the right, as it declares a fundamental failure in the system these folks are successful in. and one they have a great desire and great means to defend.

"Common topics discussed within the men's rights movement include family law (such as child custody, alimony and marital property distribution), reproduction, suicides, domestic violence against men, circumcision, education, conscription, social safety nets, and health policies."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_rights_movement

I found this interesting. It is true that certain issues do in fact overly impact men that might require addressing, and it's also likely true few men would advocate that they be addressed because such a demand for help is contrary to masculinity.

I also realize that many would join men's right groups for misogynistic and chauvinistic reasons, making such discussions challenging.

Looking at this from a most generous, good faith, academic perspective, I can see some merit in stepping back and asking if there is male discrimination that should be addressed. I'm not advocating any particular political solution to whatever is discovered, but it seems a relevant sociological study to at least understand what dysfunctional standards we might unknowingly be enforcing.

O think James' theory of doxastic voluntarism is the most adequate one and it always applies. — baker

He acknowledges that not all beliefs are chosen.

I do think it would be hard to argue that logical truths are indubitable. Most famously, Descartes' quote of "We cannot doubt of our existence while we doubt."

The facts as I understand them determine my belief. — Art48

This is a very limited epistemological theory that doesn't take into account anything other than matters of certainty (e.g. Cartesian logical entailment or knowledge of the existence of your phenomenal states). There are many instances of significant doubt, where through deliberation you reach your best guess (which really is a description of science and inductive reasoning generally).

As many things are not certain or are not clear, room is left for choice. How you choose is up to you, which allows for an expression of preference.

If you choose to disbelieve that which lacks sufficient proof, as you deem "sufficient" to be, that is a choice.

I don't accept the idea you can chose what to believe. — Art48

If you deny doxastic voluntarism (the belief you can decide your beliefs) outright, then what triggers your belief other than a deterministic force, and why should I think that force has anything to do with it meeting criteria that suggests it's true? Do you reject free will outright?

Directly on this issue is William James "The Will to Believe," which agrees with you insofar as he doesn't believe you can will to believe that which you already don't believe, but to where you've not decided, you can choose to believe as a matter of preference. Such provides a basis to will to believe in a religious faith.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Will_to_Believe

Social unrest is caused by economic disparity more than absolute levels of poverty. Absolute wealth today in terms of available resources is greater for those we consider in poverty than 100 years ago. That is. I have more in my home today than nobility had in years past.

I'm not opposed to providing for those without, but I have no illusions that this base level existence we're creating will become content. You still have a underclass in your envisioned society. It's just a bit higher an underclass than what currently exists

There always been tyranny from the rulers or statemen. Nevertheless, I still maintain my opinion that a public representative should behave according to righteousness. I guess this issue is not based on her parties but the fact she is the PM. If she would be a random person nobody would care at all. — javi2541997

But where do you arrive at the rule that not partying is righteous?

There's this ongoing view in this thread that says something like this "Come on, we all know that her behavior was unbecoming and ridiculous, but how much leeway are we going to give her just because she's a young woman"? The problem is I have no idea what you're talking about when you say that what she did was unbecoming. Whatever part of your moral conscience that is being shocked, just isn't happening to me. All I see is a woman dancing and singing with her friends. How is what she did bad in any way?

The problem is, it seems to me, worship – idol-making – not g/G per se. Theism is idolatry. The apophatics got it right, I think: anything said or imag(in)ed (e.g. "graven images", scriptures, theologies, sermons) about the infinite is necessarily finite and thereby false; even (especially) the belief that the infinite "exists" is idolatrous. — 180 Proof

You're late to the party.

"Maimonides held that God so far exceeds our capacity to have knowledge of the divine nature that we are severely limited in how we are able to describe or comprehend God. Even substance cannot be predicated of God in the sense with which we use the word to express knowledge of entities in the created order. In the terms of Maimonides’ negative theology, we would not describe God as the most powerful, all-knowing, incorruptible substance at the top of a hierarchy of substances. That is a positive conception."

https://iep.utm.edu/maimonid/#:~:text=Maimonides%20held%20that%20God%20so,entities%20in%20the%20created%20order.

These are the statistics of what adult Finnish people do in free time:

Reading books 56%
Walking 49%
Exercising in nature 48%
Travelling abroad 36%
Solving crosswords/sudoku 32%
Travelling within Finland 31%
Spending time at summer cottages 28%
Self-access learning 27%
Cooking as a hobby 25%
Gardening 24% — javi2541997

You left out the next entry:

Dirty dancing with the Prime Minister 23%

this method is used to evaluate intent and then morally judge any given subject, then there will be a great disparity in the effort to act morally than if intent was to be measured by other possible means. — Vishagan

We must decipher intent from behavior. That's all we can ever do. That's how criminal trials are conducted thousands of times a year.

Recall that Leibniz called our minds little gods; giving yourself a purpose is (a little) god self-assigning a task. — Agent Smith

If desires are our purposes, why confuse the issue with the pesky term "purpose" and just instead say "desire"?

I think we have the separate terms because we mean different things by it.

Your invoking little gods here begs the question of why you don't invoke the big God here. If we're going to speak of God or gods, then why not ask what your divine task is, as opposed to your personal desire?

What does it mean to give oneself purpose? — TiredThinker

It means you believe purpose is self created.

If I asked you to give yourself a cause for your existence, you'd likely tell me that whatever caused your existence existed without any effort from yourself.

I'd say the same for purpose. You have a purpose and it isn't created by you.

Does this concern my removed comment in the Climate Change thread? — Tzeentch

Nothing I said was motivated by something you said in that thread. I haven't really been following that thread, so I'm not sure what was deleted of yours from there.

I'm always curious as to what 'taking it to the team' looks like, in terms of action.
End of thread. — Amity

We've actually been talking about this post among ourselves, and we're trying to think of the best response. The delay in responding wasn't because we didn't care,; iit's more we were formulating a best response.

We very much appreciate this input.

I'll give my personal thoughts, not necessarily the final word:

I think the Ukraine thread got very out of control and we should have done better to reel it in early. It resulted in lingering bad feelings.

The question is whether we need a rule change (as you suggest) for political threads, or do we just need to acknowledge we didn't properly enforce that thread. That's the ongoing discussion.

I also agree the mods will be held to a higher standard as a role model and less tolerance of bad behavior of a mod should be expected.

I also don't have much sympathy for any bad actor who tries to justify his or her bad acts on the basis of what a moderator might do. We're all adults who know right from wrong, and the vast majority of posters are able to behave consistently without reacting to perceived hypocrisy and double standards by responding in kind. That is, levy your complaints if you think a mod is out of line. We'll deal with that. But just because Hanover might act a fool, doesn't mean you get to too.

Of course, this last paragraph was not directed to you as in you, but just to other comments in this thread.

I don't agree with this. You're not immoral just because you're factually wrong. Morality is judged largely, but not entirely, upon intent. So, if your intent is to save a child from a burning building and you throw them out the window, break all sorts of their bones, but later learn the fire didn't pose the risk you assessed, I wouldn't treat you the same as a crazed child thrower, who throws children from windows for sport.

That's not to say you get to throw children from windows as long as you have a good faith basis for doing it, but I'd expect some amount of careful deliberation, considering the consequences.

In your example of wat, which seems to be an alternative spelling of war, I would say you have a right to preemptive action if it can be rationally justified in terms of protecting against risk. You will be judged later upon what information you had, what you could still reasonably obtain, what other options there were, etc. Considering the consequences of war, morality would demand a high level of investigation and deliberation, but I can't buy into the view that if your factual assessment is imperfect, then you're per se immoral.

Correct. She can always become a background dancer for Beyonce. — Benkei

Well I can say that if asked to name another Finnish PM, or actually Finnish legislator, or actually Finnish woman, or actually Finnish person other than @ssu, I'd draw a blank. So she has done whatever is necessary to find her way to my computer screen. She needs to take advantage of this 15 minutes of fame.

Discriminating on the basis of race is a moral wrong that results in greater harm to some races more than others.

Was that so difficult to say without implying that every race suffers the same oppression and without implying that some racism is perfectly acceptable?

My point was more that a leader's chances of success relate to how they accommodate our projections of that which we are not, but aspire to, either positively or negatively. — Baden

Maybe for some I guess.

I work around enough people involved in politics that I have no greater expectations of them than anyone else, and they have no greater likelihood of being a role model than anyone else. In fact, while we're psychoanallyzing, much could be said about the curious personality drawn into politics.

At any rate, if you're looking to your politicians for moral direction, maybe it's time to rethink your religion.

My interest began and ended pretty quickly. You seem a bit more entranced. But her future life as your favourite celebrity is not what I was talking about. — Baden

As if you're not in love too.

Ergo, she's toast imo, though she'll probably limp on for a while. — Baden

As if being the PM of Finland is such a pinnacle of success that losing that position will mean ruin. She's now an international celebrity, who will no doubt figure out how to cash in on all this.

We ask what would happen if she were a middle aged man or whatever. Maybe we could muster up the same sanctimonious outrage, but there'd still be a collective yawn. No one wants to see a middle age man grind into another middle aged man. They want to see her doing all that she's been doing. That interest isn't going to end just because she might choose another track.

Of course. Maybe off topic, but if you are dealing with providing services to people with problematic substance use - people who need support - policy matters little. It's all about how to connect and engage people in new ways of living without using. That can benefit from working with people who have 'been there' too. I've seen it work powerfully in practice, but it is not the only way. If it's policy and research you want, that's all about the nerds - who can take your data and skew it nicely to demonstrate that your hypothesis is correct, regardless of what the case may really be. :razz: — Tom Storm

I know little about drug treatments, so I guess I'd do whatever it is that I do when I'm asked to do something I don't know how to do, which is fairly often, and I'd hire the guy who looked best on paper so that when he fucked everything up, I could say, "Wow, but he looked so good on paper," and then no one would think it was my fault for hiring a fuck up, but that it was just the paper was deceiving.

As a general matter, I have given opportunities to those with checkered pasts because it makes me feel non-judgmental, which I'm not, but I like to feel that way sometimes, but that hasn't always worked out as planned. They'll be super appreciative for the chance, but then they start to not show up on Mondays and they always have a sick dog or broken furnace to tend to and then I'll find out they've been hooking up with everyone in the records department.

Most jobs require conscientiousness and a little enthusiasm, with the rest not being as important. I always hire the guy that seems like they're interested in the job, which, in this market, seems like there's not a whole lot of people like that. At least when I was younger I pretended like I wanted the job. It seemed better when people pretended for some reason.

My two cents:

I think the issue here is a bit over-intellectualized. That Marin danced with her friends means nothing to me, either in terms of it proving she is somehow unprofessional or in terms of proving she has that common touch so elusive in our representatives. I would suspect that there are highnesses and majesties in the House of Windsor who let loose and dance and sing, all the while being elitist icons of a bygone era. It's sort of like seeing the Queen eat and marveling at the fact that she eats too, having convinced ourselves that these people aren't people. So, it means nothing to me she dances, sleeps, eats bonbons, or watches TikTok while she has her morning coffee.

I also don't think the idea of trying to find the Regular Joe as our politician is anything new. It's a common schtick among politicians to tell us they are from the school of hard knocks as opposed to some elitist school. How that plays depends upon who they represent.

Trump's schtick is very much to be this plain spoken self-made person who can say things like they are without fear of reprisal. That the reality behind it isn't true nothwithstanding, that's his schtick, so none of this is new. We're just talking about PR and advertising and what does and doesn't get votes. Apparently Marin is worried that the latest event will hurt her, so she took a drug test so that we would know she just likes to dance but not to fully sedate herself.

As to whether I'd rather hire a prior drug user to deal with drug policy as opposed to someone who is more data driven, I'd go with the guy who actually has a handle on policy and data. That someone has struggled with drugs in the past might give them insight into how to deal with certain issues, but it might also be evidence of an underlying personality issue that has resulted in a resort to self-medication. I'm not excluding those who have had their personal struggles, but basing hiring decisions upon the fact that I think the person "knows what it's like" might not be the best way to go about staffing my office. Again, I tend to be data driven, so if you could actually show me that choosing former drug users to assist in determining drug treatment center protocol (for example) results in better outcomes than in hiring those with advanced degrees in drug addiction and treatment, I'd reconsider, but my initial thought would be to defer to those who have actually studied the problem and not just those how have been consumed by the problem.

, did you change your job or your attitude?
Did you pick your own wars or battles?
Change. Of cages challenging — Amity

Have been thinking about this, and just now got around to answering...

I changed jobs, but it applies to everything. It's that feeling of hollow success, where you've mastered the task, gained the respect, have become the go to person, and you could coast the rest of the way in the safety of the confines of the cage, where you have the lead role. You have all the trappings of success, but a trap is the worst accomplishment of them all.

The walk on part in the war, though, there's no cage. It's the chaos and uncertainty of the moment. It's wondering if you're going to make it or if the next day will be at all like the last.

It's freedom. It's the lack of clinging to all the trappings of safety and comfort. It's pure expression, no one confining you, not trapped in by the fear you may lose. The bullets flying too fast to think about rest.

It's that manic state that knows no bounds, and it's the realization that the cage held no safety at all, but it assured a slow cutting off and a death. It's realizing if you can survive the war, you're invincible.

So yeah, that lyric means a lot to me. And that it's part of a song that wishes someone was here, who critically is gone, well that's another story, but part of what it means to be at it without much else to lose, dependant only on what you've got right then and there. Not having to cling to anything at all.

Clinging. The worst of things. Hanging tight like your life depends on it when it's letting go where life begins.

A ramble I know, but maybe that adds clarity. Or not. But that's what I heard when I heard the song.

I didn't address it because I have no idea what a trans woman, say, means when she says, "I am a woman." Literally don't know what that means. It doesn't much matter to me, so I've not read stories or talked to anyone with first-hand knowledge to try to learn what that means, for at least some people. — Srap Tasmaner

Well yeah, it would be a bit prying to ask the question, but you needn't conduct interviews to explore the question. You can just ask yourself what it means for you to be a man to answer the gender identity question we've been asking here.

My own answer is loaded with socially created stereotypes, dealing heavily with responsibility, control, strength, force, and certain virtues like honesty and reliability. Pretty much a cross between Ward Cleaver, Rambo, and a porn star.

No, it's not enough to show the video of her dancing and everyone should come to agreement this is a normal behavior of a leader having fun. — L'éléphant

No, that's exactly what I am saying. That it is screamingly obvious to you that she acted inappropriately doesn't have any persuasive power over my opinion that she acted inappropriately. Why was what she did wrong? I really don't get what you saw that I missed.

In any event, we're both in agreement that whether Trump is worse has no bearing on whether her behavior is bad, so the only objection I can decipher that you have is that object that some irrelevant comparison question was asked.

And I don't think really it was inserted for the reason you think it was. The OP wasn't suggesting iher behavior was OK because Trump has behaved worse. The OP was asking if we, as a society, give a pass for poor male behavior but then condemn perfectly normal female behavior.

I said clearly that her behavior is fine. That's what I think.

I also agree with @Benkei's comments that if you do believe her behavior is substandard, then you have to explain why you don't think men behaving worse is also substandard.

That is, if you have a double standard, you need to explain why.

As you've explained, you don't have a double standard. You condemn them all. That's fine, but now you have to explain why your standard, equally as you may apply it to all, is a standard worth having. I think it's not. Who cares if a grown woman dances?

Choose a better counter-example, not Trump, for christ's sake. — L'éléphant

That's a strawman. I didn't say she should get a pass because Trump is worse. I pretty clearly said her actions were fine under any standard.

She seems remarkably normal. That's what I saw.

The real crime is European music. It's just flashing lights and electronic beats that take place in discotheques, which is a word that hasn't been said in the US since 1975.

I disagree because I don't see anything negative about dancing and singing and I see no reason to take a drug test because I don't see anything negative about drinking or taking other drugs during your free time.

The question is purely a democratic one, which is whether that will get her or lose her votes. In itself, that wouldn't affect my vote one way or the other. That it would affect others just means some rely upon irrelevant information when choosing their candidates.

How you can diagnose a personality disorder from her acting like plenty of women her age I don't really follow.

I think that politicians should walk stiffly upright, always look serious so that we know that our troubles are always on their minds, wear clothes that drape their genitalia in such a way that we're not sure if they have any, put their hair in a tight bun so I won't think of smelling their locks, and they even should put a few pounds on their hips so that I think only motherly thoughts about them. A sagging breast wouldn't be necessary, but preferred.

The dishonor of the mating dance of that harlot should get her removed. I was shocked. How could such a whore ever govern?

There are even today people in the world who do not believe you can, whether you go to temple or not, whether you've ever even seen one. We do not want to be like them, the people who say "what you are is up to us." — Srap Tasmaner

I am aware of the peculiarities of Judaism, but I think that has more to do with prescriptive, legalistic definitions more than what we're talking about (although it might have something to do with how others in this thread are misunderstanding the conversation). That is, it is true that Orthodox Jews declare all whose mother is Jewish to be Jewish, even if that means declaring a devout Catholic a Jew. On the flip side of things, Jewish oppressors (most notably Nazis) also took a rigid view on who was a Jew for their purposes, regardless of the person's self-identification.

What you say here though doesn't address the issue of identity from a subjective perspective (which was our gender question), which is what this thread is more interested in. That is, the fact that the rabbis and my oppressors identify me as a Jew does not entail that I personally identify as a Jew. This conflict between what people want to call me versus what I see myself as is the entirety of this gender identify quandary.

Yes, but psychologically a trans person is really their psychological gender and also really their biological sex. But I, for example, can't be a trans woman no matter how artistic I feel about it because I identify as a man and that's not something I believe can be willed in and out of existence on a whim any more than sexual preference can. — Baden

So I've thought way too fucking much about this, and this is what I've landed on.

Your comments resort to a mysticism that I'm not fully able to decipher. Your man-ness under this definition is a geist, incapable of discernment. The term "transition" has alternative meaning under your analysis. At the pragmatic level of application, "transition" means certain medical procedures are performed, chemicals are prescribed, wardrobes are changed, and government documents updated. At the spiritual level, I'm not sure what it entails, but surely the concept of gender is not immutable, which means I might be a gender male when I'm a child only to undergo the mental change later in life and then to consider myself the opposite sex. This problem lays large in your analysis. As Lady Gaga wants to say "I was born this way," but that denies the possibility of transition and fluidity if how you are born is how you must be.

To the direct question, can one undergo a gender transition? (Note, I'm not asking if they can undergo a physical transition, as the answer is obviously that they can).

What I think to be the problem is that gender is both a mental property and a social property, neither of which can be fully distilled from the other. That is, to say I am a man means not just I feel myself a man in some nebulous way, but it is to ascribe the social meaning of man-ness upon me. There is no coherence to the concept of the primordial man prior to social designations upon him. You can't claim this primitive man did the primary man things, like act on every sexual urge and do battle with his competitor males like some odd upright walking primate would. He did all sorts of things humans did because he never was a simple animal, but he had the social designations of maleness that were as much a part of his man-ness as his biological characteristics. What does a biological man that doesn't have any social manifestations of man-ness act like?

And this presents the limitations of the MU analogy presented by @Michael. What could it possibly mean to be a Manchester United fan without the social designations of what that means? It must mean cheering for the team, wearing the jersey, and having friends and family who are also fans. To say otherwise presents this idea that there's this inherent identity of MU fan-ness that's just there, just part of the way he's made.

Consider another analogy. I consider myself Jewish by identity. It arises from the fact that I was born into such a family, all my early educators were Jewish, my friends and social network was Jewish, etc. If one were to speak to an Orthodox Jew, they'd even give a nod toward the mystical theory that I have the soul of a Jew that cannot be denied, regardless of how I might attempt to suppress it. That's a theory that's hard to accept, but it's not an uncommon way for a religious community to view things, and it seems oddly consistent with what is being argued for here.

It's also entirely inaccurate to say that I've always considered myself Jewish, as I have traveled through atheism and back. I'm not so ridiculous to think I embarked upon a worldly search for meaning and found that what was being thrust upon me was the truth I had been seeking, but I realize my current beliefs are heavily influenced by my social upbringing. By the same token, I am not an automaton, as I still had some choice in the matter of how I wanted to identify, and I suspect there might be some fluidity in that regard as I age, or, more likely I'll just get more stubborn and ornery.

My point here is that "woman" is a social term, a biological term, and a mental term, but there aren't boundaries around each. They correlate with and cause one another. Just as I could change my identity from being Jewish, I could change it from being a man, and that change would demand some physical act. If it did not require any physical act, then my change would be only to the ethereal ghost of identity within me, whatever that means.