This really is a lounge thread, Athena.

a corpse is biological material. It is a biological body, as opposed to any other type of body. Dead matter is biological matter. That's just how it is my man. This is confirmed, as noted, by the forensic system of naming any material (fingernails, hair, flesh, blood, semen etc...) biological material, regardless of its 'living' status.

This is why I call your utterances largely poetics. They are en-flowerizing concepts we already have down. Nothing wrong with that, other than that it is wrong lol.

And there needs to be some real point to establishing these bases. If we can't manage to survive on a planet to which we are suited, it seems even less likely that we would survive or thrive on a planet to which we are NOT suited. — BC

That's a great point, but then I think of things like Frontiersmen and think - we'll make it work. Very sanguine, to be sure.

I have all the time in the world to point out mistakes in logical and semantic error :)

I don't know what you're intimating. I'm simply reporting something I've seen - feel free to elaborate :)

If the same person saw a person with long hair, breasts, wearing a dress walking in the woods, he or she might say, "I saw a woman walking in the woods." Or if he saw such a person entering a men's toilet, he might say, "Huh? Why is a woman entering a men's toilet?" — Ecurb

I think this is a little tortured: Humans are, apparently, more than 99% accurate at determining sex from facial features alone. It is an extremely rare and aberrant situation that someone see's a 'woman' in your description and doesn't think 'male' even if their social tickertape says 'woman'. It takes effort.

Once truth and error are located at the level of world-directed judgment, private inversion possibilities become explanatorily idle, even if they remain metaphysically conceivable. — Esse Quam Videri

Forgive me, but I think I need some clarification here. It seems to be saying that once we ascertain that errors can be made in world-directed judgements, the underlying possible explanation of inversion and private aberration is then irrelevant? I think that's jumping to a conclusion.. We need not call a spectrum inverted person erroneous unless we already assume hte premise of colour being a property of objects rather than wavelength reflection.

I've seen several videos from prominent indigenous Greenlanders who want it annexed due to the disgusting treatment by the dutch over time. Interesting...

I've watched it several times - I'm not quite understand how this plays into the things about Kirk, though. Again, please DM if you'd like to continue this one. Talking past each other is, imo fine, if we're doing it privately with some faith.

That is not what a biological body means, my man. To use your "death" logic, one meaning of "biological" is simply "a substance of biological origin". Are we saying a corpse is not that? There's a reason that "biological material" can refer to dead hair, blood, skin cells, finger nails etc.. etc..

You cannot extract DNA from rocks, per se. You can extract other organic material in the rock pores. Di you mean to indicate that Rocks have DNA?

I do like poetry. But I don't think it's the right way to approach this type of thing, outside of writing poetry.

The point is most people don't do this. Most people probably don't quite understand the concept. You're right, that there is an attempt to change the meanings of those words, but equally there is resistance so I think its totally reasonable to look at the last, say 500 years, and say "well, until about 1990 this was how it was so let's start there and discuss the journey to where we are, picking up on mistakes along hte way).

Yeah definitely, those are the 'up in the air' concepts.

I think, personally, that clarity is best for communication. My support for that is the universal, time-tested theory that less-clear communication almost always results in worse goal-oriented results than clear, unambiguous language.

I agree about they/them although in practice I find it fine enough to use in the small number of cases its asked of me.

I don't buy it. I doubt many trans people want to "pass" so they can date. — Ecurb

"many" is doing a lot of lifting here, but I'm not complaining. You could be right (althought, i have an extremely hard time believing that there isn't at least a desire for this in trans people in general - that's one of the primary reasons for transition - not "to date" but to experience life at the opposite gender which in the case of a straight person, would mean becoming same-gender attracted and dating in that milieu being different to that you're in when dating "straight" prior to transition.

But I agree, it's not going to be some wide-spread intentional thing among "trans people" so you're right to put nuance in that. I do not mean to intimate some assumption about trans people dating. Although.. (see below)

So desired pronouns indicate a public identity, whereas sexual activity is private. — Ecurb

This is true, but (again, I think this is an honestly issue, even if uncomfortable) you can find umpteen videos on the internet of vlogging transwomen (almost solely, though not exclusively) crying in their car because they did not tell their date they were trans, and when it came up the date ended. It seems more likely that a fear of rejection leads to this dishonesty. Fear of rejection is not novel, special or particular to the trans experience. Its certainly heightened, but that is because you are essentially looking to fulfil a role that the other person cannot have you in - and are within their rights to feel that way. There is also the irony that "rejection" is a much, much bigger risk to the person when they have been dishonest.

There is the trope about a trans woman being at risk when a straight make takes her home and finds out she's trans. Yep, and that' abhorrent and should never, ever happen - homophobia (or, self-hatred) should never cause harm to others. BUT - why wouldn't you have said you were trans? Because you wanted to pass, right? You knew that the person knowing you were male would end the date. There is a non-zero number of situations where a transwoman has gone out with a man, passed, ended up in the bedroom and then the man realises and complains - the transwoman generally will not understand why there's such vitriol. Well, buddy, because that's essentially sexual assault. You did not gain honest consent. You deceived.

When I say "the people Phil and I are talking about" I am indicating precise this type of person. Who inarguably exist. My wife and I have both dated trans people in the past and both been lied to about their identity. In my case, it wasn't a big deal because as soon as I met the woman in person, it was patently obvious she was male and had edited her pictures. Luckily, I'm not all the way straight so we still shot the shit and had a good night.
My wife was not so lucky. A rather mentally unstable transman tried to claim her newborn as his own, in an attempt to "pass as male" - telling his friends he was my stepson's father in front of her, when they'd known each other two weeks. These are people we are referring to - they aren't vanishingly prevalent, but you're right that its not a majority - the point is we're not saying it is. We're just trying to talk about that group.

We should probably also be careful not to fall in to certain holes about that - there is a line that men are less positive toward trans partners due to https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-025-01586-2?utm_source=chatgpt.com. That is bogus. They are straight men (aside:the fact that things are worded this way, even within the studies is certainly interesting to the pronoun issue)

The "truth" is that a transwoman is a woman, in terms of her public image, persona, and gender. Therefore the "lie" would be referring to her as "he" or "him" (given the current definition of these pronouns). — Ecurb

I reject almost everything that underlies this sort of claim. Not quite hte place for that discussion - Phil's other thread is the place for that if you'd like to go there.

Hmm, interesting. This, again, sorry to say, sounds like poetics. The body (including bones) are biological material. It is a biological body until it ceases to physically exist. That it's not living does not make it non-biological. DNA, tissue, cells etc.. do not cease. This could be a conceptual disagreement we can't litigate.

Oh, right - cool, thanks. Yeah, I get that and I agree. i think that, though, can be considered a privacy issue. Publication being the trigger, so I totally agree.

I think if you, in the privacy of your own technological world, create AI images of someone public you have a crush on for sexual gratification, as long as that never leaves your technological bubble, I don't see the harm. But making anything of this kind public immediate violates several things that we don't even need to look at digital communications legislation for, i think.

I think he means 'default' in practical or historical terms (is there a serious disagreement there, rather than just an observation its anecdotal?). Then the argument is about satisfying a justification for maintaining that default position. I think he's made a good argument, but yeah I don't quite think the point was to try to strong-arm that definition into anyone's responses but to lay out what he sees as the "lay of the land" prior to argument.

For example, I think this response:

This is an empirical claim asserted without evidence, and presumes that it determines how these terms ought to be used. — Jamal

I think, misses two things:
1. That wasn't the initial intent behind that claim (although, I think its a strong claim anway - it seems common sense that most people assume sex behind use of those words. It takes some effort to do otherwise because the concept of gender is so much more nuanced and people are mentally lazy most of the time);
2. The argument was made clearly for the ought post-claim. It's clarity, directness and ability to be weilded for policy purposes means that "man" and "woman" should be distinct from the more nuanced, and possibly undefinable concepts of gender in each case - which can be captured by "transman" or "transwoman" without ambiguity - the "trans" gives you the data you need to categorize accurately without passing any moral judgement.

So why do I need to say colors are in the brain, and act like the brain paints colors on a thing, and a little viewer is in there peering at the final results? — NOS4A2

Because you're not actually talking about the problem. Although, you are (imo trivially) totally correct.

"red" might be in the apple, insofar as certain material (lets say we're talking about a Rose apple to avoid ambiguity) is formed of arranged atoms, in such a way that when light bounces off it, that light travels to the human eye and etc... then we "see" red. That can then be true for paint, blood, packaging, leaves etc.. Same, basic, process (although, it does seem beyond us to determine what, across all those things, causes red to occur, as distinct from what causes the human to experience redness - I haven't worded this well, and on reflection I can't quite word it satisfactorily without being too verbose. Maybe another exchange).

I don't think many IRs would disagree with this. It seems factually true. But this doesn't address the issue of "what is the sensation of redness" or whther it corresponds to anything, as opposed to is caused by anything which seems unavoidable in either theory (there is a very good objection to this, which is essentially that it cuts both ways - happy to confront if its a line you want to take). Given that colourblindness and spectrum inversion exist, I do not think it's quite open to bare claim red is in the apple. If that were the case, any eye/brain complex would experience the same sensation and they do not.

You have to imagine that you can see redness without having a perceptual system to positively claim that we can be sure there's a 1:1 correspondence as opposed to, for instance, seeing a formal representation of the aspects of matter which cause redness (you could analogize this by looking at the data behind a photograph. The right specialist may be able to recreate the image from that data and that 'data' is what I'm positing for this hypothetical, in actual objects in the world "outside" our mind. While I wouldn't put it past you (or anyone), i find it very hard to believe someone actually thinks that with any conviction. And If we can't be sure, then IR is the way to go for now, I think. Its parsimonious, imo - but I presume the convicted DRist thinks the same and that may be why there's such a "basic" disagreement between DR and IR.

I think the concept of humans moving off planet is exciting, progressive and morally valuable (in the sense of morale, not morality as such).

I think it's a better move to adjust funding toward other endeavours and add it to this kitty, personally. Like the first response, the question seems a little incoherent witout it being comparative - and once comparative, I think human beings existing on the Moon, Mars, in the vacuum or anywhere other than Earth or Earth orbit is 'cool' enough to warrant action.

It entails that you cannot experience without hte mediation of the senses. Probably, at all. This just doens't cause "indirectness" for some. But denying the mediation of sensation is folly which science puts paid to.

or claim that his personal view is that trans people are awful and shouldn't exist. — praxis

You have certainly made this claim, but i accept the others. I shouldn't have intimated you had.

Besides this, we are just going to go in circles bitching about how one another is incapable of honestly addressing things - for me, your take on the video, for instance. I imagine the same in reverse. Let's just leave it aside :) I thought your "sexistential" quip was 10/10 btw. Good job.

P.S: If you do truly want to try to get the bottom of any of this/understand what hte reasoning is for a claim, do feel free to continue through PMs. That seems to be working for me on this more contentious issues.

Yeah, definitely agree here. There's some issues with his finances etc... but clearly a reasonable person in general.

I'm unsure you're seeing hte problem that objectors see with that position. It's not quite that it's "wrong" - because intolerance, on it's face is something soceity rejects. So much is true, and te concept is sound.

But what constitutes "intolerance" is often confused, muddled and in some cases plainly reversed (i.e UK arrests for pithy posts, abusing citizens for wearing tshirts you don't like etc..). I am not saying you, personally, would indulge in this sort of confusion but it clearly happens that, apparently, plenty agree that killing Charlie Kirk was justified on those grounds. I presume you'd disagree? So maybe there's less daylight between the two positions than initially appears.
Which is worse: Wearing a MAGA shirt, or assaulting someone wearing one? Again, not putting that on your shoulders just illustrating why some are going to just laugh at this.

Not tolerating the intolerant is an act to defend freedom of speech. — Christoffer

When adequately tempered and moderated, sure, but then the questions arise about who gets to draw lines etc... It may seem obvious to you where they are, but that doesn't make you right.

why is a scientific theory need to believe people when they tell us who they are? — Questioner

Rachel. Dolezal. A bit quippy, but that is why. We want to know who the people around us are - I do not want to date a male, when I have intended to date a female and I am well within my rights to hold that view, and react "badly" if that deception was perpetrated on me. If your entire point is to "pass" as the opposite sex (which is what transition is for, by and large) then that is at least partially the intention. I see no malice or anything else in this, but it is deceptive and those caught by the deception are justified in being unhappy about it. Not because they're, for instance, homophobic, but because they did not consent to the situation they are in. I think its key to remember that many objections within this milieu are actually not to do with the person being trans at all. This can be gleaned from the sports debate - whereas most people (i think this is even true for lets say "pro-trans" people) agree males should not be competing against females in, at the extreme least, combat sport - Not because they are trans, but because they are male - if a transman wanted to compete, go ahead. But you'll notice the issue is the potential for harm, which results from males in female spaces - the fact of "trans" is relevant except insofar as it caused the situation. All that might sound mealy-mouthed, but I think its correct. I certainly have no issue with trans people per se, but will go to the mat on several issues in this thread for reasons that happen to be in the orbit.

All they ask is that basic rights not be denied — Questioner

That is definitely not the case for all - and certainly not hte most visible. The right for a male to enter female spaces is not 'basic'. This said, you have to be honest and acknowledge that plenty of trans people (most, TRAs which I understand in any group are usually the worst) want privileges. Demanding free surgeries is an example. Elective, cosmetic surgery is not a healthcare issue and it has been shown that medical transition does not improve mental health long term when controlled well, rather than relying on short-term self-report.

You fail to grasp the argument. Transgender persons only want to live their own truth. — Questioner

I would have agreed with this, if TRAs and the entire ideological movement didn't also exist besides trans people who want to do this. I think the concept of "my truth" is absolutely unacceptable in a civilized society, so we're going to disagree on that anyway - but just on empirical grounds, the people Phil and I and referencing (and we need to be honest about this, as above) are overly, explicitly and aggressive expecting/demanding that others live "their truth" (i.e the trans person's "truth") despite either believing it is a lie, or not really caring enough to engage. You don't have to take part in my self-image, and you don't have to take part in mine - again, even if* it reflects some "true" tension between the mind and body in an individual.
* I don't believe it does anymore than Children claiming to be x are in most cases. I just htink trans people are reasonable, intelligent and adult in most cases.

Sorry, purely in terms of readability can you restate? I presume you mean people using AI to "abuse women". I can't quite see what you mean. For context of why I might not see something you consider obvious, I don't have any immediate issue with AI being used to generate CA material. We can discuss why, I just want to be clear that i have no issue with fictional, functionally satisfying behaviour when no one is hurt even if its morally ugly.

The biological body does not cease to exist at death.

Your second line can apply to any singular event. I am a rape victim. I will never not be one. That fact will exist for all time. And, technically, beyond.

And to be clear, my intention was to hold you to the fire about making no real sense. Not a semantic argument.

o be honest, I am in some doubt as to whether it would be worthwhile to discuss anything with you. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

I've come to this conclusion some time ago. I'm sure we can get on without each other :)

at a deeper metaphysical level about what counts as a feature of the world at all. — Esse Quam Videri

Yes, that seems right - I did my best to try to say there may be fundamental issues we're not seeing the same way. Thanks for that.

As I understand you, you’re assuming that any property defined in relation to human perceptual capacities collapses into a claim about perception rather than a claim about the world. — Esse Quam Videri

As I see it, it's not an assumption, but a requirement of what we know about our physiology. We are seeing that fact causing different follow-ons, I think, and so my saying this isn't an assumption doesn't work for you - but you calling it one doesn't work for me. I think. At any rate, I cannot conceptually escape this line of thinking without hte handwaving I want to avoid.

On that assumption, statements like “the sky elicits blue-type responses under normal conditions” amount to nothing over and above claims about how humans experience the sky, and so the distinction I’ve been drawing between claims about experience and claims about the world simply disappears. — Esse Quam Videri

Roughly, yes. Its semantically sound to say that the one is "about the sky" and the other about human perception (because they are lol), but there's a ball being hidden imo viz a viz our disagreement. 1. would be more complete as "the sky elicits blue-type responses (in humans) under normal conditions" imo. Those "normal conditions", I take it, are the standard, physiological, interpretive processes involved in the perceptual chain. I can't see what else they are here, which would be relevant to the statement. But i definitely reacted to strongly to clarify properly, so thanks for the charity here.

I reject that assumption... I take ordinary color predicates to work in a similar way: they are world-involving, response-dependent properties, not reports about inner presentation. — Esse Quam Videri

Fair enough. We may not be able to litigate this, but safe to say I can't make sense of the position. It seems like wanting cake and eating it. It seems that we want substance dualism to work there..

So, yes, lol, your final para seems totally on point. Thanks mate - appreciate your elucidations.

they begin with sensory input — Questioner

Would you say that's true always? I understand some "conditions" to essentially be emotions arising without any sensory input. Have I misunderstood you?

But why would you want to see this:

I would want to see a comparison with autistic non-trans people and non-autistic trans people. — Questioner

.......................................................................to get the results of such a comparison:

I think the results would edify this study nicely. — AmadeusD

Why else?
I want to see this so we can accurate determine whether there is a direct correlation between being trans and being autistic. That would tell us a lot.

Herein lies your misunderstanding. Being transgender is not a "self-image problem." — Questioner

It is, unquestionably, a self-image problem. Whether that problem reflects some internal tension is up for grabs (i think not, but there we go). If it were not a self-image problem, we would not be hearing about it.

Lots to think about - but just wanted to say great OP. Thanks.

Sure - I have several friends who are legally 'disabled' because they have weird views about the world. and so hearing certain words or phrases causes their mind to collapse or something - but they get all the protections and accommodations of someone with no legs and spina bifida. I have one friend who is considered legally disabled because some painkillers gave him a headache twice in a row. Supposedly, that was cause by (without investigation) "chemical imbalances" which prevent the friend from accessing sufficient pain mediation. This is absolute bollocks.

But even in those cases, I don’t think truth requires that the phenomenal character of experience reproduce those properties as they are in the world. — Esse Quam Videri

(i'm going to reply to this, then move on to your reply directly to me).

Interesting. So, is your position that even if tout court perception is indirect, we can derive truth from coherent experiences of properties we presume are out there in the world? Seems pretty murky to me, so assume I'm missing something there..

In neither case does perceptual truth require that properties be “directly present” in experience in the sense the naïve realist needs. — Esse Quam Videri

The reason I assume I'm missing something on hte murkiness, is because this doesn't actually say anything to me. Both situations require that the thinker determines their position on veridicality and then practicality and decide to which the term "true" should be applied (conceptually, they maybe contradictory 'objects' of thought, and so cannot be run together).
This seems intellectually expedient at the expense of truth. That said, "humans, under normal circumstances, look at the sky and see it as the colour we call blue" can be considered true, and so in a sense "the sky is blue" is going to be trivially true. But I do not think - and this may be where I diverge from much of the discussion - that that is any of interesting, complex or worthy of debate.

Are we maybe talking about two different things? There's a great paper that came out last year discussing this exact issue and concludes that the question of IR v DR needs to be set aside, as both are non-scientific, folk views which derive from equally substantial pre-scientific belief structures. I found that extremely unsatisfying and seemed more to be geared at sounding profound than anything to do with actually figuring the problem out. Although, I do think it's true among lay people (which the paper was talking about... very, very strangely).

My take has always been that perception is "near enough" reflecting the world to allow for intense, robust co-operation and for memory to function - but that doesn't give me naive realism. Hence, at some stage accepting some of Banno's takes - and at times having to just imagine he hasn't left his house.

"Perception is interpretive, mediated, and embedded in the world — and none of that entails indirectness"

Perfect example. This is total nonsense.

Identity is not comparison. — Esse Quam Videri

Hmm. I can't figure out what you're trying to say. I said that you haven't responded to what I've said there, as you restated the same thing I objected to without further elucidation. This doesn't help either. Can you clarify?

What I mean is that causal mediation does not by itself settle what perception is of. — Esse Quam Videri

Sure. That much is true - Kantian or not, we can't rely on our senses to tell us about what's out there by definition (this is important, though, for my objection) - so it could be a 1:1 match, or a 0:1 match, or a 0:0 match in the case of genuine hallucination. Definitely agree. But as I understand, that isn't the debate. It's whether or not one or other possibilityis the case. There are people who will deny the mediation of the senses to support a DR position. Banno avoids this (i am talking about him a lot because we've had several exchanges on this, at the expense of perhaps engaging with others on it and he did a great job of outlining a position I found totally incoherent to begin with) and it was that which had me move towards the understanding that many people have already set aside the debate I'm trying to have without telling anyone.

But it does not follow from this that the object of perception must be an inner representation rather than a mind-external object. — Esse Quam Videri

That's true - and I don't immediately claim that's the case. It isn't required to support an IR position. It could be 1:1, but if IR is true, we can never know. That seems fine to me and I don't get the discomfort many have with it. Science isn't going to fall apart and stop predicting things because we can't be sure what it's predicting in-and-of-itself. It predicts our perceptions almost perfectly, and that's "near enough" to ensure we do not pull the floor out by saying "science proves that perception is indirect, by way of indirect and unreliable perceptions". This is a confusion. "unreliable" here doesn't relate to whether or not it will work, or cohere. It is unreliable as an indicator of the actual object. Which, on my view, it is even if it's (from God's view) 1:1 in every single case. That part doesn't change the debate between IR and DR.

Saying that the mind “constructs images from sense-data” is already a philosophical interpretation of the science, not something the science itself establishes. All that science requires is that perception depends on causal processes. It does not require that awareness terminates in sense-data or inner pictures rather than in the world itself. — Esse Quam Videri

I am pretty confident it in fact does do this. We can physically watch photons hit cones/rods and transmute to neural signals and move into the brain for interpretation. There is nothing in an object that results in it's image in our mind. I do not think this is philosophically interpretive until you start saying things like "therefore, there's no way to..." or "because of this, we must accept...".

I'm not quite doing that. I'm saying that objectively, we do not see "objects" but images of them. This isn't an interpretation - it's how the mind works (subject to my explanation of why this doesn't defeat my reliance on the scientific findings). The interpretive aspect would be to call it "indirect" and I fully cop to that. Many will accept everything I've said and still call it "direct". I just can't make sense of that - seems a convenient lie to get on with things. Which you can do without the lie.

So the “chasm” you’re describing is not something science forces on us; it’s the result of adopting a particular representationalist model of perception. — Esse Quam Videri

I quite vehemently, and with elucidation above, disagree. It is exactly what we are presented with and exactly what this debate it supposed to categorize in a way that can capture experience and fact. The DRist must find hte physical object in the mental image. That's a chasm science provides also. So, this isn't just a one-way issue of interpretation - both avenues must grapple with the physiology of the eye, vision, the perceptual process and indeed, aberration in any of those, to get a "direct" aspect in to the mix. We only ever see hand-waving at this point. I trust you'll be a little more engaging :) Again, though, we may be having separate conversations but with each other lmao.

how the human perceptual system presents things — Esse Quam Videri

Is the same, without content as:

the sky as it is in relation to the human perceptual system under normal conditions. — Esse Quam Videri

They are literally the same exact thing, but the second includes an example. If you did not mean this, please do clarify.

“humans tend to experience the sky as blue” — Esse Quam Videri

Is the same as

“the sky has properties such that, under normal conditions, it elicits blue-type responses” — Esse Quam Videri

I understand that you're trying to say that 1. is about perception, and 2. is about the sky. The sky isn't even an object. Both are about perception. Again, if you can clarify to tease these apart, I'd be happy to engage.

Those differ quite clearly in terms of:

subject matter (experience vs world), They do not differ. They both talk about (with a guise, in one example) how humans see things
truth conditions (facts about perceivers vs facts about the sky), Again, they amount to the same claim: Humans see things in X way (and then applied to the sky)
direction of explanation (mind → world vs world → mind) true, and doesn't change the content of the two claims being fundamentally the same thing. — Esse Quam Videri

For your claims to be different claims, you need to tell me something about hte sky sans human perceptions. Otherwise, that's all we're discussing as I see it. And probably should. Perhaps this is why i'm not groking you - that resistance is folly to me.

That is not true in ordinary perception — Esse Quam Videri

Yes it is. This may also be a fundamental we cannot come to terms on.

That the body reacts faster than the mind is well established scientifically: — Questioner

I'm unsure an article on a Ketamine clinic's website is the best source for this type of thing. But that's not a problem, because I'm aware this is true anyway. I just cannot understand what it says about my point there - emotions arise in the mind. They are mindstates.

Well, this would go against well-established practices of how the scientific method is used. In any one study, there must be one independent variable and one dependent variable, and all other variables that might affect the outcome of the dependent variable must be controlled. So looking at autistic/nonautistic/trans/cis - introduces too many variables. — Questioner

So yeah, standard method would be to introduce a control group for each aspect you're studying. That wouldn't be hard, but you'd have the data to compare between all four groups. And actually see something worth repeating, in my view.

Well, this introduces a totally new hypothesis and suggests a new study to be done! — Questioner

I don't think it does - probably most lay people who don't have proximity think this way. Seems to me this is hte case for most self-image problems. Not sure how this owuld could differ..

I’m concerned about all the lives lost and suffering as a result of Trump’s behaviour. — Punshhh

Oh good God. LOL.

A judgment is answerable to how things are not by resembling the world, but by being correct or incorrect depending on how things are; when true, what is affirmed is identical with what is the case, without any mediating, internal mental replica. — Esse Quam Videri

This is a restatement of what I've said amount to the same thing? I can't see a response to what I've said there specifically.

Where I disagree is with the further step that treats causal mediation as implying epistemic mediation by inner representations. That step isn’t delivered by science. — Esse Quam Videri

I'm not quite sure how you can make that claim: science tells us our mind cannot look at objects. Our eyes look at objects and our mind constructs images from sense-data. There is an unavoidable chasm between objects and our representations in this form. Can you explain what you mean in the above quote in light of this?

No, the claim is not just about how the human perceptual system presents things. It’s still a claim about the sky; namely the sky as it is in relation to the human perceptual system under normal conditions. — Esse Quam Videri

They are the same thing. Wording things two different ways wont give us two different things.

Threads create a rope.
You can be hung with a rope. But you might not see several threads slowly coming together.

This is hte basis for plenty of legal argumentation. That people do not apply this to society for a bit of forethought is baffling.

Interesting, that you find my points are poetics. Poetics are supposed to be beautiful written expressions of thoughts on the nature or mind. What part of my thoughts and writing were poetics? — Corvus

From What I can tell, all of it. Nothing is direct description or argument for anything - it's just (admittedly, very nice and enjoyable) ways to describe your position. That's fine, btu does nothing for hte things I've put forward.

Really? What is your definition of philosophy? — Corvus

I don't have a definition. But I can tell you that flowery, interesting ways to put forward ones opinion isn't doing philosophy. I'm sure you'd agree (acknowledging you doin't think you've done this - fine).

You need more than bluster. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

Pretty cool that I gave much, much more than this.

Trans people (about whom I know very little) are probably obsessive about their gender (why else would they bother becoming trans). So I assume it's more important to them than it would be to you (if you have normal sensibilities). — Ecurb

There are plenty of things I care about, and in fact, obsess about, which no one has any obligation whatseover to engage with me over.

People's self-image isn't everyone else's obligation.
I see the same slide down the hole of irrationality praxis fell into.

I've granted that "blueness" is not a property of the sky, yet I maintain that "the sky is blue" is true. This sounds like a contradiction, but I don't think it is. — Esse Quam Videri

It is a contradiction in terms, but I understand the second to actually mean "The sky is blue, as far as the HUman perceptual system tends to present" and that is obviously true.

Telling people the facts about their conditions has, across time and place been the singular emotionally effective approach I have ever found with 'truly' disabled people. I make this distinction because in most places you can be deemed legally disabled without any true lack of ability. I'm not complaining, just delineating.

People unable to squarely wordify their condition cannot come to terms with it in a way that can lead to actual peace. The only disabled people who, to me, have appeared happy, are those who accept in raw, accurate terms, their lot in life. This is true of every person I've ever met, but this is a thread about disability.

Seeing the ship is unmediated... Seeing it through a telescope might be called unmediated. What we call a "ship" just is the sort of thing that we see. We don't see it "indirectly" in any ordinary sense. — Banno

Its possible OP was trying to point out how nonsensical such a statement is. But there's been nine pages since, so I don't know.

What we call a 'ship' is also what a babe sees. They are mediated by the babes eyes and existing data set (as you point out, aptly). This is indirectness writ large and is not changed by accumulating more data to more quickly ascertain what the sensations are indicating to you.

I think the science clearly shows that colour, taste, smell, etc. are the product of our biology, causally determined by but very different to the objective nature (e.g. the chemical composition) of apples and ice creams. — Michael

This has long been my argument - science (which, if you take a moment, cannot give us certainty under any circumstances) - the best method we have for understanding anything - tells us that perception is patently indirect. This isn't really a philosophical issue.

mirroring between what’s in the mind and what’s in the world, but in a judgment’s being correct or incorrect depending on how things are — Esse Quam Videri

These seem to be the same thing?

can be corrected by further interaction with them — Esse Quam Videri

Not always. You could simply talk about emotional sensations or at least involuntary mental states and make clear that our perceptions are wildly divergent. This can apply to sound, sight and touch. When the system is adjusted, sensation is adjusted and we do not really have ways to adjudicate between them between perception is, scientifically, a step askance from objects.

I am quite unsure why this ruffles so many feathers. There's kind of two positions that could taken in this type of vein:

1. Science tells us perception is indirect. Acknowledging that it requires perception to come to this conclusion, this doesn't mean we reject our senses for practical purposes. It means we cannot be sure of what our sensations represent - but if they are coherent as between individuals (mostly true) then we can get on just fine. This seems to be hte purpose of science, just to an extremely narrow and rigid margin of error - particularly in comparison with other methods (like trying to logically deduce emotional responses to stimuli);
Objection: Given that this requires that our sensations are, fundamentally, unreliable in some sense, we cannot trust science to give us this conclusion. We cannot trust science to lead us to any worth-while conclusions.
I'm sure we all see the issue with this response.

2. Science tells us perception is direct.
Objection: Patently untrue. It just might not matter to the realist because they're having a different discussion maybe?

When we cite "emotional blindness" - to what are the emotions blind? Clues and signals from the body. — Questioner

Hmm, tough one. I can't say this strikes me as 'right'. Emotions seem to come from (or at least arise in) the mind. Not being able to adequately parse the mental states that accompany what we routine call.. pick your poison: sadness, exultation, disappointment etc.. seems to be what it refers to. But you're otherwise right, in that this is included in the loop that creates a perceived self-identity.

Not exactly. From what I read, being "nonautistic" was a controlled variable in the study, since autistic persons tend to have higher rates of alexithymia. The two relevant variables in the study were transgender vs. cisgender. — Questioner

I'm unsure what control is used changes my (tentative and certainly not detailed) conclusion. I understand that the groups in question were those groups - I would want to see a comparison with autistic non-trans people and non-autistic trans people. I think the results would edify this study nicely. But again, replication etc.. so happy to accept both possible interpretations.

I don't mean connected by muscle, blood and bone, but by the electrochemical signals coursing through your nervous system. Nervous system communication is confused and can result in depersonalization. — Questioner

Oh, ok I see what you mean. Fair enough - maybe hte terms were just unclear.

I can't see a reason to introduce self-absorption or an "internal ignorance" into the discussion. — Questioner

Because they adequately explain the results. It might not be the case, or might be a mild contributing factor (I think that's fairly uncontroversial to claim).. I suppose partially i'm going by experience too. Again, happy to accept both interpretations as it stands.

I do not see that as sexism. Sex expectations are biologically expected statistics and are not gender. Admiring and wanting the body of the opposite sex for yourself is an entirely different subject. — Philosophim

I would say having surgery to appear as a (caricature, naturally) of the opposite sex is sexist pretty much by definition. I just don't think all sexism is bad. Clearly not, as law instantiates several instances of it.