Remember that my definition of gender is aligned with gender theory and you have not shown any credible evidence or argument that would demonstrate I have not. — Philosophim

Well, I disagree, but I'll try to add more to it here in this post.

If I tell a woman, "Women shouldn't work" when they are clearly working and there is no reason why they shouldn't work besides my personal feelings on the matter, I'm telling them they shouldn't commit an action. Where's the object? — Philosophim

The women who you think should not work.

That would be interpersonal sexism between two subjects. — Philosophim

Not quite. In any one example of interpersonal action, there is the sender of the action (the subject) and the receiver of the action (the object)

But a subject can also be sexist towards themselves. There are men who think they can't cry. There are woman who think they should always agree with what a man says. You can absolutely have sexist perspectives of yourself. — Philosophim

But this is something different than what we have been talking about. it's got nothing to do with gender identity and transgenderism.

Sexism is an attitude. Attitudes are formed in the brain. Are you suggesting that if a person claims a transgender identity they’re being sexist against their penis or vagina?

When a transgender person claims their true identity, it is not so they can fulfill some expectations society places on this or that gender, or even expectations as that person might see them. It is about being who they are in their head, and a chief element of that is “diachronic unity.” More about that later, but first a little background info:

Gender is a biological reality involving patterns of identity produced by the brain. The prenatal hormone environment during fetal development is crucial to this brain organization. Thyroid hormones, progesterone, and steroids are critical regulators of fetal neural differentiation. They direct development of the hypothalamus, the amygdala, and connectivity patterns. That’s the biology.

It’s important to remember that fetal body sex-differentiation (during the first trimester) is a separate process from brain organization and differentiation (in the third trimester). Studies show that transgender persons’ brain patterns align more closely with their experienced gender than with the brains of cisgender persons of the same physical sex. These patterns - related to emotional processing, body perception, self-representation, and social cognition – emerge from neurological networks and influence gender identity.

And gender is indeed part of identity. Lots of research into gender identity has been done, including investigating the relationship between transgender transition and “diachronic unity.” Diachronic unity describes a stable sense of self across time, like a self-continuity. If the unity is intact, then memories linked with an internal narrative are able to say – “That was me then, this is me now, and I am the same person.”

The interesting thing is that gender transition does not fragment diachronic unity – it restores and strengthens it. Before transition, transgender persons feel alienated from themselves, and it’s hard to imagine a future self. But following transition, their internal narrative becomes more coherent and they feel more connected to their current self. They have reclaimed their identity.

I found three research papers supporting these conclusions. Here are AI summaries of the three papers:

Autobiographical memory phenomenology in transgender and cisgender individuals

Finds that transgender participants rate memories from after coming-out with higher phenomenological quality than memories from before coming-out, and that these changes relate to well-being — i.e., coming-out/transitioned periods are experienced as more connected to the current self, supporting phenomenological continuity

The phenomenology of gender dysphoria in adults

Synthesizes qualitative literature showing that gender dysphoria often produces alienation from one’s life narrative and body prior to transition, and that many respondents describe transition and affirmation as restoring coherence and ownership of their life story. (Qualitative evidence that transition often repairs disrupted self-continuity.)

Exploring trans people’s narratives of transition

Qualitative interview study in which participants narrate transition as a process of re-emplotment of life events; many describe the post-transition narrative as the one that best fits their autobiographical story — again, consistent with increased diachronic unity after transition.

How would you reconcile these findings about restored diachronic unity in transgender persons who have transitioned to your theory that transgenderism is sexist?

when you elevate your gender over your sex, you make your sex inferior to gender. And that is where sexism occurs. — Philosophim

This represents a profound misunderstanding of transgender identity, and the challenges they face as they seek a life in which they can live as who they really are.

But gender is based on sex. Its a belief that a person should act in a certain way in society without regards to biological limitations. — Philosophim

Hello, I'm back. I see you are still incorrectly defining gender, but I will proceed...

It is when the prejudice of gender elevates itself above the reality of sex that it becomes 'sexism'. — Philosophim

I have figured out another aspect of your theory that is troubling.

You’ve been using the word “sexism” to describe a transgender person’s insistence that they put their gender above their sex.

But – sexism is not a solitary feature. It is relational. It requires both a subject and an object.

The subject would be the person (or group or institution) that expresses sexist beliefs or practices.

The object would be the person (or group) that is being devalued because of sex (or gender).

So, a person (the object) has to be positioned as inferior because of their sex or gender, by the person (or group) applying the belief (the subject). Sexism is not a private belief, but exists in power and practice.

So, in your theory, who is the object? And who is the subject?

The question is badly formulated. If someone owns a life, that is slavery. — Ludwig V

Well, since we were talking about suicide, I thought it understood that we were talking about the life in question. Sorry for the imprecision.

What about capital punishment? I oppose that. — Ludwig V

On principle, so do I.

euthanasia — Ludwig V

Just a note - if it's assisted death we are talking about, it is not referred to as euthanasia, which removes the agency of the person making the decision.

lots of people are anti-trans: sure. It's been whipped up as the moral panic of the day. — Mijin

They've been force-fed that this is the prime issue to care about, and it works because it's easy to sell the idea that something that makes a person uncomfortable must therefore be immoral. — Mijin

You’ve hit the nail on the head with this. Give the people something to be disgusted about, and you can con them into accepting all sorts of damaging policy.

In the US, the push to deny transgender persons their rights has been a real distraction – a bugaboo - and a convenient excuse for the administration to gut medical research, science, and the civil service, and transform the military. The US even voted against the recent UN resolution titled “Safety and Security of Humanitarian Personnel and Protection of United Nations Personnel” (a recurring UN General Assembly topic, addressing threats like violence, kidnapping, and attacks against aid workers and UN staff, aiming to ensure their protection through international law and host country responsibility.) - citing “radical gender ideology” as one of the reasons for such a huge policy shift.

The resolution passed at the UN, in a vote 153-1. The US was the only country that voted against it.

Laws should never be based on disgust. As Hannah Arendt tells us in The Origins of Totalitarianism - disgust can be used to justify damaging ideological outlooks and moral standards that do not align with basic human rights.

Consider the first paragraph of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world …

And so, the following position from @Philosophim presents as being based on disgust, rather than sound philosophy:

“I'm just noting it is sexist if they think their gender should be elevated over their sex.”

Imagine referring to people who wish to live in the gender their brain tells them that they are - as sexist!

As if the obligation to accommodate the prejudices of others should supersede Article 12 of the Declaration of Human Rights:

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

What should be “elevated” is the human right to transgender persons to live an autonomous, authentic life free from persecution - that right should be elevated above living their lives according to the expectations of others, especially when those expectations are grounded in a disgust for a state of being they do not understand.

In every other case it applies, what makes trans gender special? — Philosophim

Again, why? You may be right. But without a good reason we can't know that. For a claim about reality to be valid, there needs to be a situation in which the claim is correct, and a situation in which the claim is incorrect. Otherwise we're not talking about something real. — Philosophim

I have sufficiently answered these questions in previous posts. Your position is predicted on the inaccurate premise that transgender persons are not who they say they are, and this is just false.

there are people who detransition who claim they had their identity wrong. — Philosophim

Not according to my research:

The most common reasons cited (for regret) were pressure from a parent (36%), transitioning was too hard (33%), too much harassment or discrimination (31%), and trouble getting a job (29%).

The detransitioning rate is actually pretty low. According to Google - A 2021 systematic review and meta-analysis of 27 studies, pooling data from over 7,900 patients, found the pooled prevalence of regret after gender-affirming surgery to be approximately 1%. When detransition does occur, it is often temporary.

The detransition rate varies from country to country, depending mostly on the level of community support. In Denmark, the regret rate is 0.06%, in the UK is 0.47%, in Australia it’s 1% - but in the US it’s closer to 8% - (where external factors like family pressure, societal stigma, and discrimination are higher) – but of those, about 62% later retransitioned.

***

In any case, it seems we cannot agree on the most basic definitions and facts and have fallen into repeating ourselves, so I will bow out of the conversation now.

Do we have one thing, Nixon, or two things, Nixon and that-which-makes-Nixon-what-he-is-and-not-another-thing?

I'll opt for one thing, not two. — Banno

I would say that the function (the mind) cannot be separated from the structure (the brain) so we have one thing, not two things. It's not a dualism.

I would also say that of the billions of brains that have ever existed, no two were structurally identical, so the mental output is unique to each individual.

The sentence you have quoted is a criticism of T Clark. Not you. — AmadeusD

Please don't gaslight me. You made a presumption about something I said or did.

and can be misaligned (wrong) or there is a failure in one or other of those elements, to be objectively anything. This would mean gender isn't real, — AmadeusD

The conclusion does not follow from the premise.

What I would say is that if you have a male body and female brain something has gone wrong. They are not aligned, and, on the vision needed for your side of the argument, cause you immense distress to the point that society is obligated to affirm you and adjust itself to your self-perception — AmadeusD

When terming "difference" as "wrong" - judgement comes into the equation.

The "obligations of society" to accommodate difference should not be the sticking point.

We don't have a fixed identity. No one does. Our 'self' obtains in a set of dispositions, feelings and reactive faculties which are different moment-to-moment. The 'seat' of our self-perception is reflexivity observation of the world around us (one reason why, if gender is a social construct, you don't get to choose your own!). It is simply reading the room and understanding what it says about your mishmash of "selfhood". Perhaps my rejection of fixed identity also means there's not much more to say. — AmadeusD

You are talking about changes in outlook, not identity.

But, granted, our identity may get fine-tuned as we process new stimuli, and develop our mental faculties. But there are some parts of it that are fixed, determined by the basic structure of the brain.

I also have some trouble with describing the seat of self-perception as observation - since observation is by itself only stimuli and has no effect on us until we analyze and respond to it.

That said, it is largely true, so what do I make of this? Well, given that these are networks in neural pathways, they are subject to change through out ones life and thinking can quite literally change one's neural situation significantly. Is the idea here that one can be trans at t1 and not at t2, or vice verse, swings and roundabouts? That's not meant to be reductive - it seems required to put too much into this piece of neural data. I would add to this a bit of a can of worms, in that psychedelic psychotherapy seems to intensely change how we process both types of information (disclosure: friends of mine do this work and I used to have a hand in designing similar studies locally). — AmadeusD

Yes, how much easier it would be to just believe it when someone says, "I am transgender."

I'm wondering why we don't do that?

We gain identity, at all, from how we are treated as babies and young children. We don't get active in creating an identity for some years which should give you pause — AmadeusD

Yes, I agree. I did not say gender was the whole of identity, only part of it. That a newborn is born with some identity I think is a reasonable claim to make.

If you're identity exists in your head, you act it out as an expected set of behaviours so others around you see you as your internal identity. — AmadeusD

Identity does not only exist when it is being expressed, but when you are all alone with nothing but your thoughts. Otherwise, it would be like saying the Sun only exists when you see it.

Just because we can identify ourselves as "X" it doesn't mean we actually are "X". — Philosophim

This does not apply to transgender persons.

In other words, an identity claim can be incorrect. — Philosophim

This does not apply to transgender persons.

There is nothing innate in one's identity that has any value apart from an emotional feeling — Philosophim

But there is. It's a mental understanding of who you are.

So if I identified as a female, when its objectively true that I'm a male, I would be wrong. My feelings or desire that it be true are irrelevant. — Philosophim

No. Your identity is produced by your brain, not your body.

To be transgender is not based on a wish that it be true - it is true.

Do you not understand that to declare yourself transgender makes things a lot harder for a person, not easier, and one would only do so if it was the only way they could be their authentic self?

Gender is again, a subjective belief that a sex should act in a particular way in society. — Philosophim

No. Gender is an internal, emergent property of the brain.

Expectations flow from it, not into it.

What is sex to you? What is gender? — Philosophim

Sex is the biological differentiation to male or female of physical structures in the human body.

Gender is the male or female differentiation in the brain.

Should gender ever be elevated over sex? — Philosophim

It sounds like you're asking for permission to deny transgender persons their authenticity.

First, you speak about identity. What is identity to you? — Philosophim

I learned a new word in the thread "SEP reading on possibility and actuality" - and thought it might be a concept that can be applied to this thread, and your question about identity.

The word is "haecceity" - often termed as "thisness" - the essential presence that causes something to be an individual.

If we look at this from a biological standpoint, we can consider the human brain in terms of its structure and function. The brain is the structure, and the function of that structure is to produce the mind. The mind consists of all the mental output of one's brain, and that mental output produces an individual's "thisness" - or "haecceity" - the sum total of that person's reality.

In that reality, is that person's concept of self - their identity.

Identity is not external to a person, but part of their "thisness" - their "haecceity"

Did you understand that by "begging the question" I meant the logical fallacy of assuming what was to be proved? For it seemed to me you were making an implicit argument concluding that suicide is (sometimes) morally permissible. But then in your reply you used "begs the question" in another sense. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

Sorry if I used the phrase incorrectly. I meant "raises another question"

"Thisness", usually.

Seems to me the epitome of philosophical reification. — Banno

You've taught me another new word, and I thank you for that - "reification" -

"treating an abstract idea as if it were a concrete, real thing."

My first question is this - just because something is not concrete, does it follow that it cannot be real?

I'm looking at this through the lens of my biology background - in which all living things, and all parts of living things, are described in terms of structure and function, and structure complements function.

So, if we consider the structure of the human brain, its function is to produce a "mind." And the "haecceity" - or the "thisness" of each individual person results from the mental output of the mind. The "mind" is not a concrete thing, but it's real. Indeed, it produces the only reality we know.

Since we each one of us have our individual take on reality, the mind is the set of our "thisness" - or our haecceity.

Or have I misunderstood in limiting "haecceity" to the concept of consciousness?

↪Questioner It's moral if the individual is competent, free from external coercion and dealing with permanent agony/suffering. — LuckyR

Agreed.

We have a poster with a little over 100 posts. They come in, they're polite. They post great arguments and points. They cite papers. They run absolute intellectual and moral circles around you. A fantastic human being. — Philosophim

You know I can read this, right?

For example, I can have a personal identity that I am a doctor. — Philosophim

I'm sorry, but to use the example of calling yourself what you do for a living is to indicate to me that you have not processed a single word I have said.

Gender is specifically an expected set of behaviors — Philosophim

This contravenes my earlier posts, and I am not inclined to repeat them. But I will say it is not about the kind of hats you wear.

What then is a gender identity? First, you have to have a gendered view. You believe "Women/men should do X." "Women/Men should not do Y." — Philosophim

Not quite. it is not only about what you do, but what you are.

Gender is a part of you "being."

"Even though I am sex A, if I follow my expectations of how sex A should act, I really feel like acting like sex B" Basically, "I'm a man, I feel like acting the way I think a man should act." Or "I'm a man, I feel like acting the way a woman should act." — Philosophim

You keep talking about "expectations" and "acting" - as if you have no notion of the identity that exists in one's head - the brain's activity that produces one's unique sense of self.

Your identity is not defined by others, but by yourself.

The way I think a man/woman should act makes a person a man/woman" is the point that you enter into sexism, or elevate gender over a person's sex. — Philosophim

Honestly, this is a bit of a convoluted sentence, and strikes me as faulty reasoning. I'm not sure what expectations have to do with a person's claimed identity.

Haecceity — Banno

I love learning new words and had to look that one up.

"a non-qualitative property responsible for a substance’s individuation and identity."

Of the three words associated with it - "thisness" - "suchness" - whatness" - I would say humans, in their individuality, comes most closely to "suchness."

The doctrine of forgiveness of sin provides a method to avoid responsibility. Why be virtuous when you can always be absolved on request? — Ciceronianus

Hmmm ... I think all religious people are looking to religion for something divine beyond this trying world, and religion provides them with that. All of the major religions promise something greater beyond this mortal existence, whether it is salvation and eternal life, or enlightenment and liberation from suffering, or bodily resurrection and purification, or escape from the cycle of rebirth ... and always some sort of unification with the their God.

Suppose you have a man who identifies as a woman walking around in the women's locker room at 24 Hour Fitness with their junk hanging out? — RogueAI

No, I would say that only transgender women who have completed their transition should be allowed in female changing rooms.

People who judge that suicide is wrong are judging a kind of act. They are not necessarily judging any *person*. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

Good point - separating the person from the behavior

"They" may be the most moral person you ever knew *except* (possibly) in the matter of suicide. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

And this begs another question - in what circumstances is suicide moral?

I few posts upthread I shared my personal experience with my spouse, and I am very satisfied with the morality of his decision to use MAID

How does this apply to, say, women's sports? — RogueAI

Good question. Since sports involve physical attributes, rather than mental, I think it's pretty apparent that transgender women should not be allowed in female sports, since with their male bodies they would have an unfair advantage.

The claim that one can be born in the wrong body then looms large. — AmadeusD

Well, I wouldn't use the words "right" and "wrong" - just different.

I'm going to ask you to put on your thinking hat - and ask yourself - where is the seat of my perception of myself? Is it in the brain? Does your perception of yourself - which is constructed by putting together all your thought processes - tell you that you are one particular gender rather than another?

I think we really need to get a firm understanding of what identity is, and accept that gender, in most cases, is part of that identity. Yes, outside perceptions may influence our identity - but they trigger an internal dialogue - and then how they are analyzed, processed, and responded to are determined by our brains.

Here's a quote from The Neuroscience of Identity -

... that there are two parts of the prefrontal cortex used for processing information salient to the human identity—the medial prefrontal cortex, or mpfc (BA10) and the dorsal medial prefrontal cortex, or dmpfc (BA9) (Lieberman 2018). The mpfc is active during our default mode, or when we are not focused on the external environment, and biases us to shift our thinking to become egocentric, while the dmpfc is active when processing salient social information pertinent to one’s position in groups as well as the perspective of others. We quite literally process thoughts about ourselves and thoughts about others in different parts of the brain. This is a reflection of the dynamic and co-optive nature of identity.

https://creatingwe.com/news-blogs/articles-blogs/psychology-today/the-neuroscience-of-identity

nd along with with Questioner) have obviously, and unfortunately obviously on purpose, ignore the several sources (and quotes there from, along with explanations of how they link with the context we're talking in) I have provided. — AmadeusD

This is not true, I had the last word about male vs female brains, in a reply to you, citing more accurate and recent research, that sex differences in brains can be read with fMRI

Questioner going "yeah, get 'em!" — AmadeusD

This is your interpretation of my motivations for posting what I did, and it is wrong.

What a disappointment that one of my favorite posters isn't any better than some fresh face single digit poster. — Philosophim

If you mean me:

I have 168 posts (169 with this one) and my face is not as fresh as it used to be.

If you don't mean me, sorry for the misunderstanding.

that gender is a subjective opinion of how a sex should act in society — Philosophim

But I have presented you with a compelling argument and much evidence that it is not. What you may be defining is cultural mores, or accepted practices, but gender is part of a person's identity, and an identity is an internal feature of who we are. It is one's mental construct of themself.

"lived role" - Socially constructed expectation of behavior — Philosophim

I read this differently, since we live inside our heads

psychological factors — Philosophim

one's own psychological factors, not the factors of others

a person’s biological constitution — Philosophim

The brain is part of your biology

Is that all? Do you have anything more to say to my last response? — Philosophim

Much of your argument depends on one's identity being something produced outside of them, and I cannot accept that presumption.

The definition of gender is how one or more people believe a sex should behave socially. — Philosophim

No, that is your definition, and it goes against commonly accepted research.

"Sex" is how you're built. "Gender" is a part of who you are.

According to the American College of Pediatricians:

Although often used interchangeably, the terms sex and gender are not synonyms. According to the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), gender is defined as the “lived role” of male or female, resulting from the interaction of cultural and psychological factors with a person’s biological constitution.

I was being quite careful there - interferring with the desire wouldn't be convincing her away from using (i presume?) MAID. It would have been attempting to adjust her worldview to not want to die. — AmadeusD

I tried. "We have to look for ways for you to live, not to die."

But they were quite set on it. Never a second thought. No fear of death. Once I said, "Look, we have to prepare to live for the next thirty years like this."

They got quite upset. "Don't tell me I have to live like this for thirty years!"

I want to emphasize that they were very at peace with their decision. They were filled with gratitude for the good years they had, but could no longer live in a body that had already left.

That said, I am incredibly sorry for your loss and respect your journey there immensely. Thank you for sharing. — AmadeusD

You're welcome.

Yes, interfering with someone's desire to kill themselves is sound, imo. — AmadeusD

Again ... it depends ...

My spouse, once very active, was made severely disabled by MS. Once they made their decision to use medically-assisted death, it took months to convince me of it. But finally, due to my deep respect for this person, I came to accept their decision.

that X is suffering, therefore X must end life. — Corvus

No, I wouldn't advance this position. There is no "must" about it.

But if a person believes they have no quality of life and cannot live their life the only way that life would be acceptable to them, does it not become their decision?

Boy, this is a great post. Really interesting. — T Clark

Thank you so much!

Or maybe I’ll just plagiarize — T Clark

Be my guest!

The elevation of gender over sex is social prejudice at best, social sexism at worst. — Philosophim

Well, this is an original idea to forward an anti-transgender argument, but this theory has several holes, beginning with the idea that gender is something artificially “elevated”

Gender is one aspect of identity, and it’s our identity, produced by a brain, that determines how we perceive and react to the world. It’s all we got to go on. To suggest that some part of my body, rather than my brain, should determine who I am, is absurd.

Gender: The non-biological expectations that one or more people have about how a sex should express themselves in public. For example, "Men are expected to wear top hats, women are not." — Philosophim

No, gender is not determined by external expectations, but by biological factors - how the brain functions:

… the existence of brain phenotypes in line with the idea of a brain sexual differentiation seems to be confirmed by the … reported studies, including both cisgender and transgender individuals.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7139786/

Perhaps it is simplistic to say a male transgender person has a male brain, or a female transgender brain has a female brain – but the evidence that transgender brain structure and function are different from their biological (physical) sex is there if you care to investigate it.

From one study:

The observed shift away from a male-typical brain anatomy towards a female-typical one in people who identify as transgender women suggests a possible underlying neuroanatomical correlate for a female gender identity.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8955456/

From another:

… results, published in 2013, showed that even before treatment the brain structures of the trans people were more similar in some respects to the brains of their experienced gender than those of their natal gender.

From a study that focused on brain function:

… used functional MRI to examine how 39 prepubertal and 41 adolescent boys and girls with gender dysphoria responded to androstadienone, an odorous steroid with pheromonelike properties that is known to cause a different response in the hypothalamus of men versus women. They found that the adolescent boys and girls with gender dysphoria responded much like peers of their experienced gender.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-something-unique-about-the-transgender-brain/

The question is about primacy of importance in regards to law and culture. Rationally, which is more important to consider? A person's sex, or their gender? — Philosophim

Gender is part of cognitive identity, so definitely gender. Why should “law and culture” force people to be something they are not? In what situations is this justified?

Gender claims are subjective beliefs, not objective facts. — Philosophim

Of course, identity is subjective – it is produced in the brain of the subject. But subjectivity does not mean identity should be disregarded. Indeed, it should prevail. It is one’s lived experience – not an “opinion” - not a "belief" - but a reality.

Looking at gender, gender is a social belief that a sex should express itself a particular way. — Philosophim

No, gender is not a social belief. It is a state produced by a functioning brain, encompassing differences in cognition among individuals, which lead to differences in behavior. Here is one well-researched area that would produce different experiences of reality (and thus different reactions to it):

“You see sex differences in spatial-visualization ability in 2- and 3-month-old infants,” Halpern says. Infant girls respond more readily to faces and begin talking earlier. Boys react earlier in infancy to experimentally induced perceptual discrepancies in their visual environment. In adulthood, women remain more oriented to faces, men to things.

https://stanmed.stanford.edu/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different/

Because gender is subjective and subject to the whims of an individual or group, — Philosophim

No, gender is not based on a “whim.”

I just can't see any good reason to consider gender as anything more than a prejudiced and sexist social pressure. — Philosophim

But to not recognize the gender that one claims for themselves would be a prejudiced position, and put sexist social pressure on them.

We should seek to minimize gender as anything more than an ignorant and potentially bigoted human opinion about people based on their sex. — Philosophim

Or – we can just accept one’s lived experience that they claim for themselves. Believe them.

In summary, gender/identity should take precedence over the physical attributes of the body. External pressures to be something you are not (which are often based in ignorance) should be discouraged.

I think of Saint Francis, who also preached the value and dignity of the poor, although about 1000 years after Saint Patrick. I always got the impression that his beliefs were considered very close to heresy. — T Clark

I think it is really important to distinguish those who embrace Christianity in a true following of Jesus and those who would use it for political gains.

This question comes to my mind during the Christmas season. I'm inclined to attribute it several factors, which I'll summarize.

First, its thorough assimilation of pagan religious beliefs, especially those of the various pagan mystery cults involving rebirth, salvation and life after death (it also assimilated a great deal of pagan philosophy as well, but though this was useful in providing, awkwardly I think, intellectual support for Christianity I doubt it contributed much to its spread). Christmas itself is evidence of this assimilation, as its celebration consists in great part of the customs of the Roman Saturnalia and the northern European Yule. The date chosen for the celebration of Jesus' birth, of course, is the traditional date of the birth of Sol Invictus and other gods associated with the Winter Solstice

Second, its ruthless and relentless suppression of all other religious beliefs after Christians acquired control of the Roman imperial government, including suppression of Christian variants deemed heretical once orthodoxy was established (I mean those popular before the Reformation). In short, it profited from its intolerance.

Third, zealous commitment to its spread among non-Christians (the missionary impulse), sometimes by force of arms.

Fourth, the appeal of a religion which promised forgiveness of sins, thus providing hope that salvation was possible regardless of wrongs committed during life.

Which tells us something about successful institutional religion and ourselves, I think; none of it inspiring or attractive. — Ciceronianus

I think this might be a cynical point-of-view, as far as the early spread of Christianity is concerned. I think the gospel of Jesus was embraced because it was the first egalitarian philosophy to reach the ears of the oppressed. Jesus was the first egalitarian, elevating the poor to an equal status with the upper levels. The promises were great, as can be seen by the 5th century poem, St. Patrick's Breastplate:

I arise today
Through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity,
Through belief in the Threeness,
Through confession of the Oneness
of the Creator of creation.
I arise today
Through the strength of Christ's birth with His baptism,
Through the strength of His crucifixion with His burial,
Through the strength of His resurrection with His ascension,
Through the strength of His descent for the judgment of doom.
I arise today
Through the strength of the love of cherubim,
In the obedience of angels,
In the service of archangels,
In the hope of resurrection to meet with reward,
In the prayers of patriarchs,
In the predictions of prophets,
In the preaching of apostles,
In the faith of confessors,
In the innocence of holy virgins,
In the deeds of righteous men.
I arise today, through
The strength of heaven,
The light of the sun,
The radiance of the moon,
The splendor of fire,
The speed of lightning,
The swiftness of wind,
The depth of the sea,
The stability of the earth,
The firmness of rock.
I arise today, through
God's strength to pilot me,
God's might to uphold me,
God's wisdom to guide me,
God's eye to look before me,
God's ear to hear me,
God's word to speak for me,
God's hand to guard me,
God's shield to protect me,
God's host to save me
From snares of devils,
From temptation of vices,
From everyone who shall wish me ill,
afar and near.
I summon today
All these powers between me and those evils,
Against every cruel and merciless power
that may oppose my body and soul,
Against incantations of false prophets,
Against black laws of pagandom,
Against false laws of heretics,
Against craft of idolatry,
Against spells of witches and smiths and wizards,
Against every knowledge that corrupts man's body and soul;
Christ to shield me today
Against poison, against burning,
Against drowning, against wounding,
So that there may come to me an abundance of reward.
Christ with me,
Christ before me,
Christ behind me,
Christ in me,
Christ beneath me,
Christ above me,
Christ on my right,
Christ on my left,
Christ when I lie down,
Christ when I sit down,
Christ when I arise,
Christ in the heart of every man who thinks of me,
Christ in the mouth of everyone who speaks of me,
Christ in every eye that sees me,
Christ in every ear that hears me.
I arise today
Through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity,
Through belief in the Threeness,
Through confession of the Oneness
of the Creator of creation.

If this is to respond to my (admittedly dismissive) comment, this doesn't change what I'm seeing. Bringing this up isn't good faith, in context. Although, I recognize that bad faith is active - i doubt that's what's happening here. I just think you're choosing to debate in a way that we regularly see on talk shows. As I say, its probably better we just don't discuss these things. No harm, no foul. Its tricky. — AmadeusD

What an odd response to being corrected.

I have made multiple attempts on my life — AmadeusD

Okay, so we both seem to be coming at this from subjective angles, through the lens of our personal experiences. I wonder if we can step back and examine it from a philosophical angle.

Some questions that are raised:

Who owns a life?

Do obligations to others supersede that ownership?

Is interference in one's desire to kill themselves morally sound?

I realize a lot of answers will begin with "it depends" - so please take the conditional statements wherever they lead you.

There were no such words as "transmale" or "transfemale" in ancient times. But in modern times there are people who changed their gender, and the word was invented to represent them. — Corvus

Of course there were transgenders in ancient time. (They actually called them more poetic names) People living in the opposite gender of the sex that they were born into have existed as long as we have been keeping records. They have discovered 5,000-year old graves containing biologically male skeletons in female dress and female grave goods.

Ever heard of the transgender priestesses of ancient Rome called the Gallae?

Also - you have a profound misconception about the nature of transgenderism. Transgender persons who transition do not "change their gender." They are born with a gender that does not match the body they were born into. They change the body to match the gender.

And if this is being recognized now - why does this disturb you?

how misunderstanding and misusing language can lead you to come to total misrepresentation of the objects in the real world. — Corvus

There is no misunderstanding or misuse of the word transgender (except maybe on your behalf.)

By "misrepresentation of objects" - theses objects you speak of - do you mean transgender persons?

"Transgender identity" is vastly overwhelming accepted by the medical community.

You need to transcend the linguistic prison at times, — Corvus

I have no idea what this means.

if you want to understand the world correctly. — Corvus

Oh, this gives us a hint. Funny, but I have always thought of language as a pretty good means of expressing meaning. And - "correctly" according to whom?

ou must first understand the objects, and then analyse the meaning of the words put onto them, not the other way around. — Corvus

The people who best understand transgender persons call them transgender.

We want to apply philosophical analysis, not internet dictionary here. — Corvus

I'm not sure, possibly you can clarify, but do you have a problem with the world "transgender?"

Here’s one example:

Kevin Patrick Smith left dozens of threatening voice messages for US Senator Jon Tester (Montana – Democrat) — Questioner

You misunderstood.

I quoted that to mean not that Smith was doing the inciting, but that Trump supporters had been incited by Trump.

Your view effectively resolves the problem of evil by denying that benevolence is a property of reality at all. But that is not a defense of omnibenevolent theism - it is a rejection of it. — Truth Seeker

I suppose it is, but I did say I was approaching the question from a materialist, pantheistic point-of-view.

I do not believe in the existence of "evil" as its own entity. There is no force that we can say is the source of evil. "Evil" is a man-made construct. Now, we might say that we can use "evil" as an adjective rather than a noun - that human behavior might be termed "evil" if it harms others. But this is a result of a very strong instinct to survive combined with a brain that developed with the capacity to do evil acts.

As to the question of benevolence - again - of course humans may do benevolent things. But it is not because of some external force that has entered into them, something detached from who they are, but rather humans evolved to guard and maintain the group. We are first and foremost social creatures. This necessitates the evolution of things like empathy.

agency, intentionality, and moral relevance — Truth Seeker

The only thing in existence that we know of that has these qualities is the human species. They are all products of our evolution.

not a morally accountable God. — Truth Seeker

Taking this from the pantheistic point-of-view - no, Nature is not morally accountable to us.

Once benevolence is dismissed as anthropomorphic, suffering no longer requires justification - but neither does reality deserve moral trust, worship, or praise. — Truth Seeker

I disagree. I think an inherent sense of awe and wonder at all of creation leads us to not only treat it morally, but to also respect and revere it, while at the same time valuing reason and science.

At that point, “God” becomes a poetic synonym for nature, not a being to whom moral predicates meaningfully apply. — Truth Seeker

Our morality is a product of our evolution.

the argument is not answered — Truth Seeker

Yes, I see, rather a new one was made.

The word "Trans" represents that whatever follows after it, is not real. — Corvus

transcription
transpositional
transnational
transatlantic
transportation
transplant
transfusion
transaction

And I am sure that are at least a hundred more.

But if someone in that situation makes a choice, it seems to me to be straightforwardly cruel to try to prevent them achieving their goal. Loved ones may grieve, but active prevention would not be an act of love, but of selfishness. — Ludwig V

Thank you for that.