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.

Act of suicide is an immoral thing to do, because it kills life. Even if it is one's own life. It is still killing which is the most evil act to commit.

It is also an evil act in the sense that committing suicide is not just killing one's own life, but also it destroys the world the one has lived in. The moment one kills oneself, the world one belonged to also evaporates with all the people in it and all the memories, and relations one has built in it.

Therefore all life on earth has a moral duty to carry on until the old age and inevitable natural deaths. — Corvus

A moral duty? Why?

This is spoken like someone who has never talked to someone who has chosen doctor-assisted death. How dare you judge them. I know someone who chose MAID (medical assistance in death) and they were the most moral person I ever knew.

A few weeks before his death, he told me, "I am excited about it, the way you get excited when you are going camping. You know that excited feeling you get planning a camping trip. That is how I feel."

Can you imaging a suffering so great in this life that you want to give this life up?

This is an interesting discussion. Beauty surely is subjective – “in the eye of the beholder.”

For example, for me, “truth” is always beautiful, even if it is an ugly truth. Seeing how things really are is always beautiful. As Keats said, "Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."

Anyway, this thread reminded me of something Edgar Allen Poe wrote in The Philosophy of Composition: https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/55749/pg55749-images.html

Now I designate Beauty as the province of the poem.

For Poe, beauty is the one true function of poetry, since it is the genre most able to inspire “intense and pure elevation of the soul.”

So – if it “elevates your soul” – it is beautiful. (Even if you take the idea of the “soul” as a metaphor for your deepest feelings.)

Good poetry does that for me, especially when it reveals a universal truth. Consider the poetry in The Tao Teh King https://www.gutenberg.org/files/216/216-h/216-h.htm – its beauty amplified by the fact that it was written thousands of years ago by someone whose experience of life was very different than mine – yet expresses a truth relevant today:

Or fame or life,
Which do you hold more dear?
Or life or wealth,
To which would you adhere?
Keep life and lose those other things;
Keep them and lose your life:—which brings
Sorrow and pain more near?

Thus we may see,
Who cleaves to fame
Rejects what is more great;
Who loves large stores
Gives up the richer state.

Who is content
Needs fear no shame.
Who knows to stop
Incurs no blame.
From danger free
Long live shall he.

The Equal Omniscience and Omnipotence Argument — Truth Seeker

If I may, I'd like to look at this through the lens of a materialistic, and pantheistic, point-of-view. Consider that all that exists contains all the knowledge and all the power needed to keep the universe going.

I do notice that you mention "beings" and "sentient beings" in your OP - but must omniscience and omnipotence be restricted to them?

I think it might be rightly concluded that all that exists is omniscient and omnipotent.

Now to the question of benevolence - I think this is a man-made concept, rather anthropomorphic, and not an accurate reflection of reality. Reality doesn't operate according to better or worse, but just what is. Same holds true for nature, for example with the theory of evolution - which has no end goals, but is a progression of complex chemistry to produce the best suited to live in a particular environment.

And so, in a pantheistic worldview - "God" (i.e. all of creation) would be omniscient and omnipotent, but the notions of good and evil do not enter into the equation. All is merely what it is.

you have already have made assumptions about me — MrLiminal

I never mentioned you, but I invite you to review the things you have said about me.

I am sorry you could not discuss the issues with me instead of getting defensive.

Do you think the bloodlust from either side would be as bad if leadership from both actually tried to stop it? — MrLiminal

I haven't seen any bloodlust from Democratic leadership. I have seen them calling Trump out on the many ways he is poisoning politics in the US.

I would argue largely due to the left catastrophizing Trump from a bad President to an almost supernaturally evil one. — MrLiminal

This betrays a reluctance to accept any criticism of Trump at all. Something I have noticed, is that, MAGA takes any criticism of Trump as criticism of them - as if they have melded their identifies with his.

For all the talk about how much the right hated Obama like the anti-Christ, he never came nearly as close to assassination as Trump has. — MrLiminal

There were many, many plots made against Obama, and a lot of racist hate spewed his way.

I remain unmoved. I used to be incredibly anti-Trump and still largely disagree with him, but I have seen too many examples of actual bloodlust from friends and family further left than me to believe this isn't a politically neutral problem. What's more, the right has *always* been fine with being seen as the heartless party, so it's much more jarring to see the supposedly soft-hearted and empathetic democrats sink to their level. — MrLiminal

Sorry, you have ignored the main point of my post - what is the role of leadership in all this?

Kathy Griffin started this Trump's first term with the severed head thing and it has only continued since. People openly wish for Trump's violent death in some parts of both the real world and internet — MrLiminal

The thing Griffin did was horrible. I certainly wouldn’t condone that sort of thing.

But, as I mentioned before, for every leftist extremist, there's two (or more) that belong to the right.

For example, I subscribe to the website MAGA Report that monitors MAGA online forums and reports on them. With the news that Kilmar Abrego Garcia was to be released, posters to one particular forum suggested extrajudicial violence as the solution to immigration

Here are the copied comments:

***

• We should have killed this guy months ago. It would have saved us a lot of time and hassle while taking a violent criminal off the streets.
Why is it that we can blow up foreign criminals/terrorists in international waters and abroad, but the moment they set foot on US soil, they’re entitled to an attorney, a trial, an appeals process, etc?
o It baffles me how a criminal alien, involved in human trafficking, and open gang member doesn’t get the rope.
 Why not have the cameras malfunction for a few minutes while he “hangs himself” like Jeffery Epstein did?
 Criminal aliens charged with felonies should be under military court jurisdiction and justice.
 You might run into some issues with that due to ex parte Milligan.
Which is why I’d prefer to deny them a trial outright
 Just a hundred years ago, regular people like you and me would have already hanged him from a tree...
 60 years ago.
20 years ago no judge would dare do this.
We’ve been conquered. There hypothetically and unfortunately needs to be a civil war to end this.
 Revolution, not civil war.
There’s a huge difference

***

What is the source of this hate?

Indeed, much of the research suggests that compared to left-wing extremists, right-wing extremists may be more likely to engage in politically motivated violence.

And -

“Since 1990, far-right extremists have committed far more ideologically motivated homicides than far-left or radical Islamist extremists, including 227 events that took more than 520 lives…”

“In this same period, far-left extremists committed 42 ideologically motivated attacks that took 78 lives.”

The Trump DOJ quietly removed the results of this study from its webpage in September. Why? What false narrative is it trying to advance?

When Trump tells the base that all Somalians are “garbage” – and even specifically calls Rep. Ilhan Omar the same epithet - when he constantly dehumanizes and hammers home that any political opposition are “enemies that must be destroyed” – he is radicalizing a good portion of his base.

My point is this – Leadership must be held accountable. They set the tone.

The assassination attempts on Trump were sickening, and they were soundly denounced by Democrat leadership.

But Trump says things like this: “We pledge to you that we will root out the Communists, Marxists, fascists, and the radical-left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country, that lie and steal and cheat on elections … The threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous, and grave that the threat from within. Our threat is from within.”

Death threats to lawmakers have doubled during the Trump years.

Here’s one example:

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

“You stand toe to toe with me, I rip your head off. You die.”

FBI agents issued Smith a warning, but he didn’t stop, and ramped up his messages, alluding to guns.
His accusations were vague – “you’re pedophiles and you’re criminals”

When they arrested Smith, they confiscated four shotguns, five rifles, eight pistols, a homemade silencer and nearly 1,200 rounds of ammunition. Smith pleaded guilty to threatening to injure and murder a US Senator and was sentenced to two-and-a-half years in prison.

So these questions remain –

What incited Smith and made him so angry? Who creates the political environment? What role does leadership play? Can leadership be held accountable for incitement? What limits should be put on political rhetoric? Are politicians role models?

The rest of this is pretty much just you throwing things at a wall while not listening. — AmadeusD

Our conversation will go a lot more smoothly if you refrain from making unfair and inaccurate accusations against me.

You seem to think incitement is something other than what it is, for instance. — AmadeusD

Well, then, let's have an examination of incitement. I guess we could begin with "what is the power of words?"

I like oranges, but the colour is odd. — AmadeusD

Well, I guess the word "but" has other uses, but in your case it went like this:

I don't defend Trump, but here are the reasons I defend him

This is clearly unhinged political emotionalism. Given the other clearly bad-faith responses — AmadeusD

Truth is important to us philosophers. I am confused, though, why the truth should be called "unhinged" and "emotional" and in "bad-faith" - Here's the truth -

There has been an onslaught of death threats against Mark Kelly because Trump posted that Kelly should be put on trial for “seditious behavior.” “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” he wrote on Truth Social.

Did Trump put a target on Biden when he posted an image of Biden kidnapped and hogtied in the back of a pick-up truck, on his social media?

Or how about when he doxed Letitia James? – he shared a link with her home address, accusing her of a “miscarriage of justice” - raging against her, including calling her a “lunatic” who had “defrauded the public with this trial.” Yes, she received death threats.

Trump also incited death threats against Mark Milley - Trump (posting on social media) accused him of committing “an act so egregious that, in times gone by, the punishment would have been DEATH.”

And on January 6, Trump knew that windows at the Capitol were being kicked in, that the riot was underway, and that rioters were chanting, “Hang Mike Pence.” So, he tweets the green light to his supporters: “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done.”

The violence – especially directed at police - at the Capitol escalated quickly after that tweet. (Some White House officials describe that tweet as their breaking point that prompted them to resign).

I recently read an article that said the reason so many Republican lawmakers toe the Trump line is because they fear the death threats that come from going against Trump.

So please do not dismiss Trump’s rhetoric as harmless bluster.

Something work examining. There are great philosophical lessons in politics.

This is why the rest of my comment mattters:

I don't defend most of the utterances we could at least reliably ascribe to Trump — AmadeusD

That wasn't the rest of your comment. Indeed, you followed that with a "but" - and this being a philosophical forum - we perhaps should turn to the philosophical use of "but" - which is used to show that the second clause is in opposition to the first

You do not need to show something to be false in every case for it to be epistemically true. — I like sushi

Are you talking about subjective knowledge and subjective truth?

I would call this muddled, semi-untrue media talking points. — AmadeusD

They were Trump's words

clearly tongue-in-cheek — AmadeusD

No, they weren't. But what is interesting is your compulsion to defend such language.

be such a buffoon. — AmadeusD

If only that was all he were.

Herehttps://www.instagram.com/reel/DOteAHtCI56/?igsh=dmhremExczJ2cjdl is something you may find interesting. — AmadeusD

Using that video as your source is the equivalent of saying, "If you don't believe me, just ask me."

Trump has put a lot of targets on a lot of backs. The latest ones are the six courageous lawmakers who reminded military that they should not follow illegal orders. Trump is totally and completely intolerant of anyone who does not kiss his ring.

You say 'hes been complaining about'. I don't quite know what you're talking about yet, — AmadeusD

They may mean when Trump calls immigrants "garbage" and "vermin" and says they are "poisoning the blood of the country" and the "country is being ravaged by migrant crime" and that foreign countries are "emptying out their prisons and mental institutions" and sending all their worst people to the US. And oh yes, "They're eating the cats, they're eating the dogs."

Would you call this ideologically evil?

To describe. To give context to a description of someone's behavior, physiology, ability, or appearance. Where do these fall within the human spectrum?

To diagnose. Sometimes abnormality indicates a problem that requires correction.

To reward or praise. Where spectrums are value-laden, norms can be exceeded as well as fail to be met. — hypericin

This just sounds like judging people, and this can be fraught with potential for abuse.

It slots all humans into a hierarchy (which is then equated to worthiness) and as we all know this has not gone well in the past. We can talk about majorities, and minorities, but minorities are as normal - and natural - as the majority.

I can't think of a reason to exclude an individual from humanity.

Difference is normal.

Why does it break down? Sure they display variation, but this variation is still within pretty tight bands. Human variation is far from pure chaos. There are innumerable patterns that may be used to define normality. — hypericin

What criteria do you use to decide if they are normal or not? We're made up of a lot of different parts and behaviors.

"Normal" is a limiting term - and since we are all humans, we should all be included as full humans?

What is the purpose of being able to call someone "abnormal?" What is the application of that?

What of it? You may think this shouldn't happen; but it does. Maybe we shouldn't use the word with humans at all; but we do. — hypericin

It may lead to suppression or oppression.

There is decidedly more events of left wing violence. — AmadeusD

This just does not line up with the facts. Could you please provide a source for this?

The right simply doesn't kill people for their opiinons. The left will. — AmadeusD

What a wholly unfounded statement.

For every crazy on the left, I can find for you two crazies on the right. Here's one specific example - death threats against election workers and candidates in the 2024 election spiked to over 2,000. Fed by Trump's lies and hate, many MAGA lashed out against those Trump said were the enemy.

According to Gary M. Restaino, the U.S. attorney in Arizona, “There’s a common denominator in many of these cases: election denialists announcing an intent to violently punish those who they believe have wronged them.

He’d announced that a judge had sentenced an Ohio man, Joshua Russell, 46, to 30 months in prison for sending death threats to Katie Hobbs, then Arizona’s secretary of state, between August and November 2022.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/13/us/politics/election-workers-threats.html

Not only Kirk, but two attempts on the President's life. — AmadeusD

I think it's been made apparent that in all three cases an unstable person for personal reasons did what they did. In no way is it representative of what you term "the left" and "the right" -

-- which, lumps a whole lot of different people together. It is viewing the world through an "us vs them" lens and that leaves no room for critical thinking.

I'd like to add - it is important to distinguish "regular people" from political leadership. Leadership sets the tone, and Trump has solidly embraced violence, just like he gave the green light to the J6 rioters.

It's leadership that especially has to be held accountable.

To meet expectation is to be normal . — hypericin

This definition requires a judge of what is to be "expected." Who will judge what is to be expected? Who will decide if that fits the definition of "normal?"

In one particular individual's life, we may refer to what is normal - what is routine - in their life.

When we try to apply the concept of "normality" to all human beings - who demonstrate a great deal of variation - the concept kind of breaks down.

We may say it is normal to breathe, it is normal for a heart to beat, it is normal to like chocolate chip cookies, it is normal to love your mother, but when we try to extend the concept of "normalcy" to all characteristics of all humans, it cannot work without marginalizing people who don't fit the parameters of what others "expect."

Also, to me, natural means it happens or is made up according to the laws of the physical universe - a materialistic point of view, I suppose.

Was there widespread support for the murderer of the Hortman's from the right? — Leontiskos

They just mostly ignored it.

Heck we even had a TPF mod implicitly supporting the murder of Charlie Kirk. — Leontiskos

I don't believe this. I've seen a lot of people, though, try to remind others of what Charlie Kirk actually stood for, without justifying the violence, in the wake of the Administration making a martyr out of him for political reasons.

I wouldn't accept the ADL as a reliable source. — Leontiskos

Why not?

And if so, please provide a source that rebuts it.

What are you criteria for intolerance? — Leontiskos

I am intolerant of anyone interfering with another's right to "life, liberty, and happiness."

I am just thinking about the general quantity of lawsuits emerging from each side. — Leontiskos

Well, currently there is a right-wing president in the White House and he is the most litigious president in history.

I was referring to the example of the murder of Charlie Kirk. Another recent case was the murder of Brian Thompson. — Leontiskos

if you look at the whole picture, we should also include Melissa and Mark Hortman.

And statistics actually show the majority of politically-motivated murders have been committed by right-wing extremists. (Murder and Extremism)

Also, according to the Anti-Defamation League:

Extremist-related killings in recent years have primarily been committed by far-right extremists. Mass shootings caused a substantial portion of those deaths.

The reason the left sees themselves as more tolerant or accepting is because they are very careful about what things are under consideration when those words are used. Something as simple as litigiousness would bear out the fact that the left is less tolerant. — Leontiskos

Could it not be that the left is indeed more tolerant of difference?

Also - in what context are you using "litigiousness"?

I would say that the right is more tolerant and the left is more empathetic. — Leontiskos

I assume you are referring to the American "left" and right"?

The left is also more disagreeable (e.g. murdering people for speech with which they disagree) — Leontiskos

Can you provide examples of this? It seems an unfounded statement.

The reason the left sees themselves as more tolerant or accepting is because they are very careful about what things are under consideration when those words are used. Something as simple as litigiousness would bear out the fact that the left is less tolerant. — Leontiskos

This does beg a discussion of the parameters of tolerance. Are all things equally worthy of tolerance? Is tolerance always a virtue? Is intolerance always a vice?

Should we be tolerant of hate?

P1. Those who say that trans women are women say that because of this trans women ought be allowed to compete in women's sports
P2. Only biological women ought be allowed to compete in women's sports
C1. Therefore, those who say that trans women are women are saying that trans women are biological women — Michael

if I may, I'd like to comment on this. I am guessing that "P" stands for proposition, and "C" conclusion"?

Well, it seems P1 includes a conclusion?

I don't agree that people who say trans women are women do so because they ought to be allowed in women's sports. I am not sure that anyone has the reasoning listed?

Female brains think like females. Male brains think like males. A bloke with a female brain will think he’s female. It’s predetermined. — Malcolm Parry

I'm not sure I would use the word "pre-determined" when talking about brain development. But, it may be said that brain development is influenced by genes and the hormonal environment (which may vary from mother to mother) in the uterus, if that is what you mean. To suggest development is "pre-determined" is to say that once the sperm fertilizes the egg, exactly how the brain develops is determined, and I don't think that is the case.

By birth, however, the brain has differentiated to either a male or female brain, in most cases.

Well the brain structure seems to determine how someone perceives themselves. — Malcolm Parry

Yes, definitely. Our brains maintain a "mental construct" of ourselves. Research even shows that thoughts about oneself are processed differently than other thoughts - they are given priority. It's called a self-reference effect, "in which information re­­­­­­lated to oneself is privileged and more salient in our thoughts."

Landmark research first published in 2021 revealed how one particular brain region helps "to knit together memories of the present and future self," and:

When people sustain an injury to this area, it leads to an impaired sense of identity. The region—called the ventral medial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC)—may produce a fundamental model of oneself and place it in mental time. When the region does so, this study suggests, it may be the source of our sense of self.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-our-brain-preserves-our-sense-of-self/

Sure, why not. I do not see why God could not work by natural means, in addition to supernatural means, to help us know what He is thinking. — NotAristotle

Good answer! It is certainly possible.

all human understanding is coming-to-understand the mind of God — NotAristotle

This is interesting, the way you have framed it. Of course, humans first had to evolve the ability to know, or make inferences, about minds other than theirs, and this mental capacity evolved long before religion. It is termed "theory of mind." Each one of us is able to recognize that others have thoughts that differ from ours, and form a theory about what is in the minds of others. There is evidence that this capacity began to evolve millions of years ago. Indeed, successful social interactions are not possible without this ability.

In The Belief Instinct: The Psychology of Souls, Destiny, and the Meaning of Life, author Jesse Bering shares the hypothesis that religion developed as a by-product of theory of mind. That, once humans were able to make inferences about what is in the minds of others, they extended this ability to supernatural beings, and thus make theories about what is in the mind of God.

you were here to argue. — Philosophim

Your instant dismissal — Philosophim

These two accusations contradict one another. Which one was it?

It was littered with unclear points and seeming contradictions — Philosophim

No, it wasn't.

Anyway, please share with me now and I will try to make it more understandable.

I wouldn't debate too hard with Questioner. I get the feeling English is a second language — Philosophim

That's funny, when it was you two who were confused by a simple post.

I'm born-and-raised in Canada.

and they're unwilling to clarify their posts if you ask. — Philosophim

I asked you if you had any questions and you didn't reply.

You have a very pre determined way of looking at the self. What do you deem to be your identity and where did it come from? — Malcolm Parry

I'm not sure I understand the meaning of the word "pre-determined" in this context. Your identity is produced by all the thought processes of the brain - producing the "self" - it all adds up to not only how you define yourself as a person, but all our experiences. Consciousness is a product of the brain.

Sitting in a room alone you still are a product of every interaction you have had with others and the world and the history of thought. You aren’t an empty vessel that has a woman’s or a man’s brain. — Malcolm Parry

Again - I am unsure about the introduction of the term "empty vessel" into this discussion. if you have a brain, you are not an empty vessel. Yes, interactions affect us, but not in and of themselves - only in the way that the brain processes them.

Loved your reply to Outlander. — Banno

Thank you! that means a lot

No. That is clearly false. It is obvious in 99.99% of cases with a mere glance whether someone is a man or woman. How they think is irrelevant in modern society. — Malcolm Parry

(I'm trying to avoid making that old joke about men doing most of their thinking with the smaller of their heads, but, anyway...)

If you are alone in a room, away from society, are you still you? Does a man live in his head, or in his testicles? The brain is the seat of our identity, and our self-image.

what if the first fish that crawled out from the water never made it to land to evolve because some fish doctors and all of fish society said "oh you're a transfish, sorry. We're going to bully you and treat you different until you take mind-altering medication and surgically alter yourself until we accept you (we won't even then, but whatever, It'll be fun to watch). That's basically, at least you haven't proven otherwise, what's happening in 2025. — Outlander

Wow. This philosophy is strange, to say the least.

Transgender people are not evolving fish.

Medical practitioners do not go to the transgender persons, the transgender persons go to them.

Medical practitioners are not the ones bullying or mistreating them, that would be a community that withholds support.

Crabs in a bucket mentality of low IQ people. — Outlander

You think transgender persons seek treatment, and others support them, to take you down? Because they are low IQ?

We refuse to let one another succeed, so we drag not only ourselves but all of humanity down in the process of our insipid and backwards worship of our frail egos. I said it before, I'll say it again: that's why man must be ruled by a superior force. Call that "governed" if it satiates your ego. — Outlander

When a transgender person seeks treatment, I really don’t think this is what is about. It is not about you, but them. I think when we take care of all our marginalized groups, that rather lifts society up.

I don't see how you can say the above sentence and then reject the idea of ultrasound imagery immediately after. — Outlander

Never entered my mind. The meaning of what I wrote is simply this: transgender persons are born that way. I never said anything about detection. That would be absurd.

You're one of "those" people aren't you. Yes, that's quite alright. We all have to make a living somehow. Truth is old-fashioned when it comes to a paycheck. Guess that means this place is getting popular. Good. That's good. — Outlander

I don't know what you're talking about, but it sounds like you're being condescending again. I'm just an old retired pensioner living in Canada. Is it not within your frame of reference to think my motivation is merely empathy for a much-maligned and misunderstood group?

But if there is a way to make money by posting on this forum, please share it with the group!

What, that you might be incorrect? — Outlander

No, when you insinuated that my ideas were not my own.

What in Heaven's name could be so condescending about a simple desire to verify the truth? — Outlander

That's not what I commented on and you know it.

That's hard to answer since you cannot seem to offer a solid fixed definition of what a "transgender" person is. — Outlander

They know who they are and they will let you know. You don't need me for that.

I read a wonderful memoir once about a transgender person who had undergone transition and in the most poetic terms they describe the euphoria they felt once they were in the "right" body.

Let me put it this way:

To all cisgender men: suppose you are exactly who you are, all the same perceptions, motivations, interpretations, inclinations, thought processes, emotions, etc, but you had a vagina. How would that affect your psychology?

To all cisgender women: suppose you are exactly who you are, all the same perceptions, motivations, interpretations, inclinations, thought processes, emotions, etc, but you had a penis. How would that affect your psychology?

And it's all for money. — Outlander

Do you believe heart surgeons should get paid?

Could you pick out a male vs. female brain NOT using post-birth indication/life experience — Outlander

yes, it can be done with fMRI - scans of brain activity

https://www.nibib.nih.gov/news-events/newsroom/new-artificial-intelligence-model-identifies-brain-organization-patterns-women-and-men

a "transgender" person can be definitively identified by sonogram early on before birth. — Outlander

I made no such claim.

what institution or group is propagating such "information" to you. — Outlander

I don't appreciate the condescension.

Perhaps the human brain is simply developing, human evolution is occurring (why would it not, after all?), and the male brain is becoming more refined (about time by God) and is slowly becoming more intelligent, able to recognize and associate more strongly with emotions and empathy (what it means to be human and not an animal), something previously gifted only to the "female brain". This enhanced ability, something the male mind lacks, is erroneously being referred to as "femininity" or "transgender" in a purposeful and widely-orchestrated attempt by the less than evolved (the majority) to retain their dominance at the cost of human evolution by ensuring the superior mind is kept down even before birth. — Outlander

have you ever talked to a transgender person in your life?

Its is utterly absurd and childish to claim one can be born in the wrong body — AmadeusD

Oh, dear, then all the following medical associations are absurd and childish, since they have all put our statements firmly in favour of gender-affirming treatment, including clinical care -

Click on this link - MEDICAL ORGANIZATION STATEMENTS - to go a page where you can click on any in the list below to read their statement -

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
American Academy of Dermatology
American Academy of Family Physicians
American Academy of Nursing
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Academy of Physician Assistants
American College Health Association
American College of Nurse-Midwives
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
American College of Physicians
American Counseling Association
American Heart Association
American Medical Association
American Medical Student Association
American Nurses Association
American Osteopathic Association
American Psychiatric Association
American Psychological Association
American Public Health Association
American Society of Plastic Surgeons
Endocrine Society
Federation of Pediatric Organizations
GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBTQ Equality
National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women's Health
National Association of Social Workers
National Commission on Correctional Health Care
Pediatric Endocrine Society
Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine
World Medical Association
World Professional Association for Transgender Health

There is no such thing as a 'male' or 'female' brain — AmadeusD

The female brain does develop differently from the male brain. This is well established by science, and we see the differences in our own personal experiences. As I posted up-thread:

Male and female brains differ in size, matter ratios (e.g. processing vs. connections), regional volumes, connectivity patterns, circuitry organization, processing styles, neurochemistry and hormonal influence.

fMRI scans can be used to differentiate the activity of a male from a female brain

https://www.nibib.nih.gov/news-events/newsroom/new-artificial-intelligence-model-identifies-brain-organization-patterns-women-and-men

Now, there may a spectrum of "how much" but the differences in the aggregate do exist.

Seeing yourself as trans is a personal opinion of one's situation. — AmadeusD

False. This is your opinion. My position is supported by science, yours is not.

The same way phantom limb syndrome causes people's self-ID to cause them serious discomfort about something which does not exist. An extreme example, to be sure, but 'being trans' is not functionally different - nothing can be pointed out that makes someone trans or not other than their report of their feelings about themselves. — AmadeusD

Please provide a source of this information.

If you're not going to clarify a legitimate request for clarification — Philosophim

What part of this do you not understand:

but insofar as transgender persons are concerned it is more accurately referred to as their identity.

And what determines identity? The mind/brain.

So - we need to consider fetal development. During the first trimester of pregnancy, the body differentiates (testes or ovaries) under the influence of genes. And then, in a completely different process, under the influence of genes and hormones, during the 3rd trimester, the brain differentiates to a male or a female brain.

In most cases, the two processes are coincident, and a cisgender person is born. The development of their brain and their body are in the same sex.

But, sometimes, the two processes do not result in the same sex. So, a male body + female brain develops, or a female body + a male brain develops, and a transgender person is born.

I cannot for the life of me imagine "a [functioning] brain that doesn't match the body?" What would that even mean? — Outlander

I have fully explained it up-thread, and it's my guess that it's not a lack of understanding that is blocking you, but rather a lack of acceptance.

It is a false reality. Males cannot be women. — Malcolm Parry

A person's identity is not produced by their ovaries or their testes but by their brains.

All your perceptions, all your interpretations, all your emotions, all your thought processing, happens in the brain.

What you seem to be insisting on is that the brain must match the body. If you have any kind of evidence for this, please present your source.

If this is true, how does it follow that a male is not delusional to think that he is a woman? — Malcolm Parry

A delusion is characterized by a false reality. Here is Google's explanation of a delusion:

Delusions happen when the brain misinterprets experiences, often triggered by extreme stress, trauma, isolation, or substance use, creating strongly held false beliefs as a way to make sense of confusing or threatening feelings, involving complex interactions between genetics, brain chemistry (neurotransmitter imbalances), and environmental factors,

This is not the case with transgender persons. A male transgender person in reality has a male brain (although a female body). A female transgender person in reality has a female brain (although a male body).

The gender of their brain is not a delusion, it is a reality.

Is a male with a female brain not just a man with some feminine (based on gender) characteristics? — Malcolm Parry

No. In a previous post, I listed the ways in which male and female brains differ.

Why is there a need to be seen by others to be a woman? — Malcolm Parry

I don't think it is about "being seen" - I think it is just about "being" - being who you are.

It all seems to be based on sexist assumptions of what a woman is. — Malcolm Parry

Not at all.