That is idiotic, sorry.

Well, 'trans'gender means to go beyond gender. So. You can be whatever you want to be. You can describe yourself in any manner. That is your freedom.

and you say nothing in response to the previous page, where I mentioned you several times

It is a game of philosophy.. can't I have a philosophical sense of humor?

I know I am not alone. But the only one who makes this real and not baseless is the love of my life.

The only thing I know for sure is that I love whom I am with. Brandon.
I am in the process of trying to found knowledge on love.

18 year olds... make the same announcement. This strikes me, frankly, as a social infection.

I suspect that these claims are made under parental influence (in the case of very young children) or because it seems like a solution to "the difficult matter of one's persona -- who the hell am I?" — Bitter Crank

You are simply wrong. I have a best friend who knew he was trans since a very young age, and was afraid his parents would reject him, which is the reason he held it in for so long. I met him as 'Rachel' and he had long black hair that covered his eyes and he kept to himself at school and was extremely shy.
He is Ryan now. Everyone knows him as Ryan. All of our old friends know him as Ryan. He is Ryan. He has short hair and is so much happier and outgoing being who he is.
You are wrong.

He didn't know being trans was a thing.

Agreed!

This is perhaps the most meaningful reply I have heard on this subject.
And I agree with you

You're sad for it I understand, but they have certain legal rights and so can't (yet?) forcibly be committed to mental institutions, as common sense would dictate. — Ciceronianus the White

Idle talk at its finest

but TBH I couldn't care less whether or not you think I have a 'proper' argument when your arguments are that of a dilettante of experience.

The whole premise of psychoanalysis is Ubermensch. Jung's shadow? Hello?? No Nietzsche there? And Jung was Freud's "prince"?

but do tell me... How a creation ex nihilo is possible and prove it

I disagree with everything you said to me...

What should I do now? Is it even worth replying?

Freud and Nietzsche are absolutely entwined! As well as Jung!
If you know Nietzsche well... It is all in Freud! Totem and Taboo. The interpretation of dreams. And many more.

Why is there a need to explain and 'establish' our experience when it is already established, say NOW when I am seeing the screen of my phone, and I am translating my own meaning of words, and I am using as the most absolute reference knowable, my own experience? @SteveKlinko @BrianW@Pattern-chaser

Which is precisely why knowledge is hugely a faith.

We have Neural Activity that seems to produce the Metaphors but we have no Explanation of How we experience the Metaphors. This is the Explanatory Gap of Consciousness — SteveKlinko

Neural activity produces the metaphors... (Metaphor!)

The only thing I will say that is positive to you, because you really deserve a good thrashing... Is that I envy your French. I wish I knew French fluently so to be able to read primary source Sartre and Lacan and many others. Eventually I will learn it but until then, being bilingual or multilingual is such an advantage, though one woman I met who spoke fluent Chinese told me that all you need is to know one language completely, and you are just as well based as say, a person who only knows a little of many languages.

If we followed common sense, those people should already be in mental hospitals to be treated for their mental illness. You can't pretend to be something when you aren't, that's just lying to yourself, wait a few hundred years until we can somehow change our biological sex at will then you can start whining that people are certainly using the wrong pronoun when talking to you. — Terran Imperium

Who are you to say what someone else is. It is not as much someone saying that they are something as much as they are saying that they are not something. So, according to your abject epistemology, my homosexuality is an illusion and I am actually hererosexual, which has become obfuscated by my mental illness, which is a mental illness because it does not conform to the average everydayness of the they, you disgusting idle talker. 'Write with your blood!' (Nietzsche). You write with nothing!

Words themselves are gendered. In German tree is masculine but plant is feminine.
Gender itself is an arbitrary demarcation of knowledge, which is at base the equating of the different. METAPHOR.
The only truth is in our own identifications and personalities. Being trans is not that chaotic, like say dissociative personality disorder or PTSD (which I have) or catatonic schizophrenia or schizotypal personality disorder or bipolar disorder or BPD or the list goes on. You are hoping it is a disorder because it does not conform with the manner in which you think that you know... But it seems you have already rejected human authenticity for the authenticity of the objective of... Hmmm... God! That absolute truth that tells us what is right and wrong! And what our purpose is!
That is the delusion.

You say you want to be a doctor? Then why don't you actually help people. No psychiatrist today will tell you, if you say you are trans, that you are not transgendered!
My father is a surgeon. I know what it takes to be a doctor, and it is not this form of conceptual nihilism. With this you will never have the strength to get through medical school, much less residency and internships.

They are delusional? According to whom? You?
Rofl
Have you ever personally been involved with someone who is transgendered? Have you ever been friends with a trans person?

"You learn more about someone in an hour of play than in years of conversation."
Plato

You think your little puny knowledge can determine the facts. Oh I'd love to uncover the metaphysics of your epistemology. Oh wouldn't that be the only legitimate fact regarding your complete dismissal of humanity for what... Let me guess...

Ben Shapiro is a blithering idiot.

You are the fool.
You think the body has a mind of its own, a nonconscious one that dictates our desires and our motivations, interests and relations, and that there is a set, absolute purpose of existence, to reproduce? And so gay people are thus inauthentic and illegitimate? Oh wait? Perhaps they have a disorder?
People can define themselves to be whatever the hell they want. If it is not measurably, negatively affecting them then it cannot be said to be a disorder. There is no absolute purpose of human life. Meaning is given to life by living it, not by being some passive object to chemicals.
This form of thinking is an utter disgrace to human intelligence.

He made no sign of pain... There is a video of it.

Have you heard of the Buddhist monk who set himself on fire protesting in Vietnam?

And you also drink Bailey's from a shoe?

So you pick and choose before hand what you want to even try to understand?
And perhaps 'simplify' was not the best word to describe 'that block of text.' I had to cram it and squash it down like a block of garbage in the animated movie Monster's Inc.
What I originally wrote, which was my reference, was much neater... I guess you are wanting some Proust on a philosophy forum?
And I was being facetious. No thank you. Your brusque burlishness is Brummagem

You criticize it in terms of it being continental?

I also said at the end that I had to seriously simplify it...

But thanks anyway?

I could criticize myself according to Nietzsche's Truth and Lie in a Nonmoral Sense as well... But abstraction is the atmosphere.

Clearly you have not read Heidegger if you think that is awful and incomprehensible, much less Lacan.

Unfortunately that is not my problem.

Is there something you did not understand?

Actually, Nietzsche thought it this in the 1800s...

"What is a word? The copy of a nerve stimulus in sounds. To go on to infer from the nerve stimulus to a cause outside of us, however, is already the result of a false and unjustified application of the principle of sufficient reason (kant). If truth alone had been decisive in the genesis of language, and the standpoint of certainty in the genesis of the designations of things, how would we be entitled to say, "The stone is hard," as if hard we're something otherwise known to us and not a wholly subjective impression? We divide things according to genders: we call the tree (der Baum) masculine and the plant (die Pflanze) feminine--whag arbitrary transferences! How far-flung beyond the canon of certainty! We speak of a snake: the designation pertains only to it's slithering movement and so could as easily apply to a worm. What arbitrary demarcations, what one-sided preferences for now this, now that property of a thing! All the different languages, set along side one another, show that when it comes to words, truth--full and adequate expression--is never what matters; otherwise there wouldn't be so many languages. The "thing in itself" (which would be, precisely, pure truth without consequences) is utterly unintelligible, even for the creator of a language, and certainly nothing to strive for, for he designates only the relations of things to human beings and helps himself to the boldest metaphors. First, to transfer a nerve stimulus into an image--first metaphor! The image again copied into a sound--second metaphor! And each time a complete leap out of one sphere into an entirely new and different one. . . We think we know something about the things themselves when we speak of trees, colors, snow and flowers, yet we possess only metaphors of the things, which in no way correspond to the original essences. . . In any case, the emergence of language did not come about logically, and the very material in which and with which the man of truth--the scientist, the philosopher--later works and builds derives, if not from Cloud Cuckoo Land, then at least not from the essence of things either.

Let us contemplate in a particular the formation of concepts: every word becomes a concept, not just when it is meant to serve as a kind of reminder of the single, absolutely individualized original experience to which it owes its emergence, but when it has to fit countless more or less similar--that is, strictly speaking, never equal, hence blatantly unequal--cases. Every concept arises by means of the equating of the unequal. Just as certain as it is that no one leaf is exactly the same as any other, so, too, it is certain that the concept LEAF is formed by arbitrarily ignoring these individual differences, by forgetting what distinguishes one from the other, thus giving rise to the notion that there is in nature something other than leaves, something like "The Leaf," a kind of prototype according to which all leaves we're woven, drawn, delineated, colored, crimped, painted, but by unskilled hands, so that no specimen turned out correctly or reliably as a true copy of the prototype. We call a man honest. We ask, "Why did he act so honestly today?" Our answer is, usually, "Because of his honesty." Honesty! Which is again like saying, "Leaf is the cause of leaves." We really have no knowledge at all of an essential quality called Honesty, but we do know countless individualized, hence unequal, actions, which we equate by leaving aside the unequal and henceforth designate as honest actions; finally, from them we formulate a qualitas occulta with the name Honesty.

Overlooking the individual and the actual yields concepts, just as it yields forms, whereas nature knows neither forms nor concepts, hence no species, but only what remains for us an inaccessible and indefinable X. For even the distinction we draw between the individual and the species is anthropomorphic and does not stem from the essence of things, though neither can we say that it does not correspond to the essence of things, for that would be a dogmatic assertion and as such just as indemonstrable as it its counterpart.

What, then, is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonymies, anthropomorphisms--in short, a sum of human relations that have been poetically and rhetorically intensified, translated, and embellished, and that after long use strike people as fixed, canonical, and binding: truths are illusions of which one has forgotten that they are illusions, metaphors that have become worn-out and deprived of their sensuous force, coins that have lost their imprint and are now no longer seen as coins but as metal. . .

As a rational being he now submits his actions to the rule of abstractions: no longer does he let himself be swept away by sudden impression, by intuitions, he first generalizes all these impressions into paler, cooler concepts in order to hitch the wagon of his life and his action to them. Everything that distinguishes man from beast hinges on this capacity to dispel intuitive metaphors in a schema, hence to dissolve an image into a concept. For in the realm of those schemata something becomes possible that could never be achieved by intuitive first impressions, namely, the construction of a pyrimidal order of castes and degrees, creating a new world of laws privileges, subordination, and boundary demarcations, which now stands over against the other intuitive world of first impressions as the more fixed, more universal, more familiar, more human, hence something regatory and imperative. Whereas every metaphor of intuition is individual and without equal and so always knows how to escape all classification, the great edifice of concepts exhibits the rigid regularity of a Roman columbarium and in logic exhales the severity and coolness proper to mathematics. Whoever has felt that breath will scarcely believe that concepts, too, as bony and eight cornered as dice, and just as moveable, are but the lingering RESIDUES OF METAPHORS, and that the illusion of the artistic rendering of a nerve stimulus into images is, if not the mother, then at least the grandmother of every concept."

Friedrich Nietzsche - On Truth and Lie in a Nonmoral Sense (1873)

And then he goes on and on to destroy knowledge.

@Pattern-chaser @SteveKlinko

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/husserl/#EpoPerNoeHylTimConPheRed

"In the case of perceptual experience one cannot, of course, both fall victim to and at the same time discover a particular perceptual error; it is always possible that one is subject to an illusion or even a hallucination, so that one's perceptual experience is not veridical. If one is hallucinating, there is really no object of perception. However, phenomenologically the experience one undergoes is exactly the same as if one were successfully perceiving an external object.

Therefore, the (adequacy of a) phenomenological description of a perceptual experience should be independent of whether for the experience under investigation there is an object it represents or not. Either way, there will at least be a perceptual content (if not the same content on both sides, though). It is this content that Husserl calls the perceptual noema. Thanks to its noema, even a hallucination is an intentional act, an experience “as of” an object. Phenomenological description is concerned with those aspects of the noema that remain the same irrespective of whether the experience in question is veridical or not. Thus, our phenomenologist must not employ—he (or she) must “bracket”—his belief in the existence of the perceptual object."

Husserl had all of this way before Chalmers and everyone else. He called it the hyle.

Vive la révolution!

The problem is ethical dilemmas.

Is stealing to feed your family wrong?
Is diverting the train from killing one person tied down to the railroad track to a path that will kill another person tied down right?

Ethics is not based on copy and paste.

In other words... The aetiological state of affairs based on this abstraction necessitates this abstraction delivering us to the conclusion that this abstraction is a truthful abstraction.
What a truth you have ascertained!
...

Michael...

No one knows jack sh*t about the nature of consciousness or being. This is my position.

Initial purpose? Chemicals? Bwahahaha
You are in bad faith

Prove that the hyle's existence and authenticity is the result of a neural impulse

Faith is all you have!

What's really keeping them together, that's some other chemicals entering into play that I'm not going to go into details on but basically those chemicals aren't produced as much after they birthed a child or more, its because the body deemed its initial purpose of perpetuating the human species as done. That means divorce rates go up after having children, yes. — Terran Imperium

You fatalistic, abject muppet!

Blah blah blah blah blah.

You have way to many false premises for me even to begin.