ah: if that's what you're going for, you might want to read about this particular school of philosophy...

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Megarian-school — ProtagoranSocratist

A nice read, thanks! :)

You keep bringing up being "objective", but that's more in line with the realm of research science and mathematics. — ProtagoranSocratist

I view good philosophy as being a foundation for math and science. When you establish what the definition of good is, then you can measure it. Now its science. When you can objectively define knowledge, you can study it and apply it. Good philosophy over the years evolved into the sciences we use today. The philosophy we study are its failures. Attempts at finding the answer to a problem that came close, but ultimately did not give the solution to the problem it covered.

For example, consider this statement: "I am a liar". Let's say, i'm telling the truth, that i make a habit of lying, but then this would automatically reveal the statement as a lie as well, canceling it out because for once i've told the truth. But then let's say this isn't true, and i actually am an honest person...so then the statement I made about me being a liar is a lie, which confirms that i'm not honest, and the logic circle repeats again. — ProtagoranSocratist

Examining why its a paradox is philosophical. Just solving the paradox alone isn't. Good philosophy is about seeing a problem, setting up definitions that we can all understand and use, and demonstrating how those definitions lead to solving the problem at hand. This requires writing, imagination, and logic.

The difference for each type of writing is the intent. For example, a novelist doesn't care about presenting an argument or house of ideas, they just want to please the imagination of the reader, and keep them flipping pages till the end of the story. A poet's individual poems aren't necessarily connected in the structure of their book, but each poem is a miniature structure of their own, them wanting to say as much as possible with only a few words... — ProtagoranSocratist

Agreed 100%.

Am I correct in thinking that philosophers are generally 'sitting trans out' due to the fraught nature of the conversation in universities and other institutions? — Jeremy Murray

I can't speak for all, but I would guess this. The introduction to trans rights was a coordinated effort built off the success of the gay rights movement. Instead of debating from the ground up, it brought from the top down. If you were educated, why wouldn't you support trans rights? Its just like gay rights...right? Kathleen Stock, a philosopher in England, left the position after pressure for her views on trans gender and gender rights.

Early on, you could not even question the issue in many places on the internet. You would be banned for even saying something like, "I don't believe a trans woman is a woman." It was a secular religion and saying anything against it was blasphemy. The life of a philosopher in modern day is hard. Underpaid, untenured, and immense competition for positions as there are far more students than teaching positions. Why risk your livelihood on debating the issue?

The AI issue was a landmark for my personal interest in philosophy. Can you point to anyone doing good work here that I may not know? — Jeremy Murray

No. I do not keep up on modern philosophy. I'm much more interested in the scientists doing the work and the psychologists doing the analyzing.

That we all live a panopticon, or a "village" with its "cage of norms" as Yascha Mounk put it recently - a village without the "genuine sense of community" brought about by daily face-to-face contact. — Jeremy Murray

Yes, the online world and the real world are completely different. See how many people talk like a$$holes online? They're likely quite polite face to face. The presence of a human being brings a different dynamic than a faceless wall of text.

But as the client population changed rapidly over the next decade, the model of care seemed to solidify in place? — Jeremy Murray

The model of affirmation is profitable. Clients will come see you to be told the things they want to hear, and the promise of a magic drug that will fix their problems. Far fewer people want to pay money to be told they need to do work to fix their problems, or that their problem doesn't make them special in an attention seeking way.

(I am not trying to pick on the left - I am simply more familiar with examples in the left-wing context I have long lived in). — Jeremy Murray

The left and the right both have positive and negative qualities. Each offers different approaches to solving problems, and neither side is right all the time.

I find us disappointing, in this case, for considering this question as if it can be answered through philosophy.

I agree with those who've noted "nothing" isn't an option. So the actual question would seem to be--Why does the universe exist? — Ciceronianus

I post the answer here. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15722/the-logic-of-a-universal-origin-and-meaning/p1

Ucarr is quite familiar with it. The only logical answer is that the universe is uncaused. What that logically entails is in the writing.

I still think this is an excellent list of guidelines, and you shouldn't change this original draft as it's very well written, and doesn't appear to have any grammar mistakes that can confuse readers. — ProtagoranSocratist

Thank you, that's kind. :)

One thing I wrote in the process of writing my first book was that writing is about a lot more than the word choices: it's also about structure and psychology. You structure your ideas to get your ideas across effectively (at least this is how you look at it for a non-fiction genre like philosophy), without the confusion...and minimized misinterpretation (but you can't get rid of this entirely, as some of the best writers are misinterpreted), and the psychology is needed for trying to figure out how people will respond to your text before you hit the "send" button. — ProtagoranSocratist

In terms of casual and emotional philosophy, you're completely correct. What you're often times appealing to is the context of human emotion. Its not as important to describe the dimensions of an Oak chair, and often times the writing is an interplay between the reader's mind and the writer's provided work. Such writing is never a solo enterprise, and it will likely be a unique experience for different individuals.

While I agree that philosophy can be entertaining, emotional, and subjective, what I was referencing is objective philosophy. This philosophy is not intended to be entertaining or play on the reader's imagination. It is a logic puzzle. A carefully crafted set of definitions that build into what the author will claim is a certain conclusion.

Most of your famous philosophers follow this model more closely. Its the careful construction of definitions with a particular meaning in the context of the paper that builds to a certain conclusion. In this way, the writing is not about one's own subjective interpretation. It is a carefully crafted blueprint that if followed to a T, promises a solid house. In writing like this a reader has to be very careful not to put their own intent in words that the writer is not intending. It is essential that the terminology in such writing be understood for the reader to fully understand the philosopher's point. It is this type of philosophy that requires the vocabulary be solid and understood or else the whole enterprise may fall apart.

Sure, there are some sources you should not trust for information based on snap judgements, but the way you phrase it doesn't work as a guideline...at least not for me. For example, who can really agree on examples of "poor language"? It seems rather loaded...sometimes people understand statements spoken with bad grammar better than they understand statements made with good grammar. In colloquial speech, people tend to use poor grammar and break the teacher's rules all the time. If you break the official rules of language in a clever way, sometimes people commend the creativity. Coining terms and violating grammar rules are both a process of creating new meanings. — ProtagoranSocratist

A well stated point, and you are right that 'poor language' is well, 'poorly worded in its intent'. The example you give is what I would consider well worded in intent. Good objective philosophy will have clear and unambiguous intent with its phrasing and terminology. If someone is trying to build a house, unclear vocabulary and writing are often examples of a writer who's trying to fudge their logic to get to the conclusion they want because if they don't they'll arrive at a different destination.

Also, "proof" tends to be over-rated, and proving superiority to others doesn't have any value within itself besides the thrill of winning. — ProtagoranSocratist

I agree that using a discussion to assert superiority is an indicator of an inferior individual. :D The philosophy I'm referencing is someone who is trying to build an objective solution to problems like ethics, knowledge, or ontology. The goal is not to assert personal superiority. In fact, they don't matter to the argument at all. The argument is the point itself. An offered tool and solution for others to gain wisdom for the benefit of their own life.

Let me give you an example of my own writing. This is about what knowledge is, and which inductions are most reasonable to use in your life.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context/p1

This one is a little less fun (I'm a terrible salesperson) but fits more of the objective model I was noting where definitions and arguments must be carefully made. This is about the logic of what the universe's start had to be (Not a God argument)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15722/the-logic-of-a-universal-origin-and-meaning/p1

Read them if you want or not. But they are my approach as I've attempted to embody rather than describe.

Hello Ucarr, I'll try my best to analyze what you've written and tackle it properly.

If A⟹B, with A=Asking a question, and B=If A, then someone exists, so C, with C=There is not nothing because A. — ucarr

Lets take your first set A -> B
A= "Asking a question"
B= "Someone exists"

Yes, if a question is being 'asked', the word 'asked', a verb, necessitates that 'someone is doing the asking'

C can be simplified from "There is not nothing" into "There is(exists) something"

So if someone exists, then logically, something exists as well.

“Why not nothing?” elicits the reasoning that reveals that math, logic, and science are incomplete and also that the universe is open (it didn’t start from nothing) and cannot be closed. — ucarr

Here is where the logic no longer works. Just because something exists, does not mean that the particulars of math, logic, and science are incomplete. Nor can it be logically claimed that it did not start from nothing. That's an assumption, not a proof.

So with that, the rest of the post is unnecessary to consider.

That doesn't seem "odd" at all. It, actually, should be SOP for anyone engaging in this sort of thing. You assess an idea on the same terms it was developed by means of, not other terms. This is exactly what I was talking about on my last comment on the "irrational belief" post. Everybody came to it with predefined terms and, instead of openly considering the possibility, immediately launched into why it's not a possibility. Why? Because the only terms they could think in are those that presuppose that belief can be rational. See the circle? — Millard J Melnyk

I appreciate the words. It is often frustrating dealing with some long time members of this forum. Many try to make it a social place for their own pecking order, and are more interested in shutting down discussion for ego's sake than the joy of thinking with a new person.

et's say that everything you said is absolutely true. This is what knowledge and induction are within "your self-context". What does this understanding enable you to do that you could not do without it? — Millard J Melnyk

Excellent question. And your follow up points are sound.

Forgive me if I'm overly wordy here, but I'm not sure I can summarize it succinctly. Let us start at the base: survival. To survive at the most basic level of the world, you have to live with an awareness of the truth of the world as much as possible. If I imagine I can fly and jump off a cliff, reality meets my end. You might think that you can cut the fuzz off of that old apple and eat the rest, but the fungal roots that are too small to see might give you the gift of food poisoning later.

The constant interplay between deductive and inductive evaluations is a balance of accuracy vs effort and efficiency. If a bear is running at me in the woods, making the inductive leap of, "Its probably not going to be my friend," is the better call then pulling out a note pad, putting on your science glasses, and experimenting up close and personal to see if the bear is aggressive or friendly.

So at the basic level, its easy to see why we would want a methodology that gives us the best chance of ascertaining the reality around us. Realizing that sometimes our own distinctive knowledge, our vocabulary, outlook, and world view may limit us can allow us to re-examine our assumptions if our normal application of solving a problem is no longer working.

I think, but feel free to object, that its not much of a leap to see the value in being rational in terms of solving physical problems of the world. Physics gives us cell phones, proper throwing form for their body lets a football player optimize accuracy, and I want my mechanic to tell me the alternator is busted, not that gnomes have infested my car.

But lets move it up a bit. I'm in a comfortable society. I don't have to worry about food, water, or bears anymore. I do my job, I pay my bills, and I have a hobby of trying to prove to the world that the Earth is flat. My hobby doesn't really hurt me. It gets me scorn and side-eyes, but I still have my job, my family, and my life. I'm content. What reason do I have to be 'rational' in this particular area of my life?

Maybe I don't. Maybe I'm willing to incur all of the costs that come with holding the theory that the Earth is flat because of the alternative benefits you get from it. What can anyone say to such a person? This person has arrived at a place in their life where the accuracy, effort, and efficiency they apply to the problem is optimal for what they get out of it. I can from my viewpoint say, "They would be happier, better off, etc. realizing the rationality behind why the world is round and admitting that," but that's really MY experience isn't it? Another busy body telling the world how it should act purely because that would work for me personally.

If one could encapsulate and isolate one's rational processes to a trivial portion of their life, then who cares? Arguably its difficult for most people to to do so. Rationality becomes as habitual as irrationality and tends to spread to other areas of your life. So I think from a personal standpoint, one has a better chance of survival and pleasant life approaching the world with the best way of understanding it than not.

Now, all of this is for the 'personal-self-context'. This question becomes much more important when two personal contexts meet. While I might not be able to convince the person that believes the world is flat, that its actually roundish, if I have a method of rationality that can be objectively agreed upon, not simply subjectively, then I can have confidence that there is a correct answer in the discussion. Otherwise it all devolves into personal feelings. Which hey, animals have survived that way for years, and many of us humans do as well. :) But an objective way of being able to evaluate arguments and discussions is like having a screw driver for a screw. An objective approach to knowledge is a tool. You don't have to use the tool, and some may be satisfied just twisting it in themselves. But in many areas of life it will make it easier to 'get the job done' if you have it than not.

Alright, that's probably a good point to stop before this becomes a ramble. What do you think?

Oh, my. — T Clark

Indeed. The difference between you and I is I have the evidence in this thread to back that claim, while you have nothing but your own prejudice.

If i may butt in...

This is what i tried to explain earlier in the thread: rights themselves are vague and delusional, it's a means of saying "i am entitled to such-and-such", but they only have practical application in legalism. — ProtagoranSocratist

Feel free to always discuss. :)

I'll try to reiterate here what I'm referring to. Civil rights are generally rights established through law that give citizens certain protections in legal society. In terms of civil rights, you are correct that they only have practical application in legalism.

Human rights are considered 'natural rights'. These are rights that if we got a bunch of smart people together, would bring rational arguments to say, "We believe that all people at a minimum, should be able to act without the threat of retaliation or punishment.

These are not rights by law, they are rights by rationality. You can of course argue that X human right isn't really a right, but the point is that human rights are generally a well argued set of principles that we would want to be civil or legal rights for individuals in any government.

Here's an example. You have a country that restricts the ability of people to speak their mind's freely. People in such a government must only say what the state deems correct, both in terms of language and content. "The country of CheckSlovickiston is the greatest country in the world!" If you do not say that, you can be put in prison for 30 days for slandering your country.

Now there's no debate that this is the law of the country. But can we not think, "But should it be?" Perhaps in this instance we say, "No, that's silly, but the government can restrict this type of speech instead. They can say 'The country of CheckSlovickiston is in the top ten greatest counties of the world!'. If they say less than that they can be thrown into prison."

As people discuss, we keep finding debates. Top 20? Top 50? What if its a Tuesday? Arguing for every little individual restriction becomes extremely difficult and keeps running into the same problem. Who decides what people should say? Is that good for the people of the state? And so a person make come up with a principle, a 'right' of 'free speech'. The idea that government in practicality, or for the flourishing of its people, undertake methods of controlling people's speech. This becomes 'a human right' that exists as a principle apart from any legal implementation.

Do you have to agree that free speech is a human right? No. But the point is its a rational principle that we can discuss apart from what the actual law is, and instead about what the actual law should be.

What did you actually mean then? If it wasn’t that, I don’t understand how what you wrote has anything to do with what I wrote in my response to AmadeusD. — T Clark

Since you were continuing in the thread, I wanted to get away from internal bickering and back to the point of the OP, which is about whether trans rights are human rights.

I agree. Let’s give up on that. You can think I’m arguing in bad faith and I’ll think you’re paranoid and full of shit. — T Clark

Except I'm not paranoid or full of crap (Language please!). You responded to me with:

Is this intended as “overwhelming evidence that being trans is an aberration likely to lead to criminal behaviour?” — T Clark

Of which I never once implied in any way in this or any other thread that I've posted dealing with the subject of trans individuals. We do call out straw men here on the philosophy forums, and I clearly am in the right here to do so.

Make that paranoid, full of shit, and creepily obsessed with transgender people. — T Clark

A double post where you call me sh**? You know sh** posts aren't meant to be literal. Lets define a term here:

bigot - a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

I have asked you politely to focus on the OP which is human rights. You have not when I've requested you to. I've politely asked you to address the topic of the discussion and you've three times, perhaps one unintentionally, attempted to make this about me instead of the subject material. I have called you out on it each time, and you have attempted to correct than backpeddle back to insults of which I have not initiated your way.

You're behaving like a bigot TClark. Ignorant, unintelligent, off topic remarks with a bent towards slander towards me instead of open discussion. Look in the mirror before accusing others of what you're full of yourself.

Is this intended as “overwhelming evidence that being trans is an aberration likely to lead to criminal behaviour?” — T Clark

No. I really wish you would stop implying that I have this excessively negative view of trans people. You've apologized and corrected yourself to me at least twice in this thread, I really shouldn't have to say this any longer if I'm to keep viewing you in good faith. Read what I'm saying and not what you think I'm saying.

I'm simply noting that despite the fact this person would be viewed as a man by anyone, because he is trans gender, he and the transgender community are saying he has a human right to go into the female locker room where women strip naked. As you can tell, the woman is clearly distraught, and if you watched the whole thing, you hear that she is a lesbian who supports people's sexuality and transgender people in general. But this particular situation felt like a violation to her.

Do you think her feeling violated isn't a human right over his claimed human right to enter the female locker room? If this was your mother, wife, daughter, or sister, would you tell them that being upset about it is wrong, and that their feelings of being violated are transphobic and discriminatory?

Here you go TClark. These are a couple of video splices taken from a lesbian woman who encountered a trans gendered woman in the bathroom. Do you think he has a human right to be in the woman's locker room after seeing this? Because according to trans gender rights, they claim he does.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VNRj69YTZM

I'm aware of mainstream term definitions and categorizations, of course, but I don't approach experience (mine and others') through that filter, and I dispense with accepted definitions and categories if they don't fit what's really going on. — Millard J Melnyk

Perfectly fair as this can allow room for creative thought. But if we're going to develop it into a coherent argument, we have to eventually come to definitions that accurately describe what's going on that all can agree on.

Until a conversation I had with one of my sons a couple of years ago, I assumed belief/believing had a modicum of legitimacy and value. Since then I've had the suspicion that isn't true, so I've been digging into it. — Millard J Melnyk

Yeah, its a realization some people eventually come to. "Hey, do I really know anything?" Descartes had this epiphany when he discovered that a triangle could exist that did not have a total of 180 degrees. Draw a triangle on a sphere for example, and the degrees are more than 180. So he began to doubt himself until he could come up with something he could not doubt, "I think therefore I am". So the question of, "Do I believe this, do I know this, can any of us know anything" is essentially the tradition of epistemology, or the study of knowledge.

So, I put what everyone says, including philosophers, out of my head, observe what's really going on, find the patterns resident in actual behavior, and then I go about reconciling the differences with academic and mainstream thinking. I think this is important because, to the extant that our most respected and most predominate thinking are responsible for the FUBARs in the world that look like they're increasingly threatening our very existence, I think it behooves us to assess and fix their psycho-social and ideological causes. — Millard J Melnyk

I am a big fan of first taking a fresh approach to problems and seeing what you come up with. That lets you approach the problem from your perspective instead of placing yourself into other people's perspective first. If you wish to read a few philosopher's perspectives, google "Epistemology" and see all the crazy stuff philosophers have come up with over the years. :)

Once I realized these statements have two parts and that the actual assertion part (P/"it's raining") for all forms is the exact same assertion, I realized that "epistemically identical" is an unnecessary qualification. They're the exact same. All that differs is the 2nd part that indicates the speaker's relationship to/attitude towards their assertion.
...So, that begs the question why it's important to the speaker to prefix the assertion with an irrelevancy. — Millard J Melnyk

Fantastic. You came up with on your own what is largely considered the difference between knowledge, belief, and truth.

Truth is generally agreed to be "What is". What do I mean? "Its raining". Its either raining, or it isn't. It doesn't matter whether you or I know, believe, or disbelieve that its raining. It is! Its true no matter what we think about it.

So why are belief and knowledge important? A belief is an assertion of what you think is true, but of course it may not be true. And knowledge is an assertion of what you think is true, but of course it may not be true. The difference between belief an knowledge is that a belief does not need any rational thinking behind it, while knowledge does.

For example, I could believe that the moon is made of green cheese. Why? Well it looks like it. Its more of an emotional assertion about reality, and while it may be accurate, there's no reasoning behind it. Why do we care about reasoning? Because if something IS true, and we have all the information to ascertain that its true, then we could use reason with the information provided to come to that conclusion. So while being reasonable may lead to us knowing something, and that thing which we know is not true, its far more reasonable and likely to be a correct assertion of what is true then a mere belief. Someone might believe the moon is made of green cheese, but we know its not because we've been there and found it to be made of dirt.

The specifics of what separates a belief from knowledge are of course tricky, and pretty much what the entire study of epistemology is based on. I have written a nice summary intended for a thinker who does not need to know any history of epistemology or deep vocabulary if you want to read it. You might find it interesting. I'll link it again here. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context/p1 Read it if you want, no worry if you don't. :)

I think what philosophim is getting at is the inherently academic structure to your approach (these are the thinkers, they have directed the history of thought), while they are trying to do it entirely themselves with no restraints or references to celebrities. — ProtagoranSocratist

If you take the sides of the coin to their landed ends, yes. Jamal isn't fully stating that only academic structures should be considered, and I'm not saying you shouldn't be familiar with the subject material you're trying to write about. Depending on your personality you may wobble on one side of the coin over the other, but keep the coin spinning at all times.

I'm not arguing in favor of either of your approaches, as i agree with both of them in spirit; I appreciate the formal philosophy of the university to the extent that it gives me some reference, and i also appreciate free-wheeling creativity if it's not pissing me off or trying to sell me some lies. — ProtagoranSocratist

Exactly. I hope Jamal and I have been able to show you different approaches that can be used depending on your needs and wants in exploring philosophy. Enjoy exploring regardless!

This doesn't quite capture my view, and I think it belittles the study of the philosophical tradition. — Jamal

My apologies for not adequately capturing your view, I will leave that to you then. It was also not my intention to belittle your viewpoint. I think yours is a very conservative way of viewing philosophy, and that is valuable and valid. Mine is a more liberal view. I do not believe my view invalidates your view, nor does your view invalidate mine. I think they are both viable approaches to the field of philosophy. Fair if you disagree, its an opinion of mine.

Thank you Jamal. This is a fantastic post, and example of the types of conversations I think we all want here.

@ProtagoranSocratist I agree with most of what Jamal also posted here.

This suggests a picture of philosophy as a series of refutations leading to the culmination of the 21st century, in which we are closer to the truth than ever. Nobody who has studied the history of philosophy could seriously maintain this view. — Jamal

I will add a little addition to this. In context, I agree with Jamal. But in isolation from this context, philosophy is often historical and built off of the philosopher's prior. For example, John Locke's ideas influence George Berkely, Gottfried Liebniz, and arguably David Hume and Immanuel Kant. Many times philosophers are responding to the vocabulary and ideas of previous philosophers. Understanding this can often be useful.

But why read them at all? Why should we treat them with such respect just because people say they're "Great"? The reason is their fertility: for hundreds or thousands of years, ideas have grown from them. They have provoked reactions from the most philosphically minded people. They have been found to be endlessly interesting. — Jamal

This to me is completely reasonable for the philosophical historian. Just like a person who works out for a living is going to encourage you to exercise as much as possible, a philosophical historian is going to tell you to read as much as possible. If you have the time and passion for it, its a good reason to study them all.

Generally, Philosophim's philosophical attitude is instrumental and biased in favour of the present. I don't think these are good attitudes for philosophy. Philosophy is interpretive, and consists of dialogue, whether this is direct or in the form of written works reacting to each other. — Jamal

Jamal is completely correct in my viewpoint of philosophy. A philosophical historian is of course going to disagree with my viewpoint, and I respect that. We need philosophical historian attitudes to keep the availability of these works alive. They are the reason the field is still propped up, and why a forum like this exists.

Jamal may fail to realize my attitude is also needed for a healthy field of philosophy, as people like me are who push the field forward. Not that I'm claiming I have, but you need people focused on present day problems and issues to write the great works that will be examined years from now. I am more of a writer of philosophy, and I view reading philosophy as a means to further the ideas of today. I also understand many who come to this forum aren't interested in making philosophy their new hobby, but seeking out a few answers to some of the timeless questions that have bothered humanity over the years.

For example, I have written quite a few original works over the years, and you may find them interesting.

What are the things we can logically conclude about the universe's origins?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15722/the-logic-of-a-universal-origin-and-meaning/p1

An initial intro into what logically an objective morality must have at its core.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15203/in-any-objective-morality-existence-is-inherently-good/p1

And probably my proudest achievement, a working theory of knowledge that solves the problem of induction:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context/p1

Your OP was a good one, and as you can see there are a few ways to address and view philosophy. Regardless of which works for you, I hope you find some enjoyment and new outlooks by exploring the field.

Well, no, we're not in agreement, because I haven't said and don't agree that think can mean the same thing as believe. — Millard J Melnyk

I apologize then, I'm clearly not getting it.

Part 1: P is the assertion proper, and it is identical in "think P", "believe P", "know P", or "WHATEVER P". Epistemically identical in all cases. — Millard J Melnyk

Can you explain how these are epistemically identical in all cases? The point I was getting at earlier is that you seem to want to use one concept with words that often have different meanings in different contexts. It would be much clearer if you voiced what that specific concept was without the introduction of different words.

You also use P as a noun earlier with "Its raining". So is "Its raining" epistemically equivalent whether I believe, think, or know about it? Or is it the believe, think, or know which is epistemically equivalent?

Part 2: The "I ____" part, referring to the speaker's relationship/attitude to the assertion, which as far as the truth value of the assertion is neither here or there. — Millard J Melnyk

Ok, this is contextual to oneself. But couldn't a person have a different intention? So I'm sure one person when they say 'believe' could mean 'assert'. In another context they could mean, "Consider". And in another context they could personally believe their belief is 'knowledge'. But these are all different concepts, whether their opinion of the concept in application to P is true or not.

The choice has nothing to do with P or its validity or truth value, which is identical in every case. — Millard J Melnyk

Are you just trying to say that "What is true is true regardless of what we believe/think/know about it?"

Understand that some philosophy is historical, but has been completely invalidated by modern day understanding.
— Philosophim

I’m not sure exactly how to take this. Seems to me we’re still arguing about the same things Aristotle and Confucius did. — T Clark

Yes, many are still relevant, but some are not. Leibniz' Monads for example. Older philosophy of mind theories that have been invalidated by neuroscience.

That's an excellent approach, and i commend your clear and sectioned response. — ProtagoranSocratist

Thank you for your kind words.

Writing is not easy. I guess the hardest part with philosophy is that it's harder to be original and also communicable. — ProtagoranSocratist

Well said. I've written many original philosophical works over the years, and coming up with the correct vocabulary to describe an idea is half the battle. Language needs iterations and steps. Too little and someone will tell you, "That's not what the word means." And they're right. Too much and they won't understand the concept. Its a difficult balance.

For example, my response to the "all belief is irrational" thread was original in wording, but very similar to all the other critics who participated in terms of finding the error in the OP. — ProtagoranSocratist

True, you may see that, but do others? And that's the frustrating part. We see our own ideas clearly but they can get lost in translation. At the least it has made me more sympathetic to people who seem to miss the initial point. As long as the poster is acting in good faith, I try to assume its that I need to refine my point, not that they 'don't get it'.

I'm currently more interested in the history of philosophy at the moment than I am in writing a book or internet essay for this reason...i recently wrote an alternative position to free will, determinism, and compatibilism, but i just don't know how to polish it so that others will get where I am coming from. — ProtagoranSocratist

I fully understand. Part of reading other philosophical history is to learn 'the lingo'. Sometimes arguments are historical, and without that historical context a lot of meaning is lost in the writing. If it helps, I really work to get the main idea out of what is being stated. A lot of philosophical argument start with strong premises that are built upon. It is the building where the scaffolding often starts to show its cracks. But beware! If you enter into the lingo and terminology of another philosopher, you are often stuck there. Being able to extract the ideas from the terminology and put them into approachable terms for a modern day and generic audience allows you to build in the direction you want to go without the restriction of their narrow vocabulary and concepts.

Finally, don't be too intimidated to share. You'll spend years refining it, posting it, and it likely being ignored or having a few people ignore what you're saying to tell you things they believe. Post your heart. Ignore the one's who don't give it the proper read that it deserves and forge onwards. Hopefully you'll find one or two people who really read it and can converse with you. Don't worry if its not perfect. Post it as a conversation topic and see what others think.

That is the key point to take from recent survey aggregates: general support continues to rise - but support over specific, controversial policies is finally getting authentic responses so we're seeing divides. That's to be expected, and non-controversial and has extremely little to do with trans people, but considerations after understanding the wants and needs of trans people. — AmadeusD

Well said. One can support many part of an individuals cause without supporting everything they ask for. That does not make you an evil person. Its normal discernment of an honest individual.

"I ____ that P" is a two-part assertion. (think/believe/know in the blank, makes no real difference.) E.g., "I believe it's raining." P = "it's raining".

Part 1: P is the assertion proper, and it is identical in "think P", "believe P", and "know P". Epistemically identical in all cases. — Millard J Melnyk

Ok, I'm in agreement with you that in certain contexts, "I think" can mean the same thing as "I believe". But does it always? No. Many time "I think" can also mean "I'm considering". And considering is not a synonym of 'belief'.

If you're going to use a word that can have more than one meaning depending on context, but you're only interested in the context in which that meaning is a synonym of another word, just use that other word. Otherwise people are going to bring up the different contexts of the word you're using, and the argument will likely get into an argument over definitions instead of where you want to explore.

Part 1: P is the assertion proper, and it is identical in "think P", "believe P", and "know P". Epistemically identical in all cases. — Millard J Melnyk

Again, I think in a particular context these words could be synonyms, or have certain parts that they share. But 'know' is never the same as 'believe' unless you're using slang. Knowledge as a definition is a descriptor of whether a belief has a backing behind it that fits some reasonable standard beyond the base assertion. Another way to view it is, "If a belief can be irrational, than there is the possible contrast of a belief being rational."

Since there is no difference in P in any case, there is no reason (justified by assessing P epistemically) to choose "think" or "believe" or "know". — Millard J Melnyk

Unfortunately this just picks a very limited context and makes them all synonyms. So all you've really done is use one concept, not three. But it is the case that these words can represent different concepts in different contexts. Therefore you can's use the word as if it is a synonym in all contexts.

Actually, no -- which would be clear with a simpler example. Yours with "might be" and "visualizing in my head" and "plausibility" is unnecessarily complicated. Let's stick to "I _____ that P", it's all we need. — Millard J Melnyk

There's a difference between 'unnecessary complication" and "identifying real differences". I mean, we can call everything that's has green on it a tree right? "Fir tree", "bush" and "grass" are not unnecessary complications, they are observations of important differences in most contexts.

I said/implied nothing about thinking "on a plausibility for long enough, it becomes a belief statement". — Millard J Melnyk

So then, and please correct me again if I'm wrong, you're using belief and think as synonyms.

Yes indeed. I would go further and say that the philosophy is in that journey, not in its conclusions or theses.

Otherwise your post is mostly bad advice. — Jamal

Also OP avoid trolls that contribute nothing to the discussion but insults. A person who is open to discussion may disagree with your points, but they'll address them and provide counterpoints if they're being honest with you.

One problem is that often these old philosophers is they wrote in another language as well as time. Not only do you have to contend with the fact that no translation every fully conveys the meaning of the original work, you also don't have the context of the time and culture the author lived in.

So how to read them? I confess, I'm more of a philosopher that creates, not a fan of reading other people's works. I've done it many times and often times its an exercise in frustration. Here are a few things to help.

1. Try to nail the definitions down as soon as possible. Things like 'intuition' in Hegel's time and language are not the way most people use intuition today. Articles can help with this, but be careful. Many philosophers may start with a clear definition but quickly muddy it as they continue in their works. So always be aware of the context of what they are saying.

2. Do not over analyze one paragraph or piece. Analyze the full scope of the work. Often times a philosopher's work is a journey in itself. They may start one place and the initial reading seems like its X, but by the time you get to the end you realize they were really trying to end at Y all along.

3. Do not ever elevate the work because of the author. It does not matter that other people think this person deserves a spot light in philosophy. There are countless reasons for other people praising a work, and because we are human, it sometimes has nothing to do with the actual argument of the work itself. The argument is all that matters. Pretend its some guy on the street telling you the idea. If the argument is actually good on its merits and not merely because it hit a cultural niche at the time, you'll see how good it is yourself.

4. Understand that some philosophy is historical, but has been completely invalidated by modern day understanding. I advice you approach these as a fan or someone with historical curiosity only. Spending time on an old and outdated work is only for the biggest of fans, but is an entertainment exercise only.

5. Do not waste time on philosophical reading that has poor language, definitions, or easily disproven premises. I am amazed at the amount of people who will spend hours analyzing a piece of work that is invalidated within the first opening chapter of the discussion.

That was an enjoyable little read, but it's not responsive to the post. Sure, there are different ways of looking at the same thing. I presented mine here for the purpose of evoking feedback on it, not on yours. — Millard J Melnyk

Perfectly fair! Let me address your post then.

[1] Epistemically, belief and thought are identical. — Millard J Melnyk

This conflicts with most understandings of thoughts. A thought is an inner conscious experience. So for example if I'm thinking of a tomato, then I'm thinking of a tomato. Is that a belief? No. A belief is a claim that what we are thinking about is real beyond the thought itself. So if I thought about a tomato and said, "I believe this tomato I'm thinking about exists somewhere in the world," I'm nothing that what I'm thinking about is real beyond my thoughts. Prior to proving that it is true, it is a belief.

[2] Preexisting attachment to an idea motivates a rhetorical shift from “I think” to “I believe,” implying a degree of veracity the idea lacks. — Millard J Melnyk

I do want to clarify what an "I think" context is from an "I believe" context. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you're assuming that "I think there might be a tomato that exists in the world that I'm visualizing in my head," is different from, "I believe there is a tomato that exists in the world what I'm visualizing in my head."

If this is case, "I think" in your case isn't a statement of certainty, but a statement of consideration or exploration. You don't believe its the case, you think it could be. This is called "plausibility". There's nothing innate in your thoughts that confirms or denies that the thing you are thinking about can be found in the real world.

You are implying that if someone thinks on a plausibility for long enough, it becomes a belief statement of possibility or certainty. I would say that's not necessarily the case. Plenty of "I think"s simply stay that way. But correct me if I have the wrong base understanding of what you're trying to say here.

[3] This implication produces unwarranted confidence. — Millard J Melnyk

If one changes from "I think" to "I believe" through the repetition of one's thoughts, then that is most certainly unwarranted confidence. But you have to demonstrate that this always happens, and I'm not sure you have here.

[4] Insisting on an idea’s truth beyond the limits of its epistemic warrant is irrational. — Millard J Melnyk

Correct, and I think few would disagree with you.

Conclusion ∴ All belief is irrational. — Millard J Melnyk

Unfortunately I'm not seeing how this conclusion follows the premises. All you've noted is one type of belief, or a belief that insists on an idea's truth beyond the limits of its epistemic warrant. The point in my initial reply was to show you there are different types of beliefs. Probability, possibility, plausibility, and irrational. The first three if believed based on one's epistemic circumstances, can be rational. Only if one disregards the epistemic circumstances that allow the other three beliefs to be cogent, can one come to an irrational belief.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context/p1

If you're interested in epistemology, you should read my paper above. Let me summarize to your basic point.

First, we assume you know something. But knowing something now doesn't necessarily mean it will be known again in the future. Lets use a deck of cards as an example.

We know that there are 4 jacks in a deck of 52 cards. From here we can conclude one type of inductive conclusion, probability. There's a 1/13 chance that when I draw a card, it will be a jack. If I decide to believe that any other card besides a jack will be drawn, I've done that through reason that its a 12/13 chance that it will be any card besides a jack.

Lets go one step down. I draw lots of cards and realize I can pull a jack from this deck of 52 cards. This is my knowledge. Since I know its been done one time, I believe it is possible to pull a jack again. So I pull from a deck of cards, and believe I'm going to pull a jack. Not because of probability, but because of possibility. What is known once could possibly happen again.

Next I have a randomizer on this deck of cards. I pull one card, put it back, then it randomizes again. Because I can envision the scenario in my mind with what I know, its plausible that the deck randomizer could randomize it so that a jack will never be the first card again. Its not irrational yet, but getting there.

Finally, we have an irrational belief. I pull a jack from a deck of cards, then put it back in the deck. I now believe that the jack I just put in the deck, is no longer in the deck. There's no reason behind such a belief, and this belief contradicts all reason that would point to the jack being in the deck. This is an irrational belief.

Well, at lease since Parmenides, "nothing" certainly is a "philosophical issue", we agree on that. — 180 Proof

Ha! Clever reply 180 Proof.

Sometimes, the only appropriate place for a particular person to ask about the things that concern them is the privacy of their diary. — baker

But you are asking them. That's the point.

It's naive to think that one could talk about just anything with just anyone in just any situation. — baker

Certainly. But you don't let other stop you from asking those questions on your own. And sometimes you get answers that need to be spread to other people bravely and without cowardice.

For me intellectual loneliness is about wanting deep philosophical talks. The idea that "I'm so smart and everyone else isn't," is immature and an ego trap. I talk to people all the time about ideas that they may not be comfortable hearing. I give everyone a chance. I am surprised more than not that most people actually want that, they're just afraid to do it first because they're thinking like the ego trap above.

Imo, "trans issues" are psychosociological or anthropological much more so than "philosophical". — 180 Proof

And issues of mind are more neuroscience, but that doesn't mean philosophy doesn't have anything to contribute.

Trans has philosophy of mind, ontology, ethics, and rights to say the least. If trans gender is not a philosophical issue, nothing is.

Which leads me to ask - what questions of an urgent / topical nature today can be best addressed, or perhaps just effectively addressed, with philosophy? — Jeremy Murray

My apologies on my late reply.

Philosophy will always be needed to dive into linguistic assumptions. Good, evil, God, knowledge, etc. As for the modern day, I see a few. Granted, I could be completely wrong as assessing the important things of today is notoriously difficult, while hindsight is usually 20/20.

Trans gender issues. This was literally made for philosophers to tackle. What are male and female is science, but cultural associations with sex, aka gender, is a goldmine of philosophical discussion.

AI 'life' and mind. AI is going to challenge us to start thinking what a life and a mind are. As it continues to evolve, we're going to find AI that will be remarkably intelligent. Of course, it won't have feelings. Does that mean we treat it as a life, or do are things that cannot feel exempt from fair treatment?

Interpersonal connections in an internet world. We still have much to discuss and think about in regards to internet behavior and human evolution.

That aside, I think you're right. You're making MacIntyre's strong point that our frameworks are incommensurable. — Jamal

This right here. To quote an old meme, "You win all the internets." In general the way we talk to each other over issues has become atrocious (not you Jamal). We use terrible vocabulary, emotional appeals, and worst of all, discount each other because a position on a topic is considered 'the enemy'. The idea that, "Even talking about this will hurt someone" is one of the greatest evils to be put in the minds of people.

We have to talk to people we are disgusted by. We have to stop elevating a discussion to a moral or status stance. We need to be listening to each other as much as we talk with each other instead of at each other. We need philosophy.

Clear language, contextual analysis, and the wisdom to explore anything and everything. I remember a person one time came to this forum and advocated that murder wasn't actually immoral. Most responses were dismissive and an attempt to shut down the idea. But a person like that needs their idea explored. To say, "Lets take your premises and accept them as true, what contradictions arise?"

Philosophy challenges God, social issues, government, society, norms, and assumptions. It does not give hemlock to those who say our planet revolves around the sun, or that the sun revolves around us. It is the willingness to talk with and explore all avenues for rational truth, which often conflicts with the emotions of others and even ourselves want.

Though we will always encounter people with frameworks different from our own, I hope we keep talking with each other. Bit by bit we may learn to understand each other, and even if some things are irreconcilable, there is always some common ground to be reached. Thank you Jamal for conversing with Bob on a matter that is in my opinion, one of the most important philosophical issues of our time.

This thread is interesting because some folk here have such ratshit ideas; explaining why they are ratshit provides some amusement. Were this my forum, it would be much less entertaining. — Banno

That's what free speech is really about. "The freedom to espouse ideas that I personally think are horrid, stupid, crazy, etc." Why? Because not speaking about it doesn't make it go away. People won't stop trying to push for something, they'll just push for it quietly, underhandedly, or with deception.

Further, you don't have a chance of persuading others that you think that idea is crazy if its simply asserted as crazy through forced silence. A person may believe in a 'crazy' idea because they haven't been exposed to any of the information you know.

Finally, and I am sure there are more reasons, but forced silence breeds resentment. A person forced to silence often doesn't feel like their idea is wrong, but that people are evil and controlling because your idea is right, but they're afraid of you winning. This breeds evil. The world does so much better when people are not afraid to speak their mind and talk with one another. Understanding another's idea doesn't mean agreement.

I don’t think you’re qualified to say that. Maybe I’m wrong. — T Clark

Insurance pays for physical and mental health issues. Gender dysphoria is the mental health disorder of distress in not being the other gender. Transition is a treatment paid for by insurance. If it were not a mental health issue, medical insurance would not pay for it. Once you transition, you're a life long patient on hormones for the rest of your life.

I think one big thing gay people and transgender people have in common is that, to a large extent, their problems are associated with rejection by society at large and not with their sexual characteristics themselves. — T Clark

There are tons of groups that are rejected by society at large. That doesn't mean all of them should have all of what they want from society accepted. And it doesn't mean that its innately good or moral in everything the trans community is seeking from society. That requires carefully understanding who they are, what they want, and whether its actually an imposition and abuse of societies good graces or an actual oppressed people who are fairly demanding equal treatment.

Perhaps someday, if society moves in that direction, it might be considered a slur to use a pronoun the person does not accept. — T Clark

By fact, no. A slur is an intentional insult and demeaning term for someone. A slur for a trans sexual would be 'trannie' for example. I have never, nor will ever call a person a 'trannie' because it has nothing but an intent to demean behind it.

You cannot simply pick a word out that describes reality, not like it, then claim its a slur. Most of the population, myself included, uses pronouns as a non-naming placeholder that references a person's sex, not their gender. That is not a slur. That is a neutral descriptor. If someone has a problem noting what they are with neutral intent, that's their problem. That would be like a 6 foot 11 person saying, "When you describe me as tall to other people, I feel that's a term to keep me down" That's ridiculous. By statistical breakdown, a person of that height is tall. If they are uncomfortable with that fact, that is on them, and other people describing a neutral fact is not an intent to demean in any way.

This is rhetoric, not philosophy. — T Clark

It was quite clear from the passive aggressive implication that I have called gays 'faggots' in the past, which I have not, that you still have a bias against me in this conversation. I'm trying to get you past that part of yourself and understand that I'm a good person who's open to talking with you about this topic. No, I am not trash, transphobic, a bigot, backwards, or any other terms that dehumanize other people so we don't have to have a good conversation with them. Dehumanizing the other person is bias. If you notice, I only call out malintent towards me, then its right back to discussing. Its completely normal to have bias, but I have a belief in your ability to not be bound by it, and simply discuss an issue without attempts to disparage each other.

And that is part of philosophy too. If it were only logic and numbers it would be so easy. But its also confronting our humanity which is often messy too.

Speaking of philosophy:

We’re fighting discrimination in employment, housing, and public places, including restrooms.

I addressed that in the OP. What do you think about it?

challenging obstacles to changing the gender marker on identification documents

I've brought this up in the OP. What do you think about it?

If you think I'm wrong, please point out why. I would love to discuss that instead of rhetoric.

Sorry, Philosophim I just saw your other comment to me in the the other thread. — AmadeusD

Not a worry, I'm sure you have more going on in your life than the philosophy boards. :)

"trans right", if there were/are any, cannot be said to be synonymous. If a trans people has a right specific to them, it has nothing to do with other groups of humans by definition. — AmadeusD

I think I see what you're saying. If its a human right, its a right that's open to everyone, not explicitly a group of people. You're using a strict category separation, so I see where you're coming from I think. From my part I think the claims of the trans gender community can, or cannot overlap with human rights. Some of them do, and some of them don't.

I am just of the camp that 'rights' are non-existent without the authority which grants them (in a backward way...restrict first, then permit). — AmadeusD

I believe that would be civil or political rights. Human rights are seen as natural rights, or rights that if reasoned through by anyone, could be agreed upon as things that should be supported for any human being despite the law. There is a good argument that human rights' foundation is shaky because there is also the assumption of certain moral outcomes, and anytime one is positing morality there is going to be some debate and disagreement. So if you do not believe in human rights, the OP is probably moot for you.

I think you are basically right, but I also think that, "Trans rights are human rights," is a rhetorical way of implying that trans people are being denied human rights, and that this needs to stop. — Leontiskos

Well said by Leontiskos. My experience in the community is lots of slogans and assertions that are meant to be moral barriers to you asking deeper questions. Very much a "God is good because God told us so" situation. The point of the OP is to pull people out of the moral acceptance of this claim, actually examine what is explicitly being asked, and after analysis find whether its true these requests are actually all human rights we should accept.

Yet this immediately raises the substantive issue of precisely what human right trans people are being denied. According to the ACLU from page 1, they are being denied the "right to be themselves." I suppose that's a start, but the putative human "right to be oneself" is going to require a great deal of elucidation. It certainly isn't something that we find in historical enumerations of human rights. What does it mean? What does it involve? — Leontiskos

This is something that they don't want you to ask. That's 'transphobic', 'bigoted', etc. Lots of words thrown your way to stop you from asking or thinking about it. And it works for a lot of people. As a philosopher, things like that trigger a red flag in me that demands further exploration. I have not been in agreement with what I've found. It very much is a secular religion in many ways.

Not long ago homosexuality was considered a mental health issue. It no longer is. — T Clark

It was considered a mental disorder, not a mental health issue. Once being gay was removed from the list of mental disorders, it was no longer considered a mental issue at all. Trans gender people have a mental health issue called gender dysphoria, and this will never not be a mental issue of some kind as it is a disorder between what they are and what they want to be. It is not the same as being gay, though the trans community has used the success of the gay movement to try to get what it wants.

Certainly, I don’t see this as a matter of law, but one of culture. If transgender people can be accepted enough, then it might be perfectly reasonable that you would be expected to change how you interact or refer to them. I doubt you call gay people “fags” anymore, even though there’s no law that says you can’t. — T Clark

There is a large difference between calling someone an intentional slur and 'gay'. There is also a large difference between acknowledging that someone is gay, vs asking others to pretend, "I'm not actually gay'. Once again, the trans community pretends to mirror the gay community to get support when its issue is actually very different from the gay communities.

1. Gays wanted their sexuality acknowledged as normal.
2. Gays wanted to fit into society sexually equally.
3. Gays didn't pretend they weren't gay, nor ask people to pretend they weren't gay.

Trans gender community

1. Wants their mental health issue acknowledged as normal
2. Want exceptions in sex based treatment based on their mental health issue
3. Want to pretend that they aren't members of one sex trying to present as the other, and demand as a right that others do so as well.

The trans community rode on the gay sympathy and tried to present them as equally oppressed and the same moral cause as gays. That's how they got all of us. I have always been a massive supporter of gay rights, and despite your bias against me that I know you're trying to keep under control, I have never once called a gay person a fag nor mistreated them in any way growing up, and I grew up prior to gay marriage equality. Something else you may want to know about me, I was a teacher for five years in inner city schools where I exclusively taught minorities. I have lived in all minority apartments. I care very much for the poor and disadvantaged and view them as my neighbors.

I thought trans was really about 'trans sexuals'. I was initially very behind the trans rights movement, but once I read the fine print and got into the community, I realized there were a lot of things that were very messed up, and this was not equivalent to gay rights AT ALL. The more I examined gay rights, the more I supported them. The more I've examined the trans gender community, they less I've supported them. Its telling when more knowledge about something drives you further from supporting them, and probably more telling coming form a person who has actively lived their life in support of minority and disadvantaged causes, not merely arm chairing from the philosophy boards. I have walked among the community, I have a personal friend who is becoming a trans sexual, and it is absolutely a mental health issue that requires care, love, but not acceptance of all of its demands and protests about what is unfair.

For me, it all comes down to choice. As I understand it, some people don’t have that choice. That’s called gender dysphoria. — T Clark

To be clear, gender dysphoria is a mental health issue. An easy comparison is depression. The goal is not for a person to transition, its to treat gender dysphoria. Treatment can be handled in multiple ways. Sometimes therapy can discover that gender dysphoria is one of many symptoms like depression, and treating depression also helps gender dysphoria. Since the 1970's until the last paper I've read in 2021, 50-80% of kids resolve their gender dysphoria without medical transition interventions by age 18, and do not transition as adults.

Gender dysphoria sometimes cannot be cured, like depression, and its needs to be managed. Some causes of gender dysphoria are social, innate, and sexual. Gender dysphoria is not the desire to be the other sex, it is the distress that one feels when not being like or treated like the other sex (they say gender, I say they are largely interchangeable) to the point that it interferes with one's ability to function normally in life. I have seen interviewed with many of these individuals, and they all say transition was an absolutely last resort that was difficult to go through, but ultimately helped them.

This is not to be confused with 'gender euphoria'. This is the joy that one gets at presenting as or being treated as the other sex. This can be as simple as leaving behind the restrictions of one's gender, being able to do things the person did not believe they could do as their sex. This can also be sexual, leading to erotic experiences that drive a person to want to do this permanently. Excessive euphoria if not managed properly can lead to dysphoria as well. Basically the high is so great that not participating in it leaves on relatively down, almost like a withdraw.

Transition is a treatment, and a treatment that one has a choice in doing. Properly diagnosed and given, it can improve a person's life substantially. Most trans sexuals who have undergone it to treat severe gender dysphoria will tell others its something not to be encouraged, and a very difficult thing to do. This contrasts with those who want to transition through gender euphoria. These are the one's who encourage transition. They desperately, often times manically, are driven by the high of doing this and are obsessed with getting to transition at any cost.

For example, I have seen an older man who recently got their legs shaved, pull their pants up to their knees and rub their smooth legs while breathing heavily while closing their eyes as if they were looking at a porno. I confess to bias here, as I found instances like these to be viscerally disgusting. The community will vehemently deny that there is any sexual undertones for some transitioners, but if you get into the community a bit and you find a lot of these individuals.

Now, despite my emotional bias against the euphorics, I still believe they have the right to transition. The problem is the criteria for gender dysphoria has been loosened so much, that a euphoric can easily get past the hurdles by saying the right thing and get what they long for. If of course this was on their own dime, I wouldn't have a rights issue against it. But they get diagnosed as gender dysphoric and get insurance to pay for it.

What I cannot agree to, is the idea that everyone around a person with the mental health condition of gender dysphoria has to change how they interact or refer to them. It is not diagnosed as a mental disorder or handicap. It would be much like a person with depression asking for legal protection from anyone mentioning a sad story at work because it triggers their depression. Its fine to request that of people, but not fine to demand it as a right.

My research suggests that the one's pushing for the pronouns usage and forced acknowledgement in public are the euphorics. Prior to the trans push therapy was very much around working with a trans sexual to come to terms with the fact that the surgery does not change their sex, and that they have to learn to deal with this. Our mental health disorders are on us to personally resolve and deal with. We may ask for help and assistence, but this is not a right we can demand of others.

Philosophim and I got involved in a fooferall about whether these constitute human rights or only civil rights. — T Clark

Not a worry, a civil rights contrast is fine and it answers questions that have come up. I just want to make sure that my points are not focused on civil rights, but human rights.

I don't agree that there are variations. There are two sexes: male (xy) and female (xx). Period. Evolution invented these two sexes about a billion years ago, and has stuck with early success. Genetic or developmental defects may occur which produce hermaphroditism, for example, but these defects are not a different sex. — BC

True. I think slang gets mixed up with the scientific definition of sex. Many in the community think that 'sex isn't binary'. They don't understand that sex is only about reproduction. It requires a male and a female to reproduce, that's why its binary. A third sex would require a male, a female, and a lemale to reproduce. That would be trinary.

To their point a bit though, some of the variations in chromosomes and bodily changes seem variant enough to be 'a variant of female' or a 'variant of male'. Does this make sex any less biological, objective, or unchangeable? No.

from HR RIGHTS CAREERS website: Transgender people identify with a gender identity that’s different from what they were assigned at birth.

This is a persistent and annoying untruth. Children are not "assigned" a sex; their sex is recognized on the basis of physical characteristics. — BC

To be fair, they didn't use the word 'sex' here. Sex is yes, observed at birth. Its an objective category that you either identify correctly or incorrectly. A 'gender identity' if going by the proper definition, is a cultural expectation that people place upon the sexes. So for example, if you are born male, society might expect you to go hunting. You as a male might be interested in writing, which that society sees as a cultural expectation for females. As such, you were born with 'a gender identity' of a female (only in wanting to write), and thus aren't able to live as you wish.

The problem with this is obvious. Gender identity is simply culturally backed prejudice and/or sexism. It has no bearing on what your personality is in relation to your sex. If you hold a gender identity, you're just holding onto another form of prejudice and/or sexism. The goal is to realize that society is going to want you to do things you don't want to do regardless of sex, and navigating through life is figuring out which of those things you should or should not du despite societal pressure. There is nothing special about gender in the least.

Was there such a thing as "cis sexual rights" prior to the trans movement claiming "trans sexual rights"? — BC

It wasn't called as such, but the battles for sex rights was done with women's suffrage. Since there is a battle for trans sexual rights, we can contrast this with the default of 'sex rights', by putting the term cis in front of it for clarity. Does society default to 'cis' for sex rights? Yes. So this is more of an academic use for clarity in more focused discussion.

A person who was born as a male or female may not claim rights that are unique to the opposite sex, in my opinion. — BC

If one has not attempted to change one's sex, 100%. Gender is irrelevant subjective prejudice. "Women should make sandwiches in the kitchen" is gender. And we worked it out decades ago that its wrong. A working theory I have is that sexist people didn't go away, they just avoided the term sexist directly by latching onto gender. Still the same crappy people we had back then.

What I think is open for conversation is trans sexual rights. If a man has had the surgery and has lived with all intentions of being female, is that a case to say that is enough to enter some cross sex spaces? To be clear, trans gender is right out. But an actual trans sexual? I could see discussing it.

The numerous subdivisions of humanity (intelligence, height, left handedness, etc.) generally do not have specific rights attached to them, do they? — BC

Sexual differences do. These are based on biological realities and not cultural ones. The trans gender attempt has always been to cross into opposite sex rights without having to alter one's body to be the opposite sex. The trans sexual alters their body to do so.

A person may believe they will be happier if they can live like a person of the opposite sex. They can make the attempt, and may succeed. — BC

Correct. I have zero objection to someone paying their own money to cosmetically change themselves to resemble the other sex. Does that mean the rest of society has to believe that you deserve the rights of that opposite sex now? I think that's a little out of scope of the topic which is targeting trans gender rights specifically.

I regret that I brought in the subject of civil versus human rights. That really confused things. Beyond that, I suspect neither of us thinks the other is arguing in good faith. — T Clark

Not a worry, and I don't think you're not arguing in good faith at this point.

And I will try to keep my responses less antagonistic in the future. — T Clark

Also not a worry, I often enjoy your posts here and view you as one of the better people to discuss with. This is an emotional subject for many, and as such its going to bring that out in people sometimes. You are quite welcome in this or any other thread.

According to AI, it is common for animals to engage in sexual behaviors with the same sex member of the group. — Athena

Hello Athena, I want to be clear that trans gender does not mean gay. Gays are not the topic of this OP.

What you do is none of my business. I have all I can do to make myself behave well. — Athena

Correct. Do you believe then that trans gender people have, as a human right, the right to make you call them their preferred pronouns? Is it a human right for a straight man who has not had any surgery to go into a woman's changing room because they claim they are a trans woman? Should someone's gender take priority of someone's sex?

Is this form of religion really groupthink? I am a staunch atheist, so I have no skin in this game, but it feels an act of faith differs from groupthink. — Jeremy Murray

A follower of a religion is not the same as a follower of faith. Very few read about religions on their own and decide to follow it independently. Most followers of a religion are brought into it by other people, and its a social place where one can belong. Many people who leave religions usually feel they don't belong. A person with intellectual doubts about a religion will likely still stay if the group benefits and sense of belonging are strong enough.

Compare this to the trans gender community. If you check out Reddit and youtube where people go to ask questions, they always try to present it in an extremely positive way that's fun and where you can belong. They even have fun mascots like a stuffed shark, colorful flags, and everyone is going to tell you how proud they are of you, how your mental health issue is perfectly normal, and that you should erase all doubts as bigotry and control. They welcome you with open arms and will be your new family.

I grew up in Christian churches, and I observed much of this first hand. I eventually left the church because I found it to be irrational, but I also had absolutely zero community ties to the church. My parents are extremely invovled in the church like choir, volunteering, and many of their friends are from there as well. For them, leaving would be extremely painful, and they have no interest in even seeing if Christianity doesn't work.

I read "Infidel" by Ayan Hirsi Ali in the summer, and she articulates this process powerfully. — Jeremy Murray

Ah, always fun to hear someone else has a similar take. :)

With the trans issue, I think we might have a better example of cognitive dissonance in action than we do in the context of religion — Jeremy Murray

I can give you a religious example if you would like. "Seek and ye shall fine" is a statement in Christianity which pushes you to question the world. But on the other hand you have pressures from the church that some answers simply require faith. This allows a priest to say, "See, the church supports open thought", but then also when it is convenient to them they say, "You just have to have faith on this one."

There is an argument made that 'wokeness' is similar, functionally, to religion. But whatever one makes of this argument, 'woke' certainly doesn't have the centuries of tradition and ritual and shared cultural experiences which may be so much more valuable to the believer than any 'rationality' of belief. — Jeremy Murray

I could see exploring that argument further.

I describe myself as a 'conscientious objector' to the culture war, echoing Richard Reeves, and increasingly think a path through the culture war is issue by issue, focusing on the most principled, informed beliefs of both sides of the debate. — Jeremy Murray

Sounds like a good approach.

Certainly, there are trans people who lost, greatly, personally, from the backlash against certain more extreme ideological stances. I see common ground between the left and right here, (despite being much happier having personally renounced both). Conceptual precision can only help this project. — Jeremy Murray

I appreciate your thoughts! You make great points.

However, i don't think there's a whole lot i can do if some folks question whether "transgendered rights" are human rights: seems pretty trivial and basic. — ProtagoranSocratist

You would be surprised. Just because someone claims a particular trans right is a human right, doesn't mean that trans right is even a right, much less a human one.

↪Philosophim You are checking to see if a social construct fits into another social construct. That is why I pointed out that human rights are social constructs. — I like sushi

Right, no harm in your words.

Anyway, maybe this is not the thread for this. No intention of derailing, so I guess it can be taken up elsewhere. — I like sushi

Yes, I think the matter of whether we should consider human rights at all is a bit off topic. The thread is more focused on rights claim matching. Appreciate your posts regardless.