Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Craig24 said:

Ok but there are allegedly conscious states about the following: God, near death experience, astral projection, reincarnation.  That's just off the top of my head.  Isn't it special pleading to make sex transitioning an exception?   You're an Objectivist for crying out loud.  Act like one.   

Settle down, first understand what I wrote before making accusations. I didn't think I needed to explain how one's sex physiologically correlates with a psychological feeling. That is, there is reason to think that the psychological feeling -might- have a causal relationship with one's sex. Also important to note is that -any- mental disorder is about the feeling primarily even without finding where in the brain the issue might be occurring. We don't say the feeling isn't there, we would try to figure out what's wrong. If transitioning is a solution, then it should be done. Of course, it takes time to figure out if it is a solution for that person. But it wouldn't be violating the law of identity. Depending on which factor is "broken", the solution might be hormones, or therapy, or dressing different, or transitioning.

Swig, that would be an example of conflating different types of age. But if you wanted to alter your biological age, the issue is if it is good for your life. If it were wrong, then it's not that the change intrinsically violates the law of identity. The law of identity would only say that A is A, not how an A can turn into a B in specific circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

Swig, that would be an example of conflating different types of age.

How so? I differentiated them. I didn't conflate them. I talked about mental (psychological) age. You said there was only chronological age (years, days). Then I pointed out the other types measured by gerontologists. Now you're agreeing to different types, including biological.

Look, I don't really embrace social gerontology which turns "age" into a social construct. I was only trying to prove a point: that social constructionists rule the day. By using a lame subjectivist argument, I flipped you with one paragraph. Yet my several objectivist-oriented, deeply considered posts haven't achieved squat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But social constructs are not imaginary things. There are tons of things that are social constructs. Culture, language, institutions, none of these things are imaginary or nonobjective. Race and gender identity are just part of those things. What you appear to think is "innately" a part of gender identity (genitals) and race (presumably color, body structure, hair type, etc.) aren't non existent, they're just not significant or essential to these psychological and social concepts as you seem to want them to be.

Wheb someone says "I identify as" a man, woman, trans, black, white, whatever, they aren't saying the identify in those ways which are biological only. That would be subject to your criticism. But rather, they are saying they identify in those ways which are not regarding biological sex, or race or whatever, those ways to which they are perfectly entitled to claim, those ways in which gender roles are conventional practices or accepted cultural values and norms.

And regarding things like acting appropriate for an objectivist... an argument from intimidation isn't becoming of an objectivist either, nor is knee jerk reactions against perceived heretical opinions. Let us avoid ignorant kneejerkism and dogmatic pronouncements on what an objectivist should act like.

Edited by 2046

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Age is measured by several factors, including chronological, biological, psychological, and social. Some gerontologists also combine the factors into a functional age. Chronological is the least important measurement, as it merely counts years and days.

You're both wrong. Age is deep fried tofu: https://www.justonecookbook.com/inari-age/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 2046 said:

But social constructs are not imaginary things.

I'd say that's exactly what they are. Though we'll probably squabble over the adjective imaginary. Here is the popular definition at Google:

IMG_20171205_112658.thumb.jpg.201bbeb9d5a8066de5ffa496e6085c57.jpg

And here is the more serious definition at Oxford:

IMG_20171205_112610.thumb.jpg.8045e1236684d691af719a221c618204.jpg

Notice the genera: an idea, notion, invention, artifice, concept, perception. And the differentia: created by or based on a society, collective, social group; but does not exist naturally and might not represent reality.

Sounds very much like a product of imagination to me.

3 hours ago, 2046 said:

Wheb someone says "I identify as" a man, woman, trans, black, white, whatever, they aren't saying the identify in those ways which are biological only. That would be subject to your criticism. But rather, they are saying they identify in those ways which are not regarding biological sex, or race or whatever, those ways to which they are perfectly entitled to claim, those ways in which gender roles are conventional practices or accepted cultural values and norms.

You'll have to give me an example. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that trans people don't identify with a biological or physiological trait, but instead with a social or cultural value. For example, let's say a biological male identifies with the cultural values of beauty and seduction traditionally associated with females. If he already identifies with those values, then why does he need to chop off his penis, get breast implants, and take hormones to change his appearance?

The point is that he doesn't identify with those values. Identification is the recognition of reality. If he identified with beauty and seduction, he wouldn't need to transition into something beautiful and seductive. He'd already be it. Trans people want to transition precisely because they are not what they imagine themselves to be. It's not about identifying who they are. It's about destroying who they are and becoming something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Look, I don't really embrace social gerontology which turns "age" into a social construct. I was only trying to prove a point: that social constructionists rule the day. By using a lame subjectivist argument, I flipped you with one paragraph. Yet my several objectivist-oriented, deeply considered posts haven't achieved squat.

i realized that you were referring to a different concept. I had assumed you meant age in the usual sense, as in how many birthdays. There are several concepts here, not several factors of one concept. When we refer to someone saying "I am a man", we would refer to multiple factors, including chromosomes, genitals, adopted norms, and so on. There isn't a concept "chromosomal sex" but if someone said that, I'd understand it to mean one factor to determine one's sex. Psychology is one part. Norms tend to be a part, but they ought to be dropped as irrelevant.

You are right as far as rejecting norms doesn't mean transitioning is appropriate. I don't think most transgender people do it for that reason - they need to be evaluated for their psychological health and also if the issue is dysphoria. On the other hand, something like breast implants in a guy isn't going to be too risky as far as I know, while genital surgery is. Like many things with appearance, it's more like seeking a personal style. The only violation would be if you did it for irrational reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/3/2017 at 5:56 PM, 2046 said:

It is the social aspect too, that of cultural practices, rituals, widely accepted values, assignments of roles, duties, prescriptions, and institutions, rights, and choices, all that have no necessary intrinsic tie to fleshy appendages.

I would just like to make a point regarding aesthetic ideals and utilitarian optimization. You are trying to say that there is no meaningful connection between one's biology and one's behavior. I would say that is a form of nihilism and relativism in the realms of aesthetics and morality which is quite contrary to the philosophy of Objectivism.

Starting from the metaphysically given, in this case one's biological sex, there are going to be certain choices which are more or less consistent with the ideal aesthetic form and with the optimal utilitarian function for the person with said metaphysically given characteristics.

Let's just keep things superficial here and think only about a few of the statistically significant biological differences in the population of males vs. females to start with.

For men:

  • Grip strength
  • Height
  • Preference for rough-and-tumble play
  • Throwing ability
  • Upper-body strength

https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201711/the-truth-about-sex-differences

Now what do these traits imply as far as the ideal aesthetic form and the optimal utilitarian function of males as opposed to females?

Because of the differences in these metaphysically given characteristics in males, it is going to aesthetically consistent for them to choose to be physically big, strong, muscular, and physically fit (and it would be aesthetically inconsistent to choose otherwise), and because they have a competitive advantage in these functions, it's going to be more useful for them to be employed in these sort of roles in the home and in the economy.

As I said, this is just a superficial example, this analysis can be applied much more deeply to the differences between men and women by nature and therefore in the differences in aesthetic ideals and utilitarian optimization which follow, and from there ultimately the differences in choice which would rationally and morally follow from an objective standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

For example, let's say a biological male identifies with the cultural values of beauty and seduction traditionally associated with females. If he already identifies with those values, then why does he need to chop off his penis, get breast implants, and take hormones to change his appearance?

Probably because he buys into the idea -- at least on some level -- that "men are this way, women are that way." And if he finds himself being "that way," and if he believes "that way" to be female, then he comes to see himself as being "really a woman," and then wishes to express this recognition of his nature visually, etc.

17 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

The point is that he doesn't identify with those values. Identification is the recognition of reality. If he identified with beauty and seduction, he wouldn't need to transition into something beautiful and seductive. He'd already be it. Trans people want to transition precisely because they are not what they imagine themselves to be. It's not about identifying who they are. It's about destroying who they are and becoming something else.

I think this is careless: "destroying who they are." Getting breast implants is not "destroying who you are," it is getting breast implants. "Who you are," in that case, is someone who gets breast implants. (The same holds for chopping off one's penis, or converting it into a "vagina," though it is more emotionally charged.)

The law of identity says that A is A, but it makes no demands on what that "A" must be. Describing a sex change as "destroying who you are" is presumptive in all the wrong ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/4/2017 at 11:09 PM, MisterSwig said:

Transitioning is the belief that you can change the sex or race with which you were born. This is not merely the idea that you can make yourself look very much like a different sex or a different race, which is certainly true. Rather, it is the full-blown delusion that the fake sex or race is the real sex or race, that the artificial one is the natural one, that the man-made thing is the metaphysical thing. 

Many transition advocates are hard subjectivists who believe that reality is determined by their thoughts, i.e., wishing makes it so. In this view, if a white man believes that he is a black woman, then in truth he is an actual black woman, despite what anyone else says. Despite even what his own eyes tell him! He could look into a mirror and see a white man, yet still validly believe that he is a black woman, because, you know, he feels like a black woman, and he has always felt that way since childhood.

Still, there is always that pesky image in the mirror. And to resolve the clear conflict between body and mind, one of those things must be altered for the sake of personal integrity. This is where the man's subjectivism motivates him to change his body to reflect his mind, rather than change his mind to reflect his body. After all, it's much easier to let a doctor work on your flesh and bones than it is to question your own belief system. And so this mixed-up white man undergoes surgeries and hormone treatments to look like a black woman.

Very well said, and unfortunately we see exactly this sort of subjectivism even among prominent "Objectivists" like Diana Hsieh,

Quote

...you can’t change the mind, but you can in fact alter the body. The question is what the heck is wrong with doing that? This is the way that people make themselves happy..."

...

it’s not something that you can actually change, it’s not something that you actually have access to. Just because something is an emotion- even if it’s psychological, even if it’s based on certain premises- doesn’t mean that you can actually change it.

http://www.philosophyinaction.com/blog/?p=14774&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+noodlefood+(NoodleFood)

This view of one's own mind as an unintelligible black hole, an unreasonable force of emotions, is actually quite sad... Ayn Rand did a lot of work to describe the connection between reason and emotions (especially in The Romantic Manifesto, as well as in Atlas Shrugged). She taught how one can understand their own mind in just this respect, but it seems to have been lost on the likes of subjectivists like Diana Hsieh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, 2046 said:

Wheb someone says "I identify as" a man, woman, trans, black, white, whatever, they aren't saying the identify in those ways which are biological only. That would be subject to your criticism. But rather, they are saying they identify in those ways which are not regarding biological sex, or race or whatever, those ways to which they are perfectly entitled to claim, those ways in which gender roles are conventional practices or accepted cultural values and norms.

Again, they could only be "perfectly entitled" to those things on the premise of nihilism and relativism in aesthetics and morality.

If instead, these norms follow from their metaphysical base, then nobody who doesn't have that biological foundation could legitimately claim any of the norms which follow from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DonAthos said:

Probably because he buys into the idea -- at least on some level -- that "men are this way, women are that way." And if he finds himself being "that way," and if he believes "that way" to be female, then he comes to see himself as being "really a woman," and then wishes to express this recognition of his nature visually, etc.

I suppose that's possible, but I think it is the most generous, positive assumption of the motive involved. Would you call it the intrinsic view of transitioning?

2 hours ago, DonAthos said:

I think this is careless: "destroying who they are." Getting breast implants is not "destroying who you are," it is getting breast implants. "Who you are," in that case, is someone who gets breast implants.

I don't mean they are literally destroying their life. But they often do destroy their sex organs and other physical characteristics. My deeper point is that this is what transitioning means for them: destroying the man, and becoming a woman, or vice versa. Bruce is dead, long live Caitlyn! It's like some kind of crucifixion and resurrection. It's less about "identification" or "confirmation", and more about self-annihilation and rebirth. They hate the person they are and want to be someone else--only the someone else is the opposite sex. And so they rationalize the transition and claim that a man can become a woman, rather than admit that they are mentally ill.

Mentally ill people rarely diagnose themselves. It's up to the mentally healthy to recognize the problem and help these people. Instead, we are allowing them to dictate laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, epistemologue said:

Now what do these traits imply as far as the ideal aesthetic form and the optimal utilitarian function of males as opposed to females?

While I agree with your basic approach, I think you're starting from non-essential traits of the male sex. Physically, a man is born with a penis. Unless you examine his internal organs and chromosomes, this external sex organ is what differentiates him from the female that is born with a vagina. The traits you talk about--namely strength, size, and aggression--are non-essential traits related to varying genetic heritage, hormone levels, and chosen or imposed personal values.

It's important to reduce our concepts to objective reality and remember how they were formed. The ideal aesthetic form of a man includes a penis and testicles, because that is what defines him. He is the seed-maker. And from that form, his function becomes the inseminator of females. His other traits are important, but they serve functions not necessarily related to being a man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

I'd say that's exactly what they are. Though we'll probably squabble over the adjective imaginary. Here is the popular definition at Google:

IMG_20171205_112658.thumb.jpg.201bbeb9d5a8066de5ffa496e6085c57.jpg

And here is the more serious definition at Oxford:

IMG_20171205_112610.thumb.jpg.8045e1236684d691af719a221c618204.jpg

Notice the genera: an idea, notion, invention, artifice, concept, perception. And the differentia: created by or based on a society, collective, social group; but does not exist naturally and might not represent reality.

Sounds very much like a product of imagination to me.

You'll have to give me an example. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that trans people don't identify with a biological or physiological trait, but instead with a social or cultural value. For example, let's say a biological male identifies with the cultural values of beauty and seduction traditionally associated with females. If he already identifies with those values, then why does he need to chop off his penis, get breast implants, and take hormones to change his appearance?

The point is that he doesn't identify with those values. Identification is the recognition of reality. If he identified with beauty and seduction, he wouldn't need to transition into something beautiful and seductive. He'd already be it. Trans people want to transition precisely because they are not what they imagine themselves to be. It's not about identifying who they are. It's about destroying who they are and becoming something else.

Social constructs are concepts just arise from two or more people acting. Concepts like "culture," is a social construct, as an example. This is entirely common sensical. Are we to believe you think "culture" is imaginary because you performed a google search and your thought process ended there? Interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, epistemologue said:

 

For men:

  • Grip strength
  • Height
  • Preference for rough-and-tumble play
  • Throwing ability
  • Upper-body strength

Now what do these traits imply as far as the ideal aesthetic form 

So things like common cultural value judgments are "imaginary," but now we apparently believe in biologically innate preferences. Interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

 

It's important to reduce our concepts to objective reality and remember how they were formed. The ideal aesthetic form of a man includes a penis and testicles, because that is what defines him. He is the seed-maker. And from that form, his function becomes the inseminator of females. His other traits are important, but they serve functions not necessarily related to being a man.

Really?? The seed maker, nice one. There's a lot of nice poetic language in there, but nothing which seems to tell me that someone born with any given genitalia must necessarily act and be a certain way.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MisterSwig said:

I suppose that's possible, but I think it is the most generous, positive assumption of the motive involved.

Perhaps you think it too generous/positive? I don't know; I'm spitballing on other peoples' motives, and probably I tend to look for or ascribe reasonable ones (or as close to it, as possible). I'm no expert on the subject (not even in a lay capacity), and I'm sure that different people make decisions for various reasons -- some better than others, as always -- but it's what seems most likely to me, speaking very generally.

Quote

Would you call it the intrinsic view of transitioning?

Ehh, you may refer to things as you'd like, and I'll do my best to keep up with your meaning. :)

Quote

I don't mean they are literally destroying their life. But they often do destroy their sex organs and other physical characteristics.

In a sense, I agree with you -- but in another, I'd again advise caution with "destroy." Some of this is bound to be the state of the science -- which is important context for real life decision making -- but to isolate the idea of transgenderism itself, can we imagine (for the sake of argument) that the science is better, such that it really is closer to a transformation of penis to vagina, or vice versa, than a "destruction" of sex organs?

Changing one's hair color is not sensibly a "destruction" of "one's true self," or anything, and neither in my opinion is breast augmentation, and so far as I know, neither is hormonal treatments resulting in a change to secondary sexual characteristics (or whatever).

So let's initially deal with this process on that level, at least for the time being, and then we can reintroduce the actual state of sex change surgery.

Quote

My deeper point is that this is what transitioning means for them: destroying the man, and becoming a woman, or vice versa.

What I've heard more is that they typically already consider themselves a woman; that it is less "destroying" and more confirming their already existing sense of identity, and then taking action to make their external/visible self conform to their self-image.

But there is something in what you say that reminds me of various transformations that people make throughout their lives, in sort of a Campbellian sense, if you will... say from youth to adolescence to maturity, and etc. People often ritualize "destroying/becoming" or "death/rebirth" in many ways, but even using that language, I don't know that it is inherently negative.

Quote

They hate the person they are and want to be someone else--only the someone else is the opposite sex. And so they rationalize the transition and claim that a man can become a woman, rather than admit that they are mentally ill.

I don't recommend self-hatred, and given self-hatred, I don't expect a sex change will make a difference. Whether this is true of some portion of those who seek a sex change, as I expect it is, I wouldn't say it's necessarily true of everyone who does. (I've only been close to one person to claim transgenderism openly -- and she does not, and never has, struck me as self-loathing at all -- though I suppose diagnoses like that might require more information and expertise than I have)

Whether "a man can become a woman," well, it does rather depend on what we mean by "man" and "woman" and, again, the state of the science.

Mental illness -- which is, again, not something I'm particularly competent to diagnose -- ought to be dealt with by mental health professionals.

Edited by DonAthos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DonAthos said:

Perhaps you think it too generous/positive?

Not necessarily. It depends on the individual transitioner that you're evaluating. I'd caution, though, against taking a trans person at their word. I don't think you have to be a professional psychologist or physician to recognize that something is terribly wrong when a man wants to cut off his penis. Whether his rationale for doing so is right or wrong, that's a question that requires serious, individual attention. I'm focused on one type of person who wants to cut off his penis, the type who says it's because he's not really a man, but a woman. And more specifically, that he's a woman because he believes or feels that he's a woman. I call this the subjectivist type. Your type, the intrinsicist (for lack of a better term), would probably say that he is a woman because he possesses the ideal values or traits of a woman, not of a man. In which case I would question why he needs to cut off his penis if being a woman has nothing to do with the sex organs. If he already possesses the values and traits of a woman, what is the purpose of amputating his manhood?

2 hours ago, DonAthos said:

In a sense, I agree with you -- but in another, I'd again advise caution with "destroy." Some of this is bound to be the state of the science -- which is important context for real life decision making -- but to isolate the idea of transgenderism itself, can we imagine (for the sake of argument) that the science is better, such that it really is closer to a transformation of penis to vagina, or vice versa, than a "destruction" of sex organs?

Okay, so the basic question here is: Is transitioning a type of transformation? Could it ever be, through medical advancements, a genuine transformation from one sex to another? This depends on the objective identification and definition of a male versus female. Are the sexes differentiated by nature or by man? Is maleness a metaphysical condition, or a man-made one? 

2 hours ago, DonAthos said:

Whether "a man can become a woman," well, it does rather depend on what we mean by "man" and "woman" and, again, the state of the science.

It also depends on whether man can artificially create that which makes him male or female. I think sex is a metaphysical condition. But let's assume it can also be man-made, in which case to say that science has successfully transformed a man into a woman, the subject should have the defining form and function of a female, essentially an artificial vagina and uterus with the abilities to receive and stimulate a penis to ejaculation, to produce eggs that can be fertilized by sperm, to nourish and develop a fetus, and to give birth to a healthy baby. I require proof of all the sexual and reproductive functions, because it's the only way to show that the artificial sex organs are equivalent to the natural ones. For natural females, it is enough that they are born with the sex organs.

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few random observations:

Identifying oneself as other than what one is, IS clearly an error.

Identifying oneself as other than what one is BECAUSE of what others tell you about the nature of identity and the limits on the possibilities and actualities of being... how you should act or feel and how these are purportedly linked to what you are and the limited categories THEY supply you... is a second hand inherited error.

Identifying, as important about WHAT oneself is, that which is unimportant, is an error.

Identifying, as important about WHAT oneself is, with what others tell you or influence you to believe is important (but which actually is not but for your being influenced by their judgments), is a second hand inherited error.

Understanding what one can change (and what one cannot) and knowing introspectively whether it would make one happy to ACT to make such changes is no error, it is crucial to all flourishing and the basis of all moral action.

 

A few short concluding observations:

Identity is objective.  Changes are possible.  Changes transform identity.

Understanding introspectively what is important to one's own happiness and acting  (consistent with survival qua man) to cause change accordingly IS moral.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 2046 said:

Really?? The seed maker, nice one. There's a lot of nice poetic language in there, but nothing which seems to tell me that someone born with any given genitalia must necessarily act and be a certain way.

A normal, healthy man must necessarily produce sperm, get erections, and ejaculate. That's his sexual function. He doesn't have to put his penis in a female. That's a choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

Not necessarily. It depends on the individual transitioner that you're evaluating.

Right. Agreed.

51 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

I'd caution, though, against taking a trans person at their word.

I'm not certain that this stance is justified (more or less than we would take anyone else at their word, at least).

51 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

I don't think you have to be a professional psychologist or physician to recognize that something is terribly wrong when a man wants to cut off his penis. Whether his rationale for doing so is right or wrong, that's a question that requires serious, individual attention.

Well, all right. If his rationale requires individual attention, then I don't think that we should make an off-the-cuff or prejudicial decision that a trans person has something terribly wrong with him or that he cannot be taken at his word. I believe those sorts of things should yet be assessed individually.

51 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

I'm focused on one type of person who wants to cut off his penis, the type who says it's because he's not really a man, but a woman. And more specifically, that he's a woman because he believes or feels that he's a woman. I call this the subjectivist type. Your type, the intrinsicist (for lack of a better term), would probably say that he is a woman because he possesses the ideal values or traits of a woman, not of a man. In which case I would question why he needs to cut off his penis if being a woman has nothing to do with the sex organs. If he already possesses the values and traits of a woman, what is the purpose of amputating his manhood?

It may be a mistake to try to answer for someone else, hypothetical or no, but suppose that the purpose is to manifest physically in a way that is consonant with one's sense of being or identity? To look in reality how one envisions one looking, ideally.

Honestly, there are a lot of things I don't understand about the choices people make in terms of appearance, personal style, and what not. Fashion, as a rule, is beyond me. I further do not understand the tie, or why one would ever wear such a thing... (except in response to threats, cajoling and peer pressure, which seems to me to be how that particular wear survives into the modern era.)

I do understand that how one appears has something to do with both personal expression, and also how one is received by the world. If I saw myself as female, fundamentally (whatever that means to me; though speaking personally, I don't expect it would mean a hell of a lot), then I guess I could understand the desire to both express myself as a female, and for the world to respond to me accordingly, as I see myself.

I don't want to say that it's as simple as fashion -- I don't think that's it (if, in fact, fashion is all that simple... which despite my ignorance of the subject, it might not be). But I suspect that there may be commonalities.

51 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

Okay, so the basic question here is: Is transitioning a type of transformation? Could it ever be, through medical advancements, a genuine transformation from one sex to another? This depends on the objective identification and definition of a male versus female. Are the sexes differentiated by nature or by man? Is maleness a metaphysical condition, or a man-made one?

Exactly.

And, not to speak for him, but I believe that these are the issues that 2046 is driving at when he refers to "social construct."

The penis, and whether one has one, is a metaphysical condition. But everything that we associate with "being a man"? That, I suspect, is a grab bag of metaphysical and man-made. And if we hold these ideas of "being a man" or "being a woman" above and beyond the simple possession of certain physical genitalia, and etc., and if one is identified in one category but considers himself to belong to the other, on the basis of these other qualities, that's the point at which I say that we can at least begin to understand the desire to "transition."

51 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

It also depends on whether man can artificially create that which makes him male or female. I think sex is a metaphysical condition. But let's assume it can also be man-made, in which case to say that science has successfully transformed a man into a woman, the subject should have the defining form and function of a female, essentially an artificial vagina and uterus with the abilities to receive and stimulate a penis to ejaculation, to produce eggs that can be fertilized by sperm, to nourish and develop a fetus, and to give birth to a healthy baby. I require proof of all the sexual and reproductive functions, because it's the only way to show that the artificial sex organs are equivalent to the natural ones. For natural females, it is enough that they are born with the sex organs.

This is largely what I'm referring to by "the state of the science."

But -- and this may be the tip of the iceberg here -- I'm not certain that the possession of all of the physical genitalia is central to our idea of "sex," or to most people who seek to transition. For instance, the ability to nourish and develop a fetus. I don't know whether that's of genuine importance to this subject (though of course it may be very important to a given individual), but my initial inclination says that it is largely immaterial.

In saying "I consider myself a woman," I don't think that most trans folks are saying that they desire to have a functioning uterus, though perhaps they would avail themselves of that, if the science made it possible; and when some people respond, "no -- you're not a woman," I don't think they're saying that they don't have a functioning uterus, or that it would matter to them if science did make that possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, DonAthos said:

...suppose that the purpose is to manifest physically in a way that is consonant with one's sense of being or identity? To look in reality how one envisions one looking, ideally.

If one's sense of identity conflicts with reality, I submit that the problem is not with reality, but with one's sense of identity. Let's not forget: identity is reality.

Your hypothetical sounds like a case of primacy of consciousness to me, and probably an example of the subjectivist trans person.

If you're trying to get at an objective view of body modification, perhaps we should start another thread. That subject would take us far away from people who reject the law of identity. I'm not anti-body modification, if done for a rational and objectively good purpose. But the modern trans movement, in my view, is not rational or good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steven Crowder has a series of Real Conversations videos where he sits down in a public space, states a controversial opinion, and invites passersby to "change his mind." He just uploaded his new topic: There are only two genders. His second guest is a "non-binary" person whose preferred pronoun is they. From watching them I realized something about the trans movement. It's literally an attempt to establish a new royal class of human being in the West, complete with its own plural pronouns as if it were British royalty. Obviously the plethora of crazy pronouns will ultimately fade away, and the transfolk will settle on they. By then it will be generally against the law to blaspheme their royal pronoun, which, of course, is merely the first step in making it illegal to blaspheme them, themselves.

 

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

If one's sense of identity conflicts with reality, I submit that the problem is not with reality, but with one's sense of identity. Let's not forget: identity is reality.

There's no conflict between one's sense of identity and reality in this case; the man who seeks a sex change operation is fully aware that he has a penis -- that's why he's undergoing the surgery. He knows that he identifies himself as female according to whatever other associations we make with male vs. female (which is where the true debate lies, imo), he knows that his biology/appearance does not reflect this identification, and so he's making changes accordingly.

That's fully working with reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DonAthos said:

He knows that he identifies himself as female according to whatever other associations we make with male vs. female (which is where the true debate lies, imo), he knows that his biology/appearance does not reflect this identification, and so he's making changes accordingly.

This sounds like the anti-conceptual mentality.

Quote

 

In the brain of an anti-conceptual person, the process of integration is largely replaced by a process of association. What his subconscious stores and automatizes is not ideas, but an indiscriminate accumulation of sundry concretes, random facts, and unidentified feelings, piled into unlabeled mental file folders...

A person of this mentality may uphold some abstract principles or profess some intellectual convictions (without remembering where or how he picked them up). But if one asks him what he means by a given idea, he will not be able to answer.

 

Your hypothetical trans person defines "female" by the associations he's made with females. And that's a problem, because associations with females are only identifications of associations with females. They are not identifications of females themselves. Associating is not conceptualizing. This is why in one moment the trans person can identify with the male sex, and in the next moment he can identify with the female "gender." He freely associates whatever he wants with maleness and femaleness and sex and "gender" (especially "gender"), and for him the anti-conceptual "definitions" change from one instance to the next. Which explains why it's like pulling teeth trying to get him to explain "gender," as Steven Crowder discovered in the video I recommended.

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×