[Morality of Trans-genderism]

And by the way: what is your standard?

Everything. Everything down to the smallest detail of DNA, hormone balance, brain structure, and every other biochemical detail that current science has yet to understand.

And by the way: NO, hormone therapy isn't even remotely close to replicating the actual body chemistry of a male in a female or vice versa.

But in any case it doesn't really matter, does it? As I said, I'm not condemning anyone who evaluates that they'd be happier with a transformation, even given current technology. It's up to each individual to decide if their psychological problem is so unsolvable as to mean that they would be happier as a mutilated half-gender. As I said, it's just unfortunate.

[Attitudes toward China]

Too optimistic about what aspect exactly?

Hmm, I will comment on your blog since our thread starter doesn't want that kind of discussion here.

[Morality of Trans-genderism]

Alright then, how did the homosexual animals "learn" their behaviours.

I'd say that likely they didn't. They are animals who - unlike man - function on instinct and not learning. But it doesn't matter if they learned it or not. Because they are animals and not humans, so what they do means absolutely zilch to knowing what it is we humans do.

The most rational reasoning seems to be they are born with it.

You mean the "most rational" explanation is the one which places man as a being of instinct despite the fact that we know that he has no such thing? Despite the fact that we know he is born tabula rasa? No, that would not seem to be the "most rational reasoning" given that it is 180 degrees from everything else we know about how human consciousness goes. (which is not itself a scientific statement - I'm just meeting you on your own terms. Because even on your own terms, you're incorrect)

Only if you truly wish having children is being gay irrational.

Listen, I'm not going to get into this with you here. If you are missing so much that you can't see how that isn't man's nature, then I don't care to go through the long and arduous process of explaining that to you. So let's just agree to disagree.

[Morality of Trans-genderism]

Yes, you're right - but to a point.

Right; as I said, some of the really nutty people are genuinely afraid, but the label is overused.

My question still stands: what distinguishes homosexuality from other far dirtier activities?

Well, if you want that question answered, I would say: in those other activities, it isn't one's member that is inserted into the feces. But it's about more than the dirtiness of the thing, obviously, since plenty of heterosexuals engage in that kind of intercourse.

I can't see what all the fuss is about.

Well, as I said, I think it's an error in their application of masculinity to the issue.

I was referring to the whole culture, not just the doctrine alone, and that modern Christian culture is strongly influenced by pagan beliefs. Why should men inherently feel their masculinity is being affronted? Why are there those feelings now that did not hold in other times and places? I am thinking that it is the pagan and other religious beliefs just being passed on in the culture and that the doctrine is explicit thought keeping the cultural part more alive.

I did not say that people are religious without knowing it. What I had in mind was the continuation of the same culture, of prejudices passed down unquestioned through the ages and given force through religious association.

Oh, well, yes I can see that. But that is not what one is usually understood to mean when using the word "religious" so naturally I misunderstood you. It usually means "following the religious doctrine of a religion," which is not something that I see most people doing on this issue. (Luckily! Those people freak me out)

But if that's not what you meant, then yes I agree it's kind of an unquestioned cultural tradition thing, where the culture says that x is an affront to masculinity. Why? Most can't say. I mean as I said there is a grain of truth in that it certainly isn't fully compatible with masculinity - and is contrary to what a masculine man thinks regarding his sexual role and domination/submission. But that being said I don't think that the gays are saying that what they do has any bearing on what normal men are or ought to be. So there's no reason for the masculine folks (such as myself) to think that this is in any way a challenge to them. But like I said, masculinity is a floating abstraction to most people, and furthermore a besieged concept in this post-feminist culture. So few people actually take the trouble to have a reasoned position on the matter.

I do think that it mostly stems from that error, which has nothing to do with religion, unmoored or not. Either they're making that error, or they simply don't understand their own masculinity in reasoned terms, so anything that makes them think about it simply makes them uncomfortable. Which, again, isn't religious in any sense.

But yes, whether people are acting out of religious motivation or not, to people running on inertia it certainly doesn't hurt that the church is saying it's a sin or whatever. But that's more of a "majority rules" thing.

[Morality of Trans-genderism]

Whether we cannot RIGHT NOW is irrelevant to the morality of the subject - especially since medical professionals are nearing a point when people CAN change their sexual identity completely.

I disagree that we are anywhere near that point, unless by "near" you mean 100+ years. But then again my standard for completeness in this regard is obviously much higher than yours.

The discussion here is: if it were possible for a person to undergo a sex change, could they change their sexual identity and still be fully happy? and is a person's "self" defined by what they are born with?

I believe I have answered that - "Now, even given this, a transgender individual may be happier living as one of those [mutilated half-genders] than as a fully functioning member of a gender that they cannot feel. So everything that applies to homosexuality applies in this case as well. It's just more unfortunate for them."

The problem with both issues is that their psychology isn't matching up with the reality of their physical makeup. In both cases, if there is no way to treat the psychology to make it comply with reality then it is not immoral to act within that psychology. It's just that with transgender people, it involves complicated and expensive surgery which still won't fully solve their problem - so it's just more tragic.

[Implications of HR6]

Thanks for the info. I think then I'll probably be buying a 2010 muscle car and try to outlast the ban (I'm assuming the manufacture of spare parts will continue to be legal).

Yes, spare parts will, unless the laws change. And 2010 won't be a cut-off date per se. It has more to do with product lifecycles, which are planned for years in advance by manufacturers and which expire when parts/labor contracts are up, even if painful laws are enacted. The Camaro, for instance, will likely run for at least 3-4 years from when production starts, and production is slated to start February 2009 (as a 2010 model), so I would expect it to run to, at the very least, 2012 (as a 2013 model). Barring unexpected developments, of course.

Bear in mind that usually these things are killed when a company has financial difficulties and must make a decision of whether to develop a new model. (I.e. most cars carry over as nearly the same from year-to-year with an entirely redesigned model coming out every 3-6 years) Like for example Chrysler's recent financial woes and the recently announced killing of the Viper.

Would you expect 2010 muscle cars to actually hold value as long as these fuel standards are in place?

It's entirely possible, although from what I've seen you should expect Mustang sticker prices to go up soon - and for the Camaro debut price to be higher also (like the Challenger already is). This will mean that used modern musclecars will also see their value hold or go up more than they would have otherwise.

[Attitudes toward China]

For instance, America's nature as a percieved capitalistic state puts it under criticism for everything. However, even in America, putting a lefty in the white house is the easiest way to make wars acceptible.

That's certainly true, and while as I said I haven't observed any specific examples of what you're surmising, I suppose I wouldn't put it past the lefties to think that way.

[Would you conserve electricity in this situation?]

Actually, the state of California has this exact problem every few summers or so. The times without electricity are called "rolling blackouts" here.

I'd take the "FU" approach, myself. Especially since they need to be sent the message that they MUST start producing more electricity and the problem CANNOT be solved with "conservation" in anything but a short-term emergency.

The idea that "conservation" can be used long-term to "solve" supply problems is rooted in viciously false economic and philosophical premises.

So I would use as much as I need and be proud of it.

[Morality of Trans-genderism]

Because at this point in time, it IS possible to both physically and mentally change your sex.

No, I think you are highly misinformed about the completeness of the medical procedures which exist currently. There exists no procedure by which a woman may become a fully functional male nor a man a fully functional female. All procedures currently in existence only change superficial appearances. Even the hormone therapies are crude at best compared to actually being a man or a woman.

I suggest reading up on the subject, if you're interested.

The fact is that one cannot, right now, become anything more than a mutilated approximation of the opposite gender. Now, even given this, a transgender individual may be happier living as one of those than as a fully functioning member of a gender that they cannot feel. So everything that applies to homosexuality applies in this case as well. It's just more unfortunate for them.

[Morality of Trans-genderism]

In his lecture, Peikoff made a statement that contradicts what she said. He does not regard it as immoral, and in fact, considers it outside of the realm of morality. I would think this classifies as "going on the record, disagreeing with Rand's statement." Conclusion X cannot both be considered immoral AND outside of the realm of morality.

You need to focus on the term, "psychologically immoral" and ask yourself what that term might mean, and how it may differ from the term "immoral." Just like Flibbert explicitly did in his videos.

How are homosexuals qua homosexuals defying the "reality of their physical sexual identity"? From the link that you posted from Flibbertigibbet, I gathered that Flibber considered the sexual self to be an amalgamation of one's biological makeup in addition to the development of one's consciousness.

Well, if you agree that it is an amalgamation of one's biological makeup in addition to the development of one's consciousness, then we have two questions. That of biological nature, and that of how the consciousness develops. Now you asked me how homosexuals deny the reality of their sexual identity. I think that in the case of the biological aspect, it is quite clear and uncontroversial. So I'm going to assume you're asking about the latter aspect - that of the development of consciousness.

Which, as agreed by both Dr. Peikoff's lecture and Ayn Rand's statements - represent errors, flaws, and unfortunate premises. Masculinity, in Ayn Rand's view, was an essential recognition and development of the fact of one's maleness. So, while your statement of "Just because one is born with a penis, does not mean that it is immoral or even psychologically bizarre for him to insert it in places other than a woman's vagina" is crude and oversimplified to the point where it makes it nearly impossible to understand the issue, it yet retains a grain of truth. Yes, the fact that one is a male is a fact of reality by which one would rationally derive certain conclusions about what exactly one ought to want to do with one's genitalia.

Which is not to say, that if one made errors in constructing one's psychology which one is now saddled with and cannot change, that it makes one immoral simply for having those emotions, or even acting on them given the fact that that may be the only available option for happiness.

So the statement "Homosexuality qua homosexuality is not immoral" may not be true as such. Homosexuals are not necessarily immoral; which is not to say that "homosexuality qua homosexuality" is not. Yes, I know: it's quite a concept to absorb.

[Making Cars (and more) Lighter, Stronger, Faster, and Much More Effici]

The reason I have a problem with this (and I suspect the reason Inspector might as well) is because this statement of yours is not intrinsically true. Every innovation has an opportunity cost. That is each innovation brings a certain amount of value at a certain time and cost a certain amount to develop. Whether or not innovation is good is highly contextual. Innovation before it's time is actually a BAD thing because other innovations that where either more valuable, or cheaper to develop were foregone to get them.

Precisely correct, Kendall.

[Implications of HR6]

So I'm reading through this Energy Bill, with an eye to my next vehicle purchase. I'd like to buy a fast sports car (possibly a GT Mustang), but my current car still has a few years left in it. From my reading of the bill the new fuel standards, 35 MPG [!?] for passenger cars, don't hit until 2011 so I might be able to wait another year or two. Is this correct or did I miss something in the bill?

Sounds like a question for me.

The bill will indeed require corporate average fuel economy to increase to 35 MPG by 2011. What this means is that the average fuel economy for new cars must be 35. They can make some cars with less than that, but must also make some cars with more than that or face penalties. This bill applies to new cars and won't outlaw any existing car on the road. It will mean that manufacturers are going to put the kibosh on a lot of their upcoming cars that might have gotten less than 35 MPG. For instance, GM has already killed the rear-wheel-drive Impala that they had planned, and has changed their Camaro from a mass-market Mustang competitor to a more-expensive, more-limited-market car like the Dodge Challenger. (which is in the $40k range!)

Basically, what this bill means for muscle cars is that there will be less of them and they will be more expensive.

As for what this means to you: if you're willing to buy used, then likely you will have to pay a few dollars more, as muscle cars will likely go up in value due to the lack of newer versions. If you insist on buying new, then again be prepared to pay more for a Mustang, Camaro, or Challenger. Because of product cycles, all three of those will still be available, even into 2011. But beyond that is anyone's guess. What I can tell you is that you will likely get plenty of warning - even when they killed the Camaro and Firebird back in '02, you could still find new ones on dealer lots well into 2003.

It's just that, without a market for reasonably priced, fast cars, there won't be a future development of muscle cars for a number of years while technology catches up. Basically like the 70's and 80's all over again. Which, if you're a fan of these cars, is Not Good.

[Morality of Trans-genderism]

Isn´t denying your homosexuality a denial of your self?

Yes and no. Yes, in the same sense that denying one's angry personality or one's timid personality would be a denial of self. Of course, all three psychological traits can and should be evaluated along the lines of: is it rational? Ought my self be this way? Should I seek to change this aspect of myself?

Haven´t all psychological treatments until now failed to stop it?

Yes, and therein lies the rub. There isn't any sort of psychological technology available to change homosexuality. So regardless of one's evaluation of the rationality of the thing, there aren't so many options available to do anything about it. So the best option available may just be to shrug at the irrationality of the thing and make the most of the situation.

After all it exists not only in humans so I´m inclined to think it´s something you´re born with rather than psychologically created.

Plenty of things which are clearly learned behavior in humans exist automatically in animals. Saying that something exists in the animal kingdom proves exactly nothing about its status in humans as learned or inherited because humans are not the same as animals.

[Morality of Trans-genderism]

I think they are completely two separate issues! One deals with a man sleeping with a man (or woman/woman), and the other deals with someone biologically changing their sex. How are they at all the same? If someone becomes a biological woman, in what way would it be immoral for her to sleep with a man?

I'm not sure what you mean - what I said was that logically whatever view - positive, negative, or neutral - one has toward the one, would have to apply to the other. If you think that homosexuality is a defiance of one's male or female identity, then how is transgenderism not the same? And if you see Homosexuality as a psychological flaw that one may have to live with on its own terms, then the same would apply to transgenderism.

Perhaps it would help if you knew what my personal position was on the subject of homosexuality? For the record, I agree with Dr. Peikoff's views on this subject. And I think Flibby's summary is pretty much spot on.

I agree with the Objectivist principle that homosexuality is a denial of self, but I don't see how changing your sex is...

Because there does not exist such an ability. You cannot change your sex, despite all superficial attempts to the contrary. So both homosexuals and transgenders are practicing the same defiance of the reality of their physical sexual identity. But if you read what I linked to, I also think that this may be the best option that they have.

--------------------------------

Adding to my reply to JJM, take for example that most masculine men who get angry at gay men have no such objection to a pair of feminine, lesbian, women. Quite the opposite, in fact. But if it were rooted in religion, then wouldn't they be just as disgusted by that?

--------------------------------

but I'll just go with Peikoff when, after Rand's death in 1982, he went on record disagreeing with Rand's statement in his 'Love, Sex, and Romance' lecture.

Wait, what? I don't believe he went on record as "disagreeing with" Rand's statement. Perhaps you should follow the link I gave to Flibbertigibbet where he actually puts Rand's statement in full context before you conclude what she was in fact saying about homosexuality. Because it's pretty easy to misinterpret.

[Morality of Trans-genderism]

You mean you've never heard of people who fear that contact with 'perverts' is going to corrupt them or others? Or those who are afraid of it being somehow "catching", and afraid of physical contact of any kind?

No; not outside of things making fun of it.

I've frequently heard that line about "I'm not afraid of X, I just hate X," and my response is always "uhuh."

Hate and fear are two separate emotions. As I said, yes, there are some people who are actually afraid but they are the completely insane ones who - like you said - are afraid they will catch "the gay." The term "homophobia," however, is used to describe anyone who has any objection to or distaste for, the practice whatsoever. This is my objection.

Pederasty was common in Greece too, but our rejection of it today is objectively justifiable as a violation of children's rights. The same cannot be said about homosexuality.

That hasn't stopped at least some people I've seen from arguing that it is a Christian holdover as well, in arguments about statutory rape laws. The temptation, it seems, is to attribute anything one does not like that involves restraint on a sexual practice, as Christian. And, as a corollary, to also make the same accusation of anyone advocating such a position.

But lots people play it fast and loose with this practice, without fully thinking the matter through. So I make it a point to call into question any such accusation. Christianity might be a major influence on our culture, but it is not the be-all-end-all boogeyman such that you can just blindly accuse it whenever you "smell" something "repressive." (Not you, JJM; I'm speaking generally here)

As to most men, what is the origin for fears about their masculinity being questioned? Did the Greeks have such problems?? As far as I can tell, those insecurities about masculinity arise from religious thoughts on dominance and submission. The Romans held that much explicitly, and Christian culture originates in Roman cultural practices as much as it does Jewish.

So you're saying that when you say "Christian," that you mean Roman rather than Biblical? Could you elaborate?

As to the doctrinal part, the highly religious often hate all sex, but consider pregnancy to be something that justifies it

Sure, but per my post I am not talking about the highly religious here. I'm talking about the majority of men I've met who consider homosexuality offensive and who have explicitly given a masculine, non-religious explanation to me as to what bothers them. Are you telling me that they're all repressed Christians even though they don't even know it? That's an awfully Freudian claim, and frankly Freud was full of crap.

All I can see is that this is remnant prejudice that has detached from its primitive origins and not recognised as such by otherwise modern people.

Sure, that much is apparent. But as I said, the objections I refer to are those of an explicitly non-religious nature. The explanation that they really are religious without even knowing it is unsatisfying to me.

[Making Cars (and more) Lighter, Stronger, Faster, and Much More Effici]

This sounds like good news to me. Enough to meet our needs AND export? I thought there was some recoverable oil in ANWAR, offshore, and around the Great Lakes, but I didn't realize we were talking about this kind of oil being available. Maybe you are talking about oil shale though, which costs a lot more to make into petroleum. Where can I find out more about this? I have always thought it would be a good idea to conserve the sweet crude, the stuff that is cheap to refine, until the world oil market on sweet crude runs low enough to make the lower grade stuff more viable.

I've heard about such things from all over the place. (Yahoo news, google news, etc) Shale oil is one, but more recently I've heard of horizontal drilling, oil sands, and lots of conventionally accessible reserves off of various coasts which are simply blocked from being accessed by state and local governments. Even shale is a valid consideration - yes, it cost more to produce... but that calculation was done when oil was under $60 a barrel. Right now it's over $100.

The only thing necessary to implement any of these technologies is an investment in them. Which only requires a sustained period of high oil prices, so that investors can be sure they will get a return. Unfortunately, such investment is driven off by the large amount of uncertainty injected into the market by repeated and vicious government regulations and senseless fines. If profits are going to be cut into with such things, then investors will put their money into industries where it is safer - and thus American oil production will remain low.

If the government would just keep their hands off - if they would laissez-faire - then we could be a net oil exporting country.

[Morality of Trans-genderism]

Fears about transgender or homosexuality as such are holdovers from religious ethics, IMHO.

Out of curiosity, what do you mean by "fear?" Who have you ever known to be afraid of transgenderism (or homosexuality, for that matter)? I mean that one character from American Beauty was indeed afraid but that was because he was himself repressing his own urges. I've found that generally the term fear or "phobia" is used, but very few people are actually afraid in any sense - they're disgusted, offended, or hatemongering. But not afraid, per se.

And secondly, I don't think it's a religious holdover at all. Most men who I've observed or spoken with consider it a challenge or affront to masculinity*, quite apart from anything to do with religion. Then again, I don't converse with people who are that religious because they are insane.

*I think this is mistaken - it's certainly distasteful from a masculine standpoint (i.e. "I don't like that; that's not for me"), but it really doesn't challenge masculinity any more than women acting feminine challenges masculinity. Everyone I've ever seen who is gay or transgender is saying that what they do is right for them and has no bearing or application on masculinity or what masculine men are or do. The Euro-style metrosexual thing, however, is very much saying that straight, masculine men ought to act differently, so I'm surprised that that isn't seen as generally more offensive than gay people. But then again I don't think most people really haven't thought this stuff through.

[Making Cars (and more) Lighter, Stronger, Faster, and Much More Effici]

...think about it for a moment: superior design through technology...lighter, faster, more efficient, and stronger, safer, cheaper automobiles. Is there something there that is unappealing?

No - what's unappealing is what he is attempting to leash those concepts to. That "conserving" is a necessary or particularly important thing. It's BS through and through - we have plenty of oil, bowing to Arabian savages or no bowing to Arabian savages.

[Morality of Trans-genderism]

I don't think that transgenderism is any different, morally, from homosexuality. What conclusions one has about homosexuality, I think would necessarily have to apply to transgenerderism.

[Short Hair is Sexy!]

Geez, who brought long haired men into this? Bad idea. Baaaad idea.

[Making Cars (and more) Lighter, Stronger, Faster, and Much More Effici]

I stopped listening about 1/4 of the way through because we have more than enough oil to become an oil exporting nation. The solution is to stop being idiotic about our crippling regulation of the domestic industry and our pitiful prosecution of the war. The solution is not to pointlessly waste money and effort to convert our economy to needless alternative technologies.

[Attitudes toward China]

...I am not debating [China's] flaws or necessarily defending them.

Er, oops. Looks like your thread is going in that direction.

I almost feel that if china adopted more controls some people would then stop protesting, because the ends would again more justify the means. Does anyone else get this idea?

To answer your question, no, I hadn't noticed anything like that.

For the most part, mainstream attitudes on international politics are dictated by the Left, especially since Europe is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Left, it seems. I'd say at first glance that the key to finding out why China gets a pass on some things they do but not others would be to get inside the head of a lefty. Which is the path you're basically on here.

Kill millions of people? Sure. Brutally snuff out anything approaching individualism? Go right ahead! Send soldiers to make war on Americans in Korea? Nothing could be grander!

Mess with some vaguely hippie sounding idiot in a colorful toga? No, apparently that is going too far.

Actually, I might be on to something there. It's because the Dalai Lama is so much like a hippie, isn't it?

[Anarchy and Objectivism]

In practice this would mean that, when a private act of force is commited, the government, as a guardian of ever individual's rights, must immediately seek and detain the person responsible. The principle that everyone is "innocent until proven guilty" applies. A standard of proof must be met to objectively determine that the person is the actual responsible for the act.

Once the person who commited the act is objectvely determined, he may claim to have been acting in legitimate retaliation (note that this applies to all instances of self defense - in emergency situations or not). He will have to meet a standard of proof for this claim to be accepted. Note that the burden of evidence is reversed at this point - once the individual is proven to have commited an act of force, he must prove it was legitimate.

In most cases of emergency situation, such as a shooting a robber inside your home, this standard of proof would likely be easy to meet. In cases of retaliation after the fact, probably not.

I think that, whatever one might call this position, it clearly is not anarchy. I don't think that the arguments that attempt to treat this as anarchy are particularly productive here, either.

What would best be answered: Suppose there is a vigilante who acts justly and can prove before a court of law that his actions fit the standards of an objective government. Whose rights has he violated and what specific right or rights?

[Polygamy / Monogamy: The Ethics of...]

I don't think anyone here considers polyamory disgusting

I take it you haven't read my posts, then?

[Going insane at home]

I guess you should ask yourself if you want to get paid, do you want more acknowledgment of your greatness from your family, or if you truly just want to be left alone.

This is a distorted way of looking at it. Charging his mother is a terrible idea. This is not Hank Rearden who is supporting his parasitic family - this is a young man whose family is supporting him. He would be a hypocrite and an ingrate to approach the matter from that angle.

Instead of trying to pigeon-hole this into some piece of fiction or preconceived romantic notion of producers and parasites, how about we actually keep the frickin context of what's happening?

Just because this is a more personal topic does not eliminate the purpose of this forum - which is to provide quality, well-thought-out answers about and applications of Objectivism, not the knee-jerk reactions of everyone who cares to chime in.

Think before posting, people! Have you actually been in this situation or something quite similar? Have you dealt successfully with people like this? Do you really think your advice is valuable, or are you just guessing based on a vague notion?

I've seen other forums fall apart because mass numbers of decidedly non-experts felt absolutely free to just blurt out their random opinions on anything and everything. Let's not do that here please.