Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

It's quite simple: DH showed no respect for Dr.Peikoff in a recent podcast about transsexuals stating that Dr.Peikoff was engaged in armchair philosophizing at its worse when he stated that transsexuals were violating nature by changing their sex and claiming that nature had made a mistake with them, and then only referred to a Wikipedia link as her backup. Then there were reports that she and members of some of her OList participants were really badmouthing Dr. Peikoff and those who supported him. I do think it is rather strange that all of these schisms seem to hit many people as coming out of the blue with no basis. Checking Premises gave the basis, but many on this thread didn't want to accept it.

Just to be clear about this, the charge of "no respect" is related, not to DH's disagreements with Peikoff, per se, but to her manner of expressing them. That is to say, it would not be deemed a lack of respect to publicly argue against Peikoff's stated position, so long as one did so "in a respectful manner." Right?

(Or does a proper show of respect entail reserving disagreements to private and personal communications? Or further to not voicing them at all?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think you have the facts and reason on your side, then yes, voice your disagreement with Dr. Peikoff or any other intellectual. It's not the disagreement, it was the calling him an armchair philosophizer that was the final straw. In effect, this says that Dr. Peikoff does not take the facts into account nor states his reasons for taking a position (say during his podcasts). It says that he doesn't know what he is talking about and that he pontificates from on high without using reason based on the facts. Dr. Peikoff's position on transgenders was made quite clear by him, since he thinks a man cutting off his penis is throwing away his great means of experiencing happiness and pleasure, which is evil under Objectivism. He thinks it is based on whim and not any mistake that nature made in forming the human baby growing into adulthood. Now, if you disagree with that, then you would have to give facts to support your claim that nature made a mistake in making a man instead of a woman. And if you can do that, then OK, you would have proven him wrong. But to call him an armchair philosophizer is a great insult, and he and ARI finally had enough of it. And chose not to support her activities regarding the OLists that DH was running.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually do think what Peikoff said on transsexuals is armchair philosophizing, and it's quite unfortunate. That isn't to say he is a horrible philosopher and all his works should be retroactively judged as horrible as well. In fact, how he reasoned out why transsexuality is immoral seems to violate all sorts of principles that Peikoff himself advocates. Does it fall under lack of respect to say that Peikoff seemed to have done armchair (rationalistic) philosophy, especially if it contradicts my own knowledge that he seems to lack? I don't mean knowledge about philosophy, I mean the subject which he is applying philosophy. I don't think the phrase "armchair philosophizing" is even a grand insult, just an identification of a type of error. It's factually incorrect that a man transitioning to a woman simply cuts off their penis and is unable to feel sexual pleasure anymore after the surgery. I have no idea where such an assumption would come from, unless he was literally reasoning without necessary scientific facts. That's pretty characteristic of rationalistic thought, in particular because it's not difficult to find general information online about transgenderism.

As far as I know (and inform me if I'm wrong), I don't think there is any worse "badmouthing" from any OList participants about Peikoff than I am here. I would assume anything worse has been moderated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think you have the facts and reason on your side, then yes, voice your disagreement with Dr. Peikoff or any other intellectual. It's not the disagreement, it was the calling him an armchair philosophizer that was the final straw.

Did she call him an "armchair philosophizer" or did she criticize him for "armchair philosophizing"? The difference is critiquing the man vs. critiquing the method.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's quite simple: DH showed no respect for Dr.Peikoff in a recent podcast about transsexuals stating that Dr.Peikoff was engaged in armchair philosophizing at its worse when he stated that transsexuals were violating nature by changing their sex and claiming that nature had made a mistake with them, and then only referred to a Wikipedia link as her backup.

Making statements about how people should feel about their gender based on their sex, regardless of personal experience, is the definition of armchair philosophizing. Armchair philosophizing involves forgoing the obtaining of facts about some subject matter in favor of guessing or theorizing about the way things "must be" in regards to a certain subject; in this case, the relationship between gender and sex. If you're upset about the Wikipedia source, if you can find a source making a scientific argument that gender and sex must always match that isn't from Westboro Baptist Church or some similar religious nutjob source, I'd be surprised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think you have the facts and reason on your side, then yes, voice your disagreement with Dr. Peikoff or any other intellectual. It's not the disagreement, it was the calling him an armchair philosophizer that was the final straw. In effect, this says that Dr. Peikoff does not take the facts into account nor states his reasons for taking a position (say during his podcasts). It says that he doesn't know what he is talking about and that he pontificates from on high without using reason based on the facts.

Once again, Thomas demonstrates nothing about me by these remarks... but only his own failure to honestly and fairly report on what I've said. That's not my view of Dr. Peikoff as a philosopher, as I've explicitly and repeatedly said. My criticisms solely concerned his his podcast discussions of transgendered. I thought -- and still think -- that those podcast discussions were very ill-informed and, as a result, terribly unjust to transgenders and their doctors.

Anyone interested in my actual views can find them here:

http://blog.dianahsi...troversies.html

Here's the relevant segment:

I strongly disagree with Dr. Peikoff's moral condemnation of the transgendered and their surgeons. In this December 13th, 2010 podcast, he claims that transgenders are engaged in "a war against reality." He also says that the doctors who perform sexual reassignment surgery are "corrupt without qualification," and he likens them to the doctors who performed experiments in Nazi concentration camps. In this June 20th, 2011 podcast, he claims that a person's sex is immutable, that sexual reassignment surgery does not change it, and that such surgery destroys a person's capacity for sexual enjoyment. In this January 2nd, 2012 podcast, he says that transsexualism is a "metaphysical assault on reality" and "a thorough corruption" that he would "never voluntarily associate with." He thinks that gay groups should be opposed if they welcome transsexuals. (Note: This third podcast was posted after my webcast discussion.)

I briefly registered my strong disagreement in this webcast discussion: Restrooms for the Transgendered in Transition. I regard Dr. Peikoff's views on this subject as terribly ill-informed and his moral condemnations as unjustified. I was particularly disappointed because his moral condemnation of transsexualism seems exactly like the moral arguments against homosexuality that used to be common in Objectivist circles.

Given that I know some transgendered Objectivists -- and that OHomos @ OList.com welcomes transgenders -- I didn't want to remain silent about these repeated public condemnations of the transgendered, particularly not when I was answering a question on the transgendered in my webcast. Others have spoken up too, and I'm glad of that. People -- particularly the transgendered -- should know that Dr. Peikoff doesn't necessarily speak for other Objectivists on this topic. Also, I wanted transgender Objectivists to feel welcome in the forums that I manage.

In the webcast, I said that Dr. Peikoff's comments on this topic are "horribly ignorant" and "armchair philosophizing." I stand by those remarks, strongly-worded as they are. Dr. Peikoff doesn't seem to be aware of the basic claims about the psychology of transgenderism. He would likely disagree with those claims, but a fair judgment of the transgendered and their doctors requires some familiarity with them. His remarks are premised on other critical factual errors, as Trey Givens discusses in this blog post. Moreover, in light of the strength and vehemence of Dr. Peikoff's repeated condemnations of the transgendered, I don't think my language was out-of-proportion. Of course, my criticisms are limited to his comments on this particular topic, which I regard as a striking exception to the keen insight that I've enjoyed in Dr. Peikoff's lecture courses, time and again.

Edited by dianahsieh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Diana, I was wondering, why do you continue to respond to Thomas Miovas's injudicious remarks about your views and statements? Is it because you think that to fail to do so would be to imply that what he is saying is accurate? But surely you don't think that is true - and yet I can't imagine Thomas having much sway over would-be followers of your blog either. Why isn't the right thing to do in this case to completely ignore him? You have yourself just said that he is dishonest, so why does he or his thread still warrant your attention?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Diana, I was wondering, why do you continue to respond to Thomas Miovas's injudicious remarks about your views and statements?
Why do people "feed trolls"? Not saying Thomas is a troll, but my point is that the motivation is similar: people want to defend their viewpoint.

Notice that few people will respond to an attack that is framed in an obviously illogical manner. Imagine, for instance, that someone says something really stupid like: "Everything Peikoff says should be taken as truth because the spirit of Rand passed into him". Something silly like that would be met by a few one-liners poking fun at the poster, but nobody would try to argue against it, because they realize that few others would be convinced by the argument.

However, when an opponent uses a logic-like structure and uses the vocabulary of logic, then it is harder to resist such an attack. Now, even though the logical flaws may be obvious to you, one is not so sure they will be obvious to others. Hence, the motivation to post a response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the webcast, I said that Dr. Peikoff's comments on this topic are "horribly ignorant" and "armchair philosophizing." I stand by those remarks, strongly-worded as they are.

What the hell is the difference between what you quote yourself as saying here, and what I said which was: "DH showed no respect for Dr.Peikoff in a recent podcast about transsexuals stating that Dr.Peikoff was engaged in armchair philosophizing at its worse when he stated that transsexuals were violating nature by changing their sex and claiming that nature had made a mistake with them, and then only referred to a Wikipedia link as her backup." In your further explanation you go on to say that he isn't taking the relevant facts into account, and yet, you list no relevant facts; which is non-objective. So, maybe *you* didn't say "at its worse," and for that I will back out a bit, but I was also going by reports on FaceBook regarding how your members were handling the controversy on your OLists. Perhaps the reports were wrong. However, those of you who think I am being dishonest need to check your premises.

Dr. Peikoff gave the relevant facts in his podcast, when he basically stated that if you are born with a penis then you are a male and if you are born with a vagina then you are female. One's psychology does not determine one's sex -- it can determine your attitude about your sex, but it doesn't change your sex. So, until someone can come up with an objective test to show that somehow you were born with a penis, but your brain was wired for a female, then you have nothing to go on except their reports that he is really female though he has a penis. But I guess in a post-Kantian universe a phenomena male can be a noumenal female.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to bother to go far as transcribing arguments like about the "eating babies" topic. But the only relevant points now are:

1) Armchair philosophizing vs. armchair philosophizer (critique of the method vs critique of the method, as Grames said)

2) Peikoff cited a variety of incorrect facts, and the true facts are pretty irrelevant to the topic (sex and gender are different concepts; refer to Dante's post)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked up "gender" on the web, and most dictionaries define it as the male or female version of certain words in certain languages, which has nothing to do with this topic. Not quoting Wikipedia as an authority on the subject, they claim that some post-modern psychologist first used the term gender to refer to sexually oriented roles in 1955. Later the feminists took over that usage of the term and based it on social roles regarding how the sexes are treated in society or what is socially held to be the role of males versus females, such as jobs and lifestyles. So, it doesn't even seem like there is a definite reference for the term "gender" at all, unless one bases it on the male / female words in certain languages. So, basically, if you have a penis, you are male; if you have a vagina, you are female. What you do in society or what type of job you have Re the feminists is just a made up collectivistic term designated to say that women are suppressed due to being female by the men in the society. That some men might "act feminine" or that some women might "act masculine" does not imply that they should get a sex change.

The bottom line is this: What are your facts for saying a sex change ought to occur? What scientific evidence do you have that a man needs a sex change operation because he is really female or that a woman ought to have a sex change because she is really male? Otherwise, you have to go by the evidence -- he has a penis, and is male; she has a vagina, so she is female.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And just for clarification, I know that DH was trying to limit her "philosophizing" remarks to just Dr. Peikoff's view of transgenders, and not his entire approach to philosophy. But as an exercise in how Ayn Rand used the term "philosophizing" I did a search on the Objectivism CD-ROM and she obviously only uses it to totally deride a particular individual who is pontificating about a topic without going to the facts at all, and usually evasively. I don't know why someone would use that term with regard to DR.Peikoff instead of just stating that he was wrong, and here's why.

Ayn Rand’s Usage of the term “Philosophizing”

<arl_219>

In one of his philosophizing bits, during the Watergate hearings, Senator Howard H. Baker Jr. asked a very important question: What can we do to prevent the future occurrence of events such as Watergate?

But in fact, Einstein's theory does nothing of the kind. Einstein himself objected to the unwarranted distortions of his purely scientific theories by the philosophizing of scientifically ignorant popularizers. The same is true <ltrs_614> of all modern pseudoscientism: the fact that scientists do not know the cause of a given phenomenon does not give them ground to proclaim that "the universe is based on chance"—any more than the ignorance of primitive savages gave them ground to declare that the universe is ruled by gods and demons.

How is it possible to know such sophisticated facts, yet not know that there are rocks? The author, who is a professor of philosophy, feels no need to raise such a question. He feels free to begin philosophizing at random, treating advanced knowledge as a primary and using it to undercut the direct evidence of men's eyes.

But that the victims stand for it, that the advocacy of raw nature and astrology is voiced without any noticeable protest—that <tnl_170> is the culturally ominous and significant aspect of the Time article. It is an indication of the degree of today's contempt for the intellect. It is a demonstration of the bankruptcy of the left—and of the vacuum in a culture whose respect for the mind has been destroyed by generations of Kantian-pragmatist-linguistic philosophizing.

While the racket of the philosophizing mystics rested on the claim that man is unable to know the external world, the racket of the psychologizing mystics rests on the claim that man is unable to know his own motivation. The ultimate goal is the same: the undercutting of man's mind.

In regard to method, the basic novelty of this psychological variant of the Kantian viewpoint lies in the Freudians' claim that their theories are a product, not of a priori philosophizing, but of scientific investigation based on clinical data. Judging by their methodological practice, scientific investigation for the Freudians consists in leaping from random observations to sweeping constructs devoid of evidential justification, rational or empirical; and then in declaring that these constructs are compatible with any factual data of any kind, and are therefore irrefutable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I have an agreement with DH, and that is that one ought to listen to her podcast (as I did again) on transgendered people to find out her view. She doesn't give any facts to back up that someone might be born with certain body parts, making them male or female, but they are really the opposite either neurologically or deeply psychologically. All she gives is speculation that it might be a brain wiring problem or some deep-set psychological problem that may not have a cure. And she did say that Dr. Peikoff was engaged in arm chair philosophizing at its worse. So, I really have no clue why in the world she would be against what I stated about her. She was being extremely non-objective in her speculations not back up by facts.

In one sense, though, I could agree with her. If transgenderism is not a matter of direct choice (if it is neurological or very deep seated psychological), then in that sense, it would be like homosexuality -- not open to moral condemnation per se. But this is something that would have to be shown and not just speculated on, as she did. If it is due to a neurological problem, then this would have to be shown by evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Diana, I was wondering, why do you continue to respond to Thomas Miovas's injudicious remarks about your views and statements?

People can and ought to judge my actions and character based on what I've done and said. If people hate and despise me for what I've done -- well, that's their right. Morally speaking, however, I think that says more about them than it does about me.

Unfortunately, some people are spreading outright falsehoods about me of late, and that really muddies the waters for honest people. To defend my reputation (which matters to me!), I want to set the factual record straight in such cases. Otherwise, people will judge me wrongly, condemning me for what I've not done and not said. That's not good for anyone.

Basically, I don't want to allow fabrications and falsehoods about me to spread unchecked. Hence, my policy has been (and likely will continue to be) to set the record straight when and where I can... even when I regard the person as spreading the lies as beneath contempt.

Edited by dianahsieh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is LP entering into what is essentially a medical discussion? Has he gone crazy?

Philosophy must necessarily start with stipulations that cleanly separate it from the other sciences. LP himself gave a lecture about physics in this regard ("puffs of meta-energy"). His basic point was that regardless of what science comes up with, A will still be A and so forth.

In this case, Philosophy says, "a woman should" and "a man should". The science which gets to decide "this body is a man/woman" is medicine. Insofar as the science of medicine offers incomplete theories in this subject area may be unfortunate--but that's medicine's problem. It has absolutely, positively nothing to do with philosophy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So... I want to keep engaged in this discussion, because aspects of it interest me. At the same time, I don't have much specific knowledge regarding the transgendered (or hardly any at all), nor do I want to get bogged down by (as Crow suggests) a purely "medical discussion."

So here's a question which I hope may have some sort of analogous application to our discussion:

Suppose that a person is born genetically predestined to be short, but they "feel tall," by which I mean that if they were to envision their persona made manifest -- their ideal physical form -- it would be as a tall person. Suppose also that medical research had devised a drug that, should they take this drug, they would overcome their genetic predisposition and attain the height that they would prefer to be.

Would we have any good (general) argument to make against taking this drug? Would taking it represent a "metaphysical assault on reality"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is LP entering into what is essentially a medical discussion? Has he gone crazy?

Why do some of you feel obligated to make statements like this? You can't just say you think he is wrong and here are the facts and the reasoning to prove it -- you have to say he has gone crazy?

However, I do think you are wrong here regarding the decision as to whether or not someone is a male or a female or a man or a woman is a medical issue and not a directly observable position that philosophy can say something about. I don't know about you, but I can certainly tell the difference between a man and a woman by direct observation; and yes, this has philosophical implications with regard to some characteristics regarding general attitudes and valuing one's own body. If it is true that transgenderism is a medical problem or a psychological problem, that doesn't mean that philosophy ought to butt out and not say anything about it. On the contrary, a rational philosophy would say that if it is a medical or psychological problem, then a person who has the problem ought to work on fixing it -- which doesn't mean getting a sex change, it means taking into account that while the person has male body parts, his psychology or his neurology contradicts this, so fix that problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it is true that transgenderism is a medical problem or a psychological problem, that doesn't mean that philosophy ought to butt out and not say anything about it. On the contrary, a rational philosophy would say that if it is a medical or psychological problem, then a person who has the problem ought to work on fixing it -- which doesn't mean getting a sex change, it means taking into account that while the person has male body parts, his psychology or his neurology contradicts this, so fix that problem.

Where exactly from 'philosophy' do you get the addendum that fixing this mismatchdoesn't mean getting a sex change? Philosophy says one should fix the problem of his or her sex/gender mismatch, okay, good... oh and by the way that means altering one's gender rather than one's sex. Where the heck does that one come from? All philosophy can tell us in response to this problem is that we should use reason, science, and medical technology to better our lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do some of you feel obligated to make statements like this? You can't just say you think he is wrong and here are the facts and the reasoning to prove it -- you have to say he has gone crazy?

Um, metaphor? I think, too, that I'm saying that I usually respect his works and that this is unusual. It's not like I'm saying, "he's nuts".

When my wife says, "are you nuts? it's raining too much today for a bike ride!" I don't think she's "actually" questioning my mental stability, I think it's just a way to convey a point.

However, I do think you are wrong here regarding the decision as to whether or not someone is a male or a female or a man or a woman is a medical issue and not a directly observable position that philosophy can say something about. I don't know about you, but I can certainly tell the difference between a man and a woman by direct observation

[...]

I'll stop you there: no you certainly can't. That's the medical reality as far as I understand the medical science here--with the disclaimer that I'm not a doctor let alone a specialist in this area.

[...]

If it is true that transgenderism is a medical problem or a psychological problem, that doesn't mean that philosophy ought to butt out and not say anything about it. On the contrary, a rational philosophy would say that if it is a medical or psychological problem, then a person who has the problem ought to work on fixing it [...]

Yes, philosophy says that--and stops there.

-- which doesn't mean getting a sex change, it means taking into account that while the person has male body parts, his psychology or his neurology contradicts this, so fix that problem.

No, no--you needed to stop there above. The proper treatment of a medical problem is a medical issue. You should make a decision about your health in accordance with your rational values and the available evidence. Sex is a value of high order, but your life is a bigger one.

Seriously, "fix that problem"? How? What if you can't? What if the risk profile (i.e. of your whole life) is much higher for "fixing" your mind versus your body? What about the risk/reward of current drugs? What about promising treatments coming in the near future? Should you wait for them? What about their risks of side effects? What about other medical problems that might interact with this one? Etc. etc. etc.

Philosophy cannot possibly have "opinions" about details like this. And yes, based on the body of works with which I am familiar, hearing that LP has waded into a subject like this really shocks me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Objectivism's position on psychological problems is that while the problem itself is not a moral issue, what one does about it is a moral issue. However, since psychology is at such a primitive state at this time, one may just have to learn to live with the problem if it cannot be fixed. But Objectivism most certainly does not state that psychology or one's psychological problems are the standard of mental health. It must be acknowledged that such people with such problems do have a problem and that they ought to work on fixing it. And by fixing it, that means changing one's cognitive premises (insofar as these can be identified, say with a good cognitive therapist); it doesn't mean that if one believes that one is a worm that one ought to cut off one's arms and legs and dig into the ground in order to "feel more happy with oneself." Likewise, if transgenderism or even homosexuality can be shown to be at root a psychological problem, then one ought to work on checking one's subconsciously held premises, and fixing them according to man's life as the standard -- it doesn't mean accepting the psychological condition and then modifying one's body to match it, as this would be primacy of consciousness.

If transgenderism or homosexuality can be traced to a neurological problem, then as science advances the way to fix the problem would be to get the neurological operation to better connect the brain wiring. There is some evidence that there is a difference between the male brain and the female brain, and if this can be proven, then that would be the route to take. For example, there is a malady known as synesthesia whereby when a person having it sees certain things in reality, they also get a sense of smell from it (like they might see a stop sign and get the sensation of smelling bacon). This has been traced to membrane structures in the brain that "leak" information from one sensory mode to another. In normal people, this does not occur, so one doesn't get crossed signals while observing existence. The rational way to fix this would be to strengthen the membranes so that they do not "leak" rather than carrying around a bottle of perfume and spray it every time one sees a stop sign. Likewise, for transgenderism or homosexuality, if it can be traced to a neurological problem, then one ought to fix the neurology, rather than taking the position that this is just the way I am and I'm proud to be transgendered or homosexual.

However, just to be clear, I think I agree with Dr. Peikoff who stated that sexual abnormalities, like homosexuality, come about due to a long process of thinking about the role of sex in life and might be more like a sense of life issue, which is not open to direct volitional control, but might be able to be fixed with a better psychological profession.

The point is that what you are is not determined by one's psychology, it is determined by what one is metaphysically; and this takes precedent over any psychological or neurological issue. Normal functioning is the standard, not the malady.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... if transgenderism or even homosexuality can be shown to be at root a psychological problem, then one ought to work on checking one's subconsciously held premises, and fixing them according to man's life as the standard -- it doesn't mean accepting the psychological condition and then modifying one's body to match it, as this would be primacy of consciousness.

If transgenderism or homosexuality can be traced to a neurological problem, then as science advances the way to fix the problem would be to get the neurological operation to better connect the brain wiring....

And if it turns out not to be a "problem" at all? If it just turns out to be another instance where someone looks at one of their physical characteristics and wishes it were different, like DonAthos' short/tall example?

The point is that what you are is not determined by one's psychology, it is determined by what one is metaphysically; and this takes precedent over any psychological or neurological issue. Normal functioning is the standard, not the malady.

The standard of what is "normal" is not a numbers game; it's not determined by a vote. It's a scientific question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The purpose of this thread is to discuss the concept of "objectivity" and not some of these side issues, such as what a transgendered individual ought to do regarding fixing the problem. Obviously, contrary to Dante,they do think they have a problem and they way they choose to fix it is to get a sex change. Regarding objectivity and whether or not one can morally evaluate the sex change is dependent upon whether or not it is strictly voluntary or if there is a mis-wiring or such a deeply rooted psychological problem that one has to learn to live with it and that getting a sex change is the way to deal with it.

But I don't see this as the real issue, the real issue is that DR. Peikoff thinks a sex change is a voluntary mutilation of one's own body, which he understands to be greatly immoral; versus DH's position that it is the way to fix the pre-existing non-voluntary problem; and that instead of DH coming out and saying she disagrees with LP regarding the voluntarism of the sex change, she said that he was engaged arm chair philosophizing at its worse and then went on to defend transgenderism without offering any facts to back up her claim. So, this issue is not what should someone with a problem do about it, it is how should one conduct oneself while disagreeing with the leading authority on Objectivism and objectivity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since this thread is on objectivity and its applications, perhaps you can indicate where Dr. Peikoff has been non-objective as an example.

Non-objective? Huh? Do you mean wrong? Why don’t you put some effort in? According to the fella I linked to above, I’m dedicated to Peikoff’s persecution, and that’s my only reason for being here. So, all you should have to do is look up my posts.

According to a thread on FaceBook DH's OList link was removed due to too many people including her slamming Dr. Peikoff. Not sure where it was listed, but it was confirmed by Chip Joyce and a few others.

According to a thread on Facebook? Is that supposed to be evidence, or is this your way of distancing yourself from the factual (or it seems contra-factual) material that you’re repeating here? I think that all you need to know about the policy Chip Joyce and his compats have towards facts can be gleaned from the page on Checking Premises dedicated to David Kelley. Here’s how it reads:

David Kelley, PhD, is Executive Director of The Atlas Society. Formerly he founded and ran the now-defunct The Objectivist Center.

http://www.checkingpremises.org/david_kelley

The now-defunct The Objectivist Center? As in, the successor to the Institute for Objectivist Studies, which then changed its name to The Atlas Society? The entity that’s having a summer seminar in June, at the Renaissance Hotel in Washington DC, with the following speaker list?

Ed Hudgins

John Stossel

Grover Norquist

Congressman Allen West

Stephen Hicks

David Kelley

Fred Seddon

Joel Wade

Marsha Enright

Steve Davis

Ziad Abdelnour

William R Thomas

Aaron Day

Alexander R. Cohen

Anne Wortham

Donald Luskin

David N. Mayer

Roger Donway

Greg Reyes

http://www.atlassociety.org/summer-seminar-2012

Who does Chip Joyce think he’s fooling?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"It must be acknowledged that such people with such problems do have a problem and that they ought to work on fixing it"

A person having a sense of their body being improperly matched for them as far as their sex goes? Of course it is recognized as a problem all over the place. Clearly it is a problem seeing how it causes all kinds of severe discomfort at the least for anyone experiencing it. Fixing the discrepancy is definitely a high priority for those who are going through this. The thing is though, what you regard as the only acceptable fix is just completely impractical. The exact cause and workings of this condition is not well established, however, whatever the cause and function is, it has been shown to be something which just seeing a shrink won't fix. That has been tried and failed ad infinitum. We don't have the necessary knowledge and technology either to try to go in and do a manual override on somebody's brain to change it so that there their brain is now completely in sync with the rest of their body's sexual characteristics. Since we can't make the brain change that only leaves the rest of the body as an option to address to get the dissonance resolved.

Edited by bluecherry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I don't see this as the real issue, the real issue is that DR. Peikoff thinks a sex change is a voluntary mutilation of one's own body . . .

Before you call it voluntary mutilation, can you explain in what sense a sex change operation is mutilation? Some people evaluate that they don't like their body, so they alter it. That's sort of the point of tattoos, piercings, or plastic surgery. None of these things are destructive, but are all are pursued for a desired body image. Causes of desiring a different body image can vary of course, with transgenderism often being a stronger psychological conflict than the other type of changes I listed. Peikoff said that a sex change operation makes it impossible to feel sexual pleasure anymore, which is literally false. It doesn't have to be more complicated than that. You seem to only object to the use of wikipedia. Questioning sources of someone is fine. Having no sources at all like Peikoff about a medical procedure is bad. I usually don't like to give off a notion of "someone is wrong on the Internet!" but some things I think are important enough to explain.

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...