Would you allow your sons to be feminine?

One eyed Jack · 24-03-2016 12:25pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I have to say I have not heard of that one except for the two paragraphs I just read now when you mentioned it.

But I think the term "deluded" is one too easily used - even for people like that - without knowing more. It is one of those terms that says too much - so says nothing at all. In fact I struggle to think where I would even argue for a 100% pure use of it.

What I think it is - is a term placeholder for our ignorance. And a lot of what we think were "delusion" in the past we are slowly finding very real physical explanations for at the level of the brain and there are genuinely good reasons why people feel or think like they do.

Capgras syndrome being a wonderful example of this where in the past we would listen to what these people were telling us - and simply conclude they were deluded loonies. But now we know exactly why they feel and think like they do.

So nowadays - without a lot more study and research - I would not look at a claim that I never heard before like the ones you speak of - and simply assume "delusion". There could be any number of neurological _real_ issues that lead people to it.

And the less individual and more "group" like reports of it are - the more I would suspect that. I could even make guesses _towards_ what the answers will turn out to be in some of their cases.

But remember delusion in the dictionary is "a belief maintained in contradiction to reality". So something like "I think my mother was replaced with an imposter replica" in Capgras syndrome at least fits the definition despite us understanding now why people think that delusion.

But "I feel like my limb is alien to me and it's presence is a constant distraction and even agony" or "I am genetically male but everything I want to express and everything inside me feels like what I identify with the term female" are not statements about reality. They are statements about personal feelings and emotions and drives. And as such the term "delusion" does not really apply.

How are those not beliefs maintained contradictory to reality? They are delusions. What causes them, is another matter.

walshyn93 · 24-03-2016 12:25pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I have to say I have not heard of that one except for the two paragraphs I just read now when you mentioned it.

But I think the term "deluded" is one too easily used - even for people like that - without knowing more. It is one of those terms that says too much - so says nothing at all. In fact I struggle to think where I would even argue for a 100% pure use of it.

What I think it is - is a term placeholder for our ignorance. And a lot of what we think were "delusion" in the past we are slowly finding very real physical explanations for at the level of the brain and there are genuinely good reasons why people feel or think like they do.

Capgras syndrome being a wonderful example of this where in the past we would listen to what these people were telling us - and simply conclude they were deluded loonies. But now we know exactly why they feel and think like they do.

So nowadays - without a lot more study and research - I would not look at a claim that I never heard before like the ones you speak of - and simply assume "delusion". There could be any number of neurological _real_ issues that lead people to it.

And the less individual and more "group" like reports of it are - the more I would suspect that. I could even make guesses _towards_ what the answers will turn out to be in some of their cases.

But remember delusion in the dictionary is "a belief maintained in contradiction to reality". So something like "I think my mother was replaced with an imposter replica" in Capgras syndrome at least fits the definition despite us understanding now why people think that delusion.

But "I feel like my limb is alien to me and it's presence is a constant distraction and even agony" or "I am genetically male but everything I want to express and everything inside me feels like what I identify with the term female" are not statements about reality. They are statements about personal feelings and emotions and drives. And as such the term "delusion" does not really apply.

Finding real physical reasons at the level of the brain for delusion is to be expected. I would be surprised if there was no abnormal brain activity in a pathologically delusional person's brain.

I suspect the real reason someone thinks they're an elf is not because they actually have an elf's brain.

jobbridge4life · 24-03-2016 12:28pm

It is ridiculous that so many threads along these lines end up as nothing more than bashing exercises on transgender people. What makes it more ridiculous that in virtually every single one of these threads you tend to see the same usual suspects spitting out the same tired, tried and failed rhetoric. Its also very telling that the discussion nearly always focuses on male to female transgender people.

Listen dudettes. If the knowledge that some people feel born in the wrong gender is giving you such a pain in your nutsack that it compels you to spend tens of hours posting the same nonsense over and over again on boards maybe you should do something useful with your time. Go get a qualification in psychology or psychiatry go do a PHD on your theories of transsexualism. And if you are so convinced you are right maybe you can go right to the virtually countless professional bodies that entirely disagree with your perspective. Maybe you can enlighten them with your 'truth'.

walshyn93 · 24-03-2016 12:32pm

jobbridge4life wrote: »

It is ridiculous that so many threads along these lines end up as nothing more than bashing exercises on transgender people. What makes it more ridiculous that in virtually every single one of these threads you tend to see the same usual suspects spitting out the same tired, tried and failed rhetoric. Its also very telling that the discussion nearly always focuses on male to female transgender people.

Listen dudettes. If the knowledge that some people feel born in the wrong gender is giving you such a pain in your nutsack that it compels you to spend tens of hours posting the same nonsense over and over again on boards maybe you should do something useful with your time. Go get a qualification in psychology or psychiatry go do a PHD on your theories of transsexualism. And if you are so convinced you are right maybe you can go right to the virtually countless professional bodies that entirely disagree with your perspective. Maybe you can enlighten them with your 'truth'.

If you're so convinced you are right you could maybe argue the case rather than attacking the character of people who disagree with you and making fallacious appeals to authority and innuendo.

If it was so easy to debunk our arguments someone would have done it by now.

PopePalpatine · 24-03-2016 12:35pm

Funnily enough, a couple of months ago I came across a link to this Reddit post through /r/bestof. The poster has a friend who are studying self-styled "otherkin", and a significant proportion ended up identifying as transgender. The process of gender re-assignment is an arduous one, one which I'm sure requires expensive surgery, hormone treatment and counselling (correct me if I'm wrong), one which is pretty much all-or-nothing, whereas being "otherkin" doesn't have that same process. There's not really such a thing as "species re-assignment surgery" to make an "otherkin" person look more like the animal they identify as, and besides, "otherkin" communities (going by what that Redditor has said) usually advise their members to keep their animal identity private.

24-03-2016 12:37pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well that's simply incorrect.

And you are an apple.

See we can all write random nonsense assertions about anything we want - when we choose not to back it up in any way other than to assert it.

Me calling you an apple does not make you an apple however. And you simply dismissing my post with one word "incorrect" does not magically make it so. Much as your lack of any substantive argument would compel you to _want_ it to.

Similarly -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

By your own standard then, they could claim you are equally naive.

- sure. But the difference would be that I have explained _why_ I think it naive. So if they _just_ call me naive then they have said nothing at all. I would still be - like I am with you writing "incorrect" above - waiting to see if there is any substance for what they just asserted.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You appear to be concerned for the welfare of those people's children who do not share your naivety.

Yet you have displayed no such thing on my part so you are seemingly going on a campaign of saying as little as possible with as many words as possible.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

By all means you can express your opinion, but whether anyone actually takes your opinion seriously or not is another matter entirely.

Back to stating the obvious then I see? I am well aware of my rights on expressing myself thanks - I do not need to be told by you. And I am happy at the level of how serious I am taken given I - unlike you - explain the basis of my position rather than simply asserting it and dodging.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Your opinion doesn't indicate that you know any better either tbh.

Except it does because I provide the basis and substance for my opinion. And even more so when asked direct questions. That indicates a _lot_ more substance behind my positions that - say - the likes of yourself and drunkmoney who assert things and then refuse all attempts to get them to back it up.

No small difference.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How are those not beliefs maintained contradictory to reality? They are delusions. What causes them, is another matter.

You asked a question for which you yourself highlighted the answer. So all I can do is repeat what you yourself highlighted:

They are not statements about reality. They are statements about personal feelings and emotions and drives. And as such the term "delusion" does not really apply.

To make it simpler for you they are statements about _their_ reality of what _they_ are feeling. They are not making actual statements about the real world or truth claims about that world such as - say - "Obama is one of an alien race of lizards who has invaded our world in human disguise to infiltrate the elite". See the difference now?

walshyn93 wrote: »

Your argument boils down to "you know less than me therefore you're wrong". You're going to have to try harder than that.

So you have summarised my argument in a way that has nothing to do with the argument I have actually made. Then attacked me for that mis-representation? Where _do_ you get all this straw?

If there is something you think I know - or I have suggested I know - which you do not know - then lets conduct the discussion of it like adults in that you could - you know - ask me questions.

We have very strong evidence why people in BIID like situations feel as they do. It is not delusion - there are very real physical reasons for it. Now while study of subjects like Transgendered people are in their infancy - the style, tone and content of what they are telling us they feel is _strikingly_ similar.

walshyn93 wrote: »

There are very real underpinnings as to why people have all manner of delusions. Chemical imbalances, genetics, etc. Doesn't normalise it.

Perhaps you should take it up with someone who claims it "normalises" it then. Given that is not the point I was making however - it is unclear why you are taking the issue up with me. My points are about _explaining_ it - not about _normalising_ it.

walshyn93 wrote: »

Finding real physical reasons at the level of the brain for delusion is to be expected.

Not really. For example what physical defect at the level of the brain do you expect to find for people who think top politicians are actually aliens in disguise who have infiltrated our worlds elite?

That is more what I would label "delusion" and I would be hard pushed to imagine what physical defect or brain wiring defect you expect to find in that case.

But when - again to use BIID as an example - a person feels like a limb is an alien - tormenting - even agonisingly painful - intrusion on their well being an existence - that is not "delusion".

That is an error in the wiring of the brain where we strongly suspect that sensory feed back from the limb is out of phase with the brains internal body map / image.

And this disparity is causing _very real_ discomfort to the patient. And the patients - probably even correctly - feel that the only treatment to cure their affliction is removal of the limb in question.

Their discomfort and even pain is _very_ real. People have been known to rip out their own teeth when they have a tooth ache. Why should people suffering in this fashion be any different in seeking the same?

These are _massively_ different things. Yet you would simply dismiss them all as "delusion" and move on.

jobbridge4life · 24-03-2016 12:40pm

walshyn93 wrote: »

If you're so convinced you are right you could maybe argue the case rather than attacking the character of people who disagree with you and making fallacious appeals to authority and innuendo.

You're entire argument is predicated on attacking the character and mental health of every transgender person.

walshyn93 wrote: »

If it was so easy to debunk our arguments someone would have done it by now.

If they had any worth you'd think that they'd have an army of the relevant professionals, you know, the qualified experts that spend their lives researching and understanding these issues, lining up to back them. Funny that its actually the other way round.

Kev W · 24-03-2016 12:41pm

walshyn93 wrote: »

If someone wants to remove a body part themselves that is more of a cause to have them institutionalised than to make reality conform to their delusions.

Someone may very well hold the sincere belief that their genitals are the wrong kind, but if they're mental enough to hack away at themselves they shouldn't be trusted to make medical decisions.

In any other area we do not indulge this type of misconception. It's only because identity politics comes into it that we choose to indulge.

I think generally speaking someone else does that for them, and there's not really any "hacking away" involved.

But you're right that different ideas are applied in different situations. Is there some reason why they should not?

In all seriousness though, the idea that transgender people should be institutionalised is disgustingly Victorian.

Zillah · 24-03-2016 12:43pm

walshyn93 wrote: »

If it was so easy to debunk our arguments someone would have done it by now.

Yeah like that's ever worked on this thread so far.

One cannot use reason against those who are not amenable to reason.

walshyn93 · 24-03-2016 12:52pm

Zillah wrote: »

This is the opposite of reality is so many ways. Europe is extremely socialist and collectivist by comparison to the US, as reflected by the fact that people pay higher taxes and those taxes are used to pay for healthcare and education for everyone, including those who could not afford them without the socialist system.

The US is based on a more individualistic streak, with a far more ruthless laissez-faire economic system where the strong can exploit the weak, minimum wage is painfully low, health care can bankrupt you, and third-level education is a ludicrous dream for poor people.

Conservatives are measurably less forgiving, more punitive, and more xenophobic.

Your worldview is literally the exact opposite of the real world.

While One eyed Jack has missed the mark by a good bit your caricature of US culture shows a total ignorance of reality.

People who think the US has low welfare, punishingly low minimum wage have totally swallowed the progressive BS

The average Federal welfare payment is about 175 dollars a week. Not far off ours. The Federal minimum wage is 7.25, higher than most European countries especially taking into account the cost of living.

What most people forget is the extent to which the states take care of things, which makes far more sense. Saying that the US doesn't have free healthcare is like saying Europe doesn't have free healthcare because the EU itself doesn't provide healthcare

Many state minimum wages are considerably higher than the highest minimum wages in Europe. Illinois for example is 10 dollars an hour making it better than ours. Healthcare is and always has been free for everyone who is <136% of the federal poverty rate. It's now heavily subsidised for those above that level.

As many poor people go to college in the US as in most European countries. Getting into college as a poor person is very easy with all the federal grants and loans available, not to mention the lower academic criteria for the poor. The issue for the poor isn't not getting into college, it's dropping out.

The notion that America is a deeply conservative country is a myth that is used to justify the expansion of all aspects of government.

walshyn93 · 24-03-2016 1:01pm

jobbridge4life wrote: »

You're entire argument is predicated on attacking the character and mental health of every transgender person.

If they had any worth you'd think that they'd have an army of the relevant professionals, you know, the qualified experts that spend their lives researching and understanding these issues, lining up to back them. Funny that its actually the other way round.

Bit of a stretch to say I'm attacking their character.

More fallacious appeals to authority.

jobbridge4life · 24-03-2016 1:03pm

walshyn93 wrote: »

Bit of a stretch to say I'm attacking their character.

Not remotely.

walshyn93 wrote: »

More fallacious appeals to authority.

Yeah dude and I don't think I am alone in placing more trust in trained professionals than a boardsie on a mission.

walshyn93 · 24-03-2016 1:04pm

Kev W wrote: »

I think generally speaking someone else does that for them, and there's not really any "hacking away" involved.

But you're right that different ideas are applied in different situations. Is there some reason why they should not?

In all seriousness though, the idea that transgender people should be institutionalised is disgustingly Victorian.

You're missing the context of what I said. A poster tried to justify reassignment surgery because they might feel the need to remove their sex organs themselves.

I don't care what kind of -orian or -ism it is to be perfectly honest. Institutionalising someone who means to do themselves harm is a perfectly humane thing to do.

walshyn93 · 24-03-2016 1:07pm

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Not remotely.

Yeah dude and I don't think I am alone in placing more trust in trained professionals than a boardsie on a mission.

Extremely remote. Saying that someone might be suffering from a delusion because their beliefs do not conform to reality is not a personal attack. It's a perfectly rational assessment.

Trained professionals whom you refuse to name, or cite the evidence on which they rely. Namely the explanation has to how reassignment surgery is the best long term treatment pathway considering how they all commit suicide at the same rate anyway.

I'm not lacking for company in the trained professional department mind you. John Hopkins University pioneered the surgery and now doesn't perform it because they say it's not the best treatment pathway.

Zillah · 24-03-2016 1:11pm

walshyn93 wrote: »

The notion that America is a deeply conservative country is a myth that is used to justify the expansion of all aspects of government.

It's a whole continent with 50 states so of course there is going to be a lot of variety. I'm not going to get into a detailed debate on each point, the main thing being that claiming that Europe is individualistic compared to a more collectivist US is the polar opposite of the continental dynamics. When it comes to education and healthcare it's far easier for a poor person in Europe than the US.

24-03-2016 1:11pm

walshyn93 wrote: »

A poster tried to justify reassignment surgery because they might feel the need to remove their sex organs themselves.

Wow - I am glad _I_ never made such a claim.

walshyn93 wrote: »

Saying that someone might be suffering from a delusion because their beliefs do not conform to reality is not a personal attack. It's a perfectly rational assessment.

Entirely agree with that!

The issue _then_ is identifying which people are cases of claiming something that does not conform to reality - and which people are cases of claiming genuine internal feelings or desires or discomforts.

Because despite some people on the thread acting otherwise - the two are _not_ the same - and the latter is _not_ "delusion".

walshyn93 · 24-03-2016 1:13pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Not really. For example what physical defect at the level of the brain do you expect to find for people who think top politicians are actually aliens in disguise who have infiltrated our worlds elite?

That is more what I would label "delusion" and I would be hard pushed to imagine what physical defect or brain wiring defect you expect to find in that case.

But when - again to use BIID as an example - a person feels like a limb is an alien - tormenting - even agonisingly painful - intrusion on their well being an existence - that is not "delusion".

That is an error in the wiring of the brain where we strongly suspect that sensory feed back from the limb is out of phase with the brains internal body map / image.

And this disparity is causing _very real_ discomfort to the patient. And the patients - probably even correctly - feel that the only treatment to cure their affliction is removal of the limb in question.

Their discomfort and even pain is _very_ real. People have been known to rip out their own teeth when they have a tooth ache. Why should people suffering in this fashion be any different in seeking the same?

These are _massively_ different things. Yet you would simply dismiss them all as "delusion" and move on.

If your main issue is with the use of the term delusion, then fine, we can drop the usage of the term delusion.

But we don't remove someone's arm because they feel it doesn't belong to them, do we? Because having arms or not is not an issue for identity politics. If sex wasn't involved and identity politics didn't have its say I think transgenderism would be treated the same as BIID.

jobbridge4life · 24-03-2016 1:13pm

walshyn93 wrote: »

Extremely remote. Saying that someone might be suffering from a delusion because their beliefs do not conform to reality is not a personal attack. It's a perfectly rational assessment.

Your comments and their tombre go well beyond that.

walshyn93 wrote: »

I'm not lacking for company in the trained professional department mind you. John Hopkins University pioneered the surgery and now doesn't perform it because they say it's not the best treatment pathway.

Oh you very much are and I wouldn't be citing JHU in this regard or the 'esteemed' Dr. McHugh. But like climate change deniers you'll always find some religious nut or contrarian attention seeker to validate you in the echo-chamber.

walshyn93 · 24-03-2016 1:17pm

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Your comments and their tombre go well beyond that.

Oh you very much are and I wouldn't be citing JHU in this regard or the 'esteemed' Dr. McHugh. But like climate change deniers you'll always find some religious nut or contrarian attention seeker to validate you in the echo-chamber.

If you want to get aggressive and accusatory I suggest you visit another thread.

silverharp · 24-03-2016 1:17pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I have to say I have not heard of that one except for the two paragraphs I just read now when you mentioned it.

But I think the term "deluded" is one too easily used - even for people like that - without knowing more. It is one of those terms that says too much - so says nothing at all. In fact I struggle to think where I would even argue for a 100% pure use of it.

What I think it is - is a term placeholder for our ignorance. And a lot of what we think were "delusion" in the past we are slowly finding very real physical explanations for at the level of the brain and there are genuinely good reasons why people feel or think like they do.

Capgras syndrome being a wonderful example of this where in the past we would listen to what these people were telling us - and simply conclude they were deluded loonies. But now we know exactly why they feel and think like they do.

So nowadays - without a lot more study and research - I would not look at a claim that I never heard before like the ones you speak of - and simply assume "delusion". There could be any number of neurological _real_ issues that lead people to it.

And the less individual and more "group" like reports of it are - the more I would suspect that. I could even make guesses _towards_ what the answers will turn out to be in some of their cases.

But remember delusion in the dictionary is "a belief maintained in contradiction to reality". So something like "I think my mother was replaced with an imposter replica" in Capgras syndrome at least fits the definition despite us understanding now why people think that delusion.

I'd agree, deluded is just a word that needs to be unpacked depending on what the issue is. With the "otherkin" example my initial view is that its some type of self indulgence but could imagine its a symptom of something deeper too in some cases. I would need to know things like does it negatively affect an individual in the real world? which Im guessing at some level would be yes even if its just that people wouldn't take the individual seriously. So one would hope that if the person cant drop it by themselves they get professional therapeutic or psychological help.

Deleted User wrote: »

But "I feel like my limb is alien to me and it's presence is a constant distraction and even agony" or "I am genetically male but everything I want to express and everything inside me feels like what I identify with the term female" are not statements about reality. They are statements about personal feelings and emotions and drives. And as such the term "delusion" does not really apply.

whether you can categorise those things together I don't know enough to say, if someone feels compelled to want to cut their arm off , I'd expect the thrust of professional help to mitigate this desire in some way. it would seem silly to suggest that they are "in the wrong body" as one armed humans aren't a thing anymore than someone born with one eye is a separate category of human called a Cyclops.

Wibbs · 24-03-2016 1:18pm

Right. Enough is enough. walshyn93 you are skirting extremely close to moderator action with your "deluded" rhetoric and similar about Transexual people among others. It stops now. If you can't frame your argument without resorting to such rhetoric, then don't post. Any more along these lines and you will be banned.

JPNelsforearm after that last post of yours which I've since deleted do NOT post in this thread again.

silverharp · 24-03-2016 1:24pm

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Funnily enough, a couple of months ago I came across a link to this Reddit post through /r/bestof. The poster has a friend who are studying self-styled "otherkin", and a significant proportion ended up identifying as transgender. The process of gender re-assignment is an arduous one, one which I'm sure requires expensive surgery, hormone treatment and counselling (correct me if I'm wrong), one which is pretty much all-or-nothing, whereas being "otherkin" doesn't have that same process. There's not really such a thing as "species re-assignment surgery" to make an "otherkin" person look more like the animal they identify as, and besides, "otherkin" communities (going by what that Redditor has said) usually advise their members to keep their animal identity private.

probably best, yet they put out youtube videos which quickly get picked up for parody value

12Phase · 24-03-2016 1:25pm

The whole premise of this thread is kind of weird.
You don't get to "allow" or "disallow" your son's personal attributes.

This is a bit like a thread about 'would you allow your son to be ginger or force them to dye their hair'

24-03-2016 1:26pm

walshyn93 wrote: »

If your main issue is with the use of the term delusion, then fine, we can drop the usage of the term delusion.

It is not the term - so much as the understanding of the issue that you displayed while using it. I am not sure changing the terms used is going to solve that.

walshyn93 wrote: »

But we don't remove someone's arm because they feel it doesn't belong to them, do we?

Depends who "we" you mean. In Ireland no we do not. If you mean "we" as in a global society - there are many places in the western world that do. And many people who can not get it locally do not have to travel _so_ far for it. A lot of US citizens for example need only make a flight to mexico.

It is a genuinly hot and emotive debate though with memembers of the medical community coming down on both sides of the issue.

One side is the "do no harm" creed people who think amputating a perfectly functional limb contradicts that.

The other side is the "We are here to treat our patients condition" people who see clearly the patient is suffering - they know pretty clearly what the cause of it is - and they understand the only way to allay the misery and suffering and even outright agony of some people is indeed to operate.

There simply is no moral black and white here. But there is the objective fact that they are not merely suffering from some madness or delusion. There is a _genuine_ condition at play there.

We can just hope that we find a treatment soon. Whether it be a discovery on how to re-write or repair the brain - or whether it be some "magic" solution such as how the condition of "Phantom Limb Syndrome" was treated in many patients by a man with a card board box and a couple of mirrors!!!

But then the moral debate would not end. If we could re-write brains in a tiny way to remove these "alien" or "wrong" feelings from people - should they be expected to take it? For many people their gender identity and such things are core to who they are. There is nothing "wrong" with them. So why should they seek that form of treatment?

So there are objective truths there. But the moral discussion off the back of those truths is anything but straight forward.

walshyn93 · 24-03-2016 1:29pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Right. Enough is enough. walshyn93 you are skirting extremely close to moderator action with your "deluded" rhetoric and similar about Transexual people among others. It stops now. If you can't frame your argument without resorting to such rhetoric, then don't post. Any more along these lines and you will be banned.

JPNelsforearm after that last post of yours which I've since deleted do NOT post in this thread again.

It's not worth getting banned over this so I'm off folks.

24-03-2016 1:40pm

silverharp wrote: »

With the "otherkin" example my initial view is that its some type of self indulgence but could imagine its a symptom of something deeper too in some cases.

I would imagine too but imagining would be all I am doing because I have only heard of "otherkin" today. But the paragraphs I read after you mentioned it mentioned people who feel like their body is a shell and they are an other world spirit caught in it.

So I could guess at what _could_ be going on there at the level of the brain. Take OBE for example. Your brain gets all kinds of sensory inputs including inputs related to "balance" and "position" (from the inner ear and so forth).

And the brain also maintains a "map" of the body shape - position - and posture.

OBE is when these things go out of line. So your brain is getting two different inputs on location. So it feels like you are outside your body in some way.

There is even a great and simple experiment using mirrors and someone elses hand where you can - in the space of 5 or 10 minutes - easily illicit the feeling of OBE in a single limb. I recommend trying it. It is eerie

So imagine for whatever reason - say something similar to frequent but very minor temporal lobe epileptic kind of activity - these two things go out of line in OBE but only _very slightly_.

You might be going around frequently with this sensation that when you reach for - say - a door handle - that some part of you is getting there before or after some other part of you.

You would in other words very strongly get the feeling that there is a _real self_ which is moving around the world and a _pseudo self_ that is out of alignment with that.

If I was living with that kind of condition - I would probably be strongly compelled down the "otherkin" way of thinking too.

silverharp wrote: »

whether you can categorise those things together I don't know enough to say

It is a very broad grouping I am doing just to serve a point. You are right that if we dig deeper than needs be to serve that point that there is issues and nuances with the grouping and I am being simplistic in order to be concise.

But as I said in another paragraph - there is quite a lot of similarity in the tone and content of what these groups of people are telling us they feel. And while anecdote and self reporting are not great evidence - there is enough of it to justify strong expectations and suspicions.

silverharp wrote: »

if someone feels compelled to want to cut their arm off , I'd expect the thrust of professional help to mitigate this desire in some way. it would seem silly to suggest that they are "in the wrong body" as one armed humans aren't a thing anymore than someone born with one eye is a separate category of human called a Cyclops.

But "one armed humans" do not have to be "a thing". That is the crux of the issue. What we suspect strongly is happening is that two inputs the brain is receiving are massively out of alignment - and the result of this being fed back into the consciousness of the patient results in feelings that are massively intrusive and even painful for some.

And it is _so hard_ to imagine what that must be like. To us they look and sound in every way like perfectly functioning human beings. It is seriously hard to get into their head space and understand what it must feel like to have a whole sub-section of your very being simply feel - not just wrong - but like a constantly screaming intrusion.

I repeat my recommendation of the "Alien hand" experiment. Look it up and how to do it (or I can find links if you want). While it does not get you into the head space of those people - it certainly helps take a step or two in that direction. That type of feeling lasts only a few seconds in us. They live with it consistently and constantly all the time. I imagine it must be really horrific for some and maddening in ways that make chronic tinnitus seem pleasant.

One eyed Jack · 24-03-2016 1:54pm

Zillah wrote: »

This is the opposite of reality is so many ways. Europe is extremely socialist and collectivist by comparison to the US, as reflected by the fact that people pay higher taxes and those taxes are used to pay for healthcare and education for everyone, including those who could not afford them without the socialist system.

The US is based on a more individualistic streak, with a far more ruthless laissez-faire economic system where the strong can exploit the weak, minimum wage is painfully low, health care can bankrupt you, and third-level education is a ludicrous dream for poor people.

Conservatives are measurably less forgiving, more punitive, and more xenophobic.

Your worldview is literally the exact opposite of the real world.

Ease up there. I never mentioned anything about economics. I was referring to social attitudes.

We could argue all day about the definition of conservative too, but I'm not sure that'd go anywhere.

One eyed Jack · 24-03-2016 2:35pm

Deleted User wrote: »

And you are an apple.

See we can all write random nonsense assertions about anything we want - when we choose not to back it up in any way other than to assert it.

Me calling you an apple does not make you an apple however. And you simply dismissing my post with one word "incorrect" does not magically make it so. Much as your lack of any substantive argument would compel you to _want_ it to.

If, in your subjective reality, I happen to be an apple, so be it. I don't mind.

Deleted User wrote: »

- sure. But the difference would be that I have explained _why_ I think it naive. So if they _just_ call me naive then they have said nothing at all. I would still be - like I am with you writing "incorrect" above - waiting to see if there is any substance for what they just asserted.

And I would elaborate on suggesting your assertion was incorrect if I thought there was any merit to explaining why you are incorrect. I don't think there is, and so I'm not going to expand on that other than to say you are incorrect.

Deleted User wrote: »

You asked a question for which you yourself highlighted the answer. So all I can do is repeat what you yourself highlighted:

They are not statements about reality. They are statements about personal feelings and emotions and drives. And as such the term "delusion" does not really apply.

To make it simpler for you they are statements about _their_ reality of what _they_ are feeling. They are not making actual statements about the real world or truth claims about that world such as - say - "Obama is one of an alien race of lizards who has invaded our world in human disguise to infiltrate the elite". See the difference now?

What you appear to be talking about is subjective reality as opposed to objective reality. That's the kind of stuff that leads to expressions of "my truth" and "your truth" and so on.

Subjective reality is fine in isolation, but society doesn't care much for other people's subjective reality if it conflicts with their own subjective reality.

Objective reality, even according to your own definition of the word 'delusion', applies.

Zillah wrote: »

Yeah like that's ever worked on this thread so far.

One cannot use reason against those who are not amenable to reason.

I'm certainly amenable to reason, but then there's "your reason", "my reason". etc. You get the point. I have no idea why, and I'll say it again - the thread veered off into sex and sexuality at all.

If at least we can agree that what we are talking about here is gender constructs for males, as that applies in an Irish social context, it would at least narrow down the scope of the discussion to a point where there might actually be some value in the discussion.

drunkmonkey · 24-03-2016 2:43pm

walshyn93 wrote: »

But we don't remove someone's arm because they feel it doesn't belong to them, do we?

Ahh but we do it's called Apotemnophilia, maybe this thread should be closed and a new one started asking would you allow your son to chop off his leg, we might get some agreement from all sides then but I have my doubts, I'd love to see the argument for it though.

jobbridge4life · 24-03-2016 2:46pm

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Ahh but we do it's called Apotemnophilia, maybe this thread should be closed and a new one started asking would you allow your son to chop off his leg, we might get some agreement from all sides then but I have my doubts, I'd love to see the argument for it though.

You really think comparing allowing a child to wear clothing or act in a manner that some people term feminine to dismemberment is a compelling argument for your case?

One eyed Jack · 24-03-2016 2:52pm

jobbridge4life wrote: »

You really think comparing allowing a child to wear clothing or act in a manner that some people term feminine to dismemberment is a compelling argument for your case?

Here's what really bugs me about that - it's what the boy themselves deems to be feminine, and their parents then will agree with whatever boys understanding of femininity, perpetuating the gender stereotypes, and the characterisation and division between them.

That seems to me at least, less about deconstructing gender constructs, and more about just adhering to their understanding of another gender construct.

24-03-2016 2:57pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If, in your subjective reality, I happen to be an apple, so be it. I don't mind.

Hardly the point I was making but as usual you reply to what was not said. The point is simply saying you are an apple no more turns you into one than you declaring me "incorrect" actually means I am.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And I would elaborate on suggesting your assertion was incorrect if I thought there was any merit to explaining why you are incorrect.

Ah your old "I would explain my point - but I could not be bothered" cop out. No surprises here - you pretty much follow a formula at this stage.

If you can not back up what you say - so be it - but I doubt anyone is fooled by this "I could but I won't" crap.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Subjective reality is fine in isolation, but society doesn't care much for other people's subjective reality if it conflicts with their own subjective reality.

Whether they _care_ about it or not has no relevance to whether what I am saying is actually true or not. _Once again_ you have avoided addressing what I actually said by shifting to something entirely tangential.

My point again is there is a difference between someone believing something that is clearly opposite to reality (Such as Obama is really an alien lizard over lord) - and someone who has genuine feelings and sufferings that lead them to want to perform an action that appals the rest of us (Such as feeling some body part might be better off removed).

The former is "delusion" - the latter not so much. And other than saying "incorrect" and then running away - you have not rebutted or even addressed that position or point.

drunkmonkey · 24-03-2016 3:13pm

jobbridge4life wrote: »

You really think comparing allowing a child to wear clothing or act in a manner that some people term feminine to dismemberment is a compelling argument for your case?

I'd like to see it in a separate thread where sex is taken out of the equation. Nothing to do with this thread or trying to make any point but it does pose some of the same questions.

Zillah · 24-03-2016 3:25pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Ease up there. I never mentioned anything about economics. I was referring to social attitudes.

We could argue all day about the definition of conservative too, but I'm not sure that'd go anywhere.

How does a society better show its social values than in how it distributes its wealth? Talk is cheap - ask someone to pony up and you'll see how committed they are to their values. There's nothing less individualistic than sacrificing your wealth to empower others.

IrishTrajan · 24-03-2016 3:26pm

12Phase wrote: »

The whole gender dress code thing is only cultural anyway.

Go back a couple of hundred years and men dressed very flamboyantly.

Because it was masculine to do so and it was how the Irish differentiated themselves from the Normans. The Irish grew their hair long, the Normans kept theirs short. Normans who grew their hair long were considered Gaelicised, Irish who cut their hair short were considered Anglicised.

You're trying to compare flamboyancy with today, but that's not the case, it was to be socially distinct and still considered masculine, not feminine.

IrishTrajan · 24-03-2016 3:29pm

Would I allow my sons to be feminine? No. They're males, they should be masculine. Effeminate males irritate me to no end. Gay? No problem with that. Just don't prance around like a limp-wristed twit whose entire personality revolves around "look at me, I'm gay and I want everyone to know it".

One eyed Jack · 24-03-2016 3:31pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Hardly the point I was making but as usual you reply to what was not said. The point is simply saying you are an apple no more turns you into one than you declaring me "incorrect" actually means I am.

That's exactly the point you're making - if you want to call me an apple, you go right ahead. Whether I disagree with you or not is unlikely to sway your position as that is your truth, and I have no interest in contradicting you on that as it would simply be a waste of my time.

Ah your old "I would explain my point - but I could not be bothered" cop out. No surprises here - you pretty much follow a formula at this stage.

If you can not back up what you say - so be it - but I doubt anyone is fooled by this "I could but I won't" crap.

If you go back and look at your statement again, you'll see that you made a stupidly broad generalisation about psychological disorders, and rather than spend all day going back and forth with you, I'll just say you're wrong, and leave it at that.

I'm not trying to fool anyone here either btw, so your attempts to ascribe motivations without foundation, while admonishing me for making claims without foundation?

Odd, to say the least.

Whether they _care_ about it or not has no relevance to whether what I am saying is actually true or not. _Once again_ you have avoided addressing what I actually said by shifting to something entirely tangential.

I said that they do not care for, not that they do not care about. I do not care for your argument, but I care about whether you're likely to make one any time soon that's actually relevant to the thread rather than soapboxing.

My point again is there is a difference between someone believing something that is clearly opposite to reality (Such as Obama is really an alien lizard over lord) - and someone who has genuine feelings and sufferings that lead them to want to perform an action that appals the rest of us (Such as feeling some body part might be better off removed).

The former is "delusion" - the latter not so much. And other than saying "incorrect" and then running away - you have not rebutted or even addressed that position or point.

But if they have a genuine belief that Obama is indeed a lizard overlord and that causes them genuine feelings and sufferings that lead them to perform an action that appals the rest of us, where's the difference in subjective reality there?

Why is one belief delusional, and the other one not?

If a boy believes that a dress looks good on them, then are they delusional, or is that just their reality?

24-03-2016 3:40pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's exactly the point you're making

Nice of you to tell me what my points are but given you are doing so erroneously you would be better off listening to me tell you what my points are.

Again my point is simple. You simply calling me "incorrect" and then running away does not mean I was incorrect. And it is not suggestive at all (quite the opposite) that you are aware of any arguments that establish that I was incorrect.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If you go back and look at your statement again, you'll see that you made a stupidly broad generalisation about psychological disorders

I did no such thing at all. You are making up your own reality again. Odd, to say the least.

What I did do was take the "stupidly broad generalisation" other people are making and showing how that generalisation contains two __very__ distinct types and elements.

Big difference there.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'll just say you're wrong, and leave it at that.

Clearly you will. But that does not mean I was actually wrong. But it is strongly suggesting you can not argue that I was wrong. Especially given you just summarised by position above not just incorrectly - but _exactly_ backwards. Odd, to say the least.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not trying to fool anyone here either btw

Yet the things you say indicate otherwise. From your "I could explain why you are wrong but I wont" nonsense - to inserting things in my mouth I never said. Odd, to say the least.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I do not care for your argument, but I care about whether you're likely to make one any time soon that's actually relevant to the thread rather than soapboxing.

Oh come off it. The guy who declares someone to be incorrect but adamantly refuses to explain how or why - and goes around replying to things never said or directly claiming things were said that were not - has _no basis_ whatsoever for claiming I have not made relevant arguments. I have made my points - and explained the basis for them - and they have been on topic. You - not so much.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Why is one belief delusional, and the other one not?

I have explained why three times or more now. I am happy to do so again. One is delusional because it is founded and predicated on a belief that is directly contrary to reality.

The other is not. Nor have you pointed to one thing in the position that is.

This is not a small difference.

One eyed Jack · 24-03-2016 3:46pm

Zillah wrote: »

How does a society better show its social values than in how it distributes its wealth? Talk is cheap - ask someone to pony up and you'll see how committed they are to their values. There's nothing less individualistic than sacrificing your wealth to empower others.

Well if we were to judge a society's social values by how it distributes it's wealth, the various organised religions in the States aren't likely to go hungry any time soon. With wealth it's a question of who it's actually being distributed to, and by whom.

I don't measure a society's values by how much the people in that society put into the Church basket, I judge a society by the actions of the people within that society. Talk is cheap, and money only has value when it's agreed just what value it has, but the actions of the people within that society are what shapes it.

One eyed Jack · 24-03-2016 3:58pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I have explained why three times or more now. I am happy to do so again. One is delusional because it is founded and predicated on a belief that is directly contrary to reality.

The other is not. Nor have you pointed to one thing in the position that is.

This is not a small difference.

But it is their reality! You've said as much yourself?

Now you appear to be suggesting that their reality isn't based upon their belief at all, but on whether or not their belief maps to your belief of reality?

So either they agree with you, or they're delusional.

Well exploring that was pointless.

Anyhow, boys adhering to atypical gender roles. You appear to believe that parents who do not adhere to their son's reality, are delusional.

We appear to have a fundamentally different understanding of the word delusional then in that case.

jobbridge4life · 24-03-2016 4:01pm

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Would I allow my sons to be feminine? No. They're males, they should be masculine. Effeminate males irritate me to no end. Gay? No problem with that. Just don't prance around like a limp-wristed twit whose entire personality revolves around "look at me, I'm gay and I want everyone to know it".

OHhhh b!tch!

Gurlll I just done took the clip outta my hair. That is fighting talk.

24-03-2016 4:03pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But it is their reality! You've said as much yourself?

I said what they desire is based on their reality. Which is that they are suffering from genuine discomfort.

But _in reality_ they are reacting to an objective truth. A disparity at the level of the brain between sensory inputs from the body - and the brains internal map of the body.

So at _no point_ is their condition or desires based on anything that is objectively contrary or entirely unsupported by evidence in reality. So the word "delusion" does not apply.

This is starkly contrary to people who think Obama is a lizard alien in Human Pseudo Skin.

Again this is not a small difference.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Anyhow, boys adhering to atypical gender roles. You appear to believe that parents who do not adhere to their son's reality, are delusional.

Not what I said - suggested - or implied - anywhere. No.

What I did say is that the reasoning that has been offered on this thread for getting the child to suppress who and what they are/feel - is naive and not well argued - and could for a few reasons I and others listed - be more damaging to the child than those parents suspect.

One eyed Jack · 24-03-2016 4:04pm

jobbridge4life wrote: »

OHhhh b!tch!

Gurlll I just done took the clip outta my hair. That is fighting talk.

I can't tell if you're actually serious or not

Wibbs · 24-03-2016 4:06pm

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Just don't prance around like a limp-wristed twit

No more of the daft stereotypes please and equally please try to post to some sort of standard.

One eyed Jack · 24-03-2016 4:20pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I said what they desire is based on their reality. Which is that they are suffering from genuine discomfort.

But _in reality_ they are reacting to an objective truth. A disparity at the level of the brain between sensory inputs from the body - and the brains internal map of the body.

So at _no point_ is their condition or desires based on anything that is objectively contrary or entirely unsupported by evidence in reality. So the word "delusion" does not apply.

This is starkly contrary to people who think Obama is a lizard alien in Human Pseudo Skin.

Again this is not a small difference.

I see lots of words, I see no difference between one belief that couldn't equally be applied to the other belief. There are numerous conditions that would cause someone to hold beliefs that are their truth, that conflict with objective reality.

What I did say is that the reasoning that has been offered on this thread for getting the child to suppress who and what they are/feel - is naive and not well argued - and could for a few reasons I and others listed - be more damaging to the child than those parents suspect.

But you know neither the parents, nor the child, so you have no idea of their reality. In that case, what could happen, is based on nothing but ignorance. There are plenty of things that could happen, and there are plenty of things that could happen which would negate the effect of one thing being more damaging to the child than something else.

Your reasons are simply based on correlations drawn from insufficient data and begging the question fallacies, because none of us here can predict an individual's future, and it would be naive to think we could, based on bad data.

24-03-2016 4:36pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I see lots of words, I see no difference between one belief that couldn't equally be applied to the other belief.

And yet the difference is huge and I have explained it multiple times in multiple ways. I am happy to keep doing so.

Again - in one case their position is based on something that is simply untrue and based on zero evidence. There is literally no reason to think aliens are on the planet - let alone that Obama is one of them. Their belief is simply directly contrary to reality.

While in the case of the others - there is nothing - and you certainly have not moved to show anything - that they think, want, or believe that is directly contrary to reality.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But you know neither the parents, nor the child, so you have no idea of their reality.

Lucky I did not claim to then isn't it? I have very clearly couched my positions in terms like "likely" and "probably" and explained the reasons _why_ I think those things likely or probably.

Nothing I have said or claimed required I "know" these people.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

none of us here can predict an individual's future, and it would be naive to think we could, based on bad data.

Lucky I did not claim to then isn't it? I am making general comments on general trends - based on arguments I have been clear about - as to what is likely to be the best idea or what is likely to be more harmful an idea than you might at first suspect.

And that kind of commentary is not about coming down to the level of the individual.

It would be like me saying "If you intend to go and have rampant gay sex in the local truck stop every night for the next month then the best thing to do is wear condoms because you might catch HIV"

And being replied to "Well you can not _say for sure_ to any individual that if they do that they will get HIV!!!".

Well sure - because I never said any individual will do so - I said "given argument x y and z in general policy 1 looks good and policy 2 not so good".

It is not about individuals. So do not make it about that - or act like I did.

One eyed Jack · 24-03-2016 4:54pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And yet the difference is huge and I have explained it multiple times in multiple ways. I am happy to keep doing so.

Again - in one case their position is based on something that is simply untrue and based on zero evidence. There is literally no reason to think aliens are on the planet - let alone that Obama is one of them. Their belief is simply directly contrary to reality.

While in the case of the others - there is nothing - and you certainly have not moved to show anything - that they think, want, or believe that is directly contrary to reality.

So you appoint yourself the arbiter of other people's reality then?

That seems very convenient for people whom you agree with, and very inconvenient for the people whom you disagree with.

Lucky I did not claim to then isn't it? I have very clearly couched my positions in terms like "likely" and "probably" and explained the reasons _why_ I think those things likely or probably.

Nothing I have said or claimed required I "know" these people.

Lucky I did not claim to then isn't it? I am making general comments on general trends - based on arguments I have been clear about - as to what is likely to be the best idea or what is likely to be more harmful an idea than you might at first suspect.

And that kind of commentary is not about coming down to the level of the individual.

It would be like me saying "If you intend to go and have rampant gay sex in the local truck stop every night for the next month then the best thing to do is wear condoms because you might catch HIV"

And being replied to "Well you can not _say for sure_ to any individual that if they do that they will get HIV!!!".

Well sure - because I never said any individual will do so - I said "given argument x y and z in general policy 1 looks good and policy 2 not so good".

It is not about individuals. So do not make it about that - or act like I did.

It appears to come down to the will of individuals when it suits you, and then arguing about specific ideas, when the will of the individual argument doesn't suit you.

Some extraordinary moving of the goalposts there.

24-03-2016 5:01pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

So you appoint yourself the arbiter of other people's reality then?

Not even _remotely_ close to what I am saying no. How come not just most but _every_ time you move to summarise my position rather than reply to it - you do so in a way that is not even close to anything I have said?

All I have said is that in Case A) You can very clearly show the people believe something contrary to reality. In Case

You can not even remotely do so.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Some extraordinary moving of the goalposts there.

No the goalpost moving is you and you alone. But summarising my position to something I never said - claiming I said things I never once did - and declaring people to be "incorrect" but 100% blank refusing to elaborate on that when asked - but then claiming _they_ have not been making relevant arguments.

One eyed Jack · 24-03-2016 5:20pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not even _remotely_ close to what I am saying no. How come not just most but _every_ time you move to summarise my position rather than reply to it - you do so in a way that is not even close to anything I have said?

All I have said is that in Case A) You can very clearly show the people believe something contrary to reality. In Case You can not even remotely do so.

Your logic is all over the place is why. In one case you make allowances for other people's reality based upon "their truth", and in another case you make no allowances for those people's reality based on their truth? The difference appears to be based upon whatever you yourself already want to believe, based on your reality.

No the goalpost moving is you and you alone. But summarising my position to something I never said - claiming I said things I never once did - and declaring people to be "incorrect" but 100% blank refusing to elaborate on that when asked - but then claiming _they_ have not been making relevant arguments.

I'm trying to understand your position, but your position simply appears to be based on scaremongering - what might happen if a parent doesn't do what you suggest would be in the best interests of their child, in that very specific set of circumstances.

That simply sounds like you're passing judgement upon the parents because they're not acting in accordance with your opinion, but are acting in what they believe are the best interests of their child.

And people suggest I'm an authoritarian?

IrishTrajan · 24-03-2016 5:22pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Again - in one case their position is based on something that is simply untrue and based on zero evidence. There is literally no reason to think aliens are on the planet - let alone that Obama is one of them. Their belief is simply directly contrary to reality.

While in the case of the others - there is nothing - and you certainly have not moved to show anything - that they think, want, or believe that is directly contrary to reality.

But do they not come down to the same point? It's their irrational belief.

Aliens lizards is clearly more delusional (and probably more malign considering it's nutters who think aliens rule the world that are more likely to shoot someone), but that doesn't mean the second isn't delusional.

To frame it in other terms - if they are physically/biologically male but believe they look better dressing as a female, is it not indicative of a mental disorder (for lack of a kinder term)? If so, that would imply that it is a delusion. Obviously a benign one, they're not causing harm to anyone, but it would be a delusion nonetheless, would it not?

Would you allow your sons to be feminine?

Comments