Allegations of transphobia Mod Advisory post #42

Yes I did interpret "fluid" in that context as meaning subject to change, sorry about that, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth.

Bannasidhe

Rylie Happy Potassium wrote: »

I am sorry if it appears that way, that is not what I am doing. I am trying to understand your position, by asking questions about it. I'll try to be clearer.

Do you think someone's gender can change, or is it something which is fixed?

Your reference to biological factors (such as hormone/chromosomes mistakes etc.) suggested to me (wrongly perhaps) that there is an objective basis for the belief that gender is real (i.e. it is linked to biology and basically sometimes biology makes a mistake and puts a man into a woman's body and vice versa), but in this context it would seem that explanation would tilt towards a more confining binary male/female categorization, and I don't understand how other genders, or no gender etc. would fit into or be explained by this. EDIT: Of course I could be picking you up wrong.

My essential question is that I do not understand if there is, or if there can be, an objective basis, within the realms of this broad ideology, for the belief in the reality of the existence of the whole spectrum of genders that are claimed.

It may well be the case that people believe that the personal subjective feeling of identity is enough, and there is no need for any objective reference point, theoretical or otherwise.

This is why I am questioning, I have not made any criticisms of your position, I am endeavoring to understand what you believe, and why you believe it.

I have always understood the word 'fluid' to mean akin to liquid. A thing that flows. Is not in an of itself fixed. Some may believe it means subject to change but it wouldn't be the first thing that would spring to my mind. I did not say it is 'changeable', I said it is, to my way of thinking 'fluid'.

For some individuals their gender is fixed. And that gender conforms to their biological sex. These people form the majority. Most will never even question what gender really means and why should they as they are sorted as it were. This is a binary view of gender. Male or female are the only choices.
Some, but not everyone, will insist that there are correct ways for each gender to present - men are masculine, women are feminine/ there are male roles and female roles. This would be a conservative view.

For others their biological sex and their gender align but they, as individuals, do not conform to the stereotypes generally assigned to their gender. For example masculine women or feminine men. They can be heterosexual or homosexual. Terms used here include Non-Binary and Gender Fluid. They are not transgender - they are cis but not-conforming. They are less inclined to accept that there are fixed assigned roles according to gender.

Then there are people whose biological sex is as odds with the gender they believe themselves to be - this condition is called gender dysphoria. There is a disconnect between biology and sense of self. If you want to know how transgender people view gender roles you will have to ask them, all I can say is the ones I know have zero issue with gender-fluid people. Or to put it another way - they do not insist that minuscule women are transgender men in denial - which is a charge often laid by TERFs*

This is just a small sample by way of illustration. They is a whole range of gender identities. Nor is it new. Gender fluid people have been recorded throughout history across many cultures.
It is not what I 'believe', it is how a wide range of people identify, and who am I to tell someone else how they should identify?
I explained why I identify as I do which is really all I can state with any certainty.

Asking me why or what objective basis there is like asking me why some people are heterosexual, some people are homosexuals, some people are bisexual, some people are Asexual.

I do not know. And to be honest not a flying fart do I give.

My mentioning of chromosomes etc (where I added a caveat that I am not a scientist and do not do science) was by way of illustrating that 'mistakes' are often made during the gestation of a body. All sorts of hormonal and/or chromosomal boo boos. Is it so difficult to accept that gender dysphoria is one example of such a biological mishap?


*TERF = Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists. Cis women who identify as feminist but insist biological sex and gender are the same thing, and fixed according to what was assigned at birth. They do not accept transgender women as women, but are noticeably silent about transgender men.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I have always understood the word 'fluid' to mean akin to liquid. A thing that flows. Is not in an of itself fixed. Some may believe it means subject to change but it wouldn't be the first thing that would spring to my mind. I did not say it is 'changeable', I said it is, to my way of thinking 'fluid'.

For some individuals their gender is fixed. And that gender conforms to their biological sex. These people form the majority. Most will never even question what gender really means and why should they as they are sorted as it were. This is a binary view of gender. Male or female are the only choices.
Some, but not everyone, will insist that there are correct ways for each gender to present - men are masculine, women are feminine/ there are male roles and female roles. This would be a conservative view.

For others their biological sex and their gender align but they, as individuals, do not conform to the stereotypes generally assigned to their gender. For example masculine women or feminine men. They can be heterosexual or homosexual. Terms used here include Non-Binary and Gender Fluid. They are not transgender - they are cis but not-conforming. They are less inclined to accept that there are fixed assigned roles according to gender.

Then there are people whose biological sex is as odds with the gender they believe themselves to be - this condition is called gender dysphoria. There is a disconnect between biology and sense of self. If you want to know how transgender people view gender roles you will have to ask them, all I can say is the ones I know have zero issue with gender-fluid people. Or to put it another way - they do not insist that minuscule women are transgender men in denial - which is a charge often laid by TERFs*

This is just a small sample by way of illustration. They is a whole range of gender identities. Nor is it new. Gender fluid people have been recorded throughout history across many cultures.
It is not what I 'believe', it is how a wide range of people identify, and who am I to tell someone else how they should identify?
I explained why I identify as I do which is really all I can state with any certainty.

Asking me why or what objective basis there is like asking me why some people are heterosexual, some people are homosexuals, some people are bisexual, some people are Asexual.

I do not know. And to be honest not a flying fart do I give.

My mentioning of chromosomes etc (where I added a caveat that I am not a scientist and do not do science) was by way of illustrating that 'mistakes' are often made during the gestation of a body. All sorts of hormonal and/or chromosomal boo boos. Is it so difficult to accept that gender dysphoria is one example of such a biological mishap?


*TERF = Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists. Cis women who identify as feminist but insist biological sex and gender are the same thing, and fixed according to what was assigned at birth. They do not accept transgender women as women, but are noticeably silent about transgender men.

Thank you for the reply.

From the above, is it correct (I want to make sure I understand) to take it then that what really matters to you is the individuals subjective belief or understanding of their own identity, as the only thing we can be certain of is the validity/existence/whatever of our own gender identity? And that you do not know if there is any objective basis for the existence of gender beyond ones subjective stance on their own identity, and do not deem having an objective basis to be of any importance or relevance?

It would seem (to me) to follow that if we can only be certain of our own gender based on our subjective experience and how we perceive our identity, and accept the existence of other peoples gender as fact on the basis of their subjective experience and their perception of their identity, and there is no objective basis, nor any particular reference or link to our biological condition, that the task of defining genders seems impossible, as there are potentially infinite genders. Does this line of thinking not bring us back to the position of gender, this categorization of people, not really existing? I mean, if something has potentially infinite variations, each as valid as the last with no basis for their existence beyond the subjective individual position where we can only be sure of our own, is the idea of gender at all even useful? Would it not be more accurate to have a position of saying we are all completely unique?

Of course, issues then arise when one persons subjective perception of their own identity comes into direct irreconcilable conflict with someone else's subjective perception of their own identity. If we are dealing with the subjective, with the disregard of anything objective, it would appear that there is no firm basis for saying that either of these people are actually wrong in their thinking.

In that instance things would have to shift away from who is right (as there is no objective basis for saying) to trying to measure the harm that advocating either position does, and suppressing the worst one accordingly if it is deemed too severe. But then who makes this decision, and what gives them the authority to do so? While such a system may serve us well for a time, it is easy to forsee how the principle can potentially lead a culture down some dangerous roads, if the 'wrong' people have power.

I, personally, find it very hard, if not impossible, to advocate any law, or basis for society, without appealing to a claimed objective truth as a justification. (of course, as I said to Seamus earlier whether said objective reasoning is actually correct or true is another question, but there is a massive difference in being wrong in ones objective reasoning, and saying objective reasoning or truth is not necessary at all).

Thanks for your patience and response, this is very interesting.

smacl

Rylie Happy Potassium wrote: »

I, personally, find it very hard, if not impossible, to advocate any law, or basis for society, without appealing to a claimed objective truth as a justification. (of course, as I said to Seamus earlier whether said objective reasoning is actually correct or true is another question, but there is a massive difference in being wrong in ones objective reasoning, and saying objective reasoning or truth is not necessary at all).

Legislature in this area tends to derive from the human rights we afford one another as decent human beings, members of a community, and part of a larger society. We strive to understand with what is and is not acceptable behaviour, where various forms of discrimination have long been deemed unacceptable and hence written into law as illegal. FWIW, your search for purely objective tests here is specious. E.g. there is also no objective test to check if someone is gay, it requires subjective response. At the same time, we as a society, understand and accept the importance of gay rights. For that matter, I would note that their is similarly no objective test to check if you are a Christian yet I note you assert your human right to worship your god on other threads. I would support you in asserting that right even though I don't share your beliefs. Most broadly perhaps, I'm of the opinion that we should give people the space to be who they are, whether that is a matter of choice, a dint of nature, or a combination of both. Those who would choose to discriminate against any group really need to ask themselves why exactly they are doing so.

smacl

smacl wrote: »

Legislature in this area tends to derive from the human rights we afford one another as decent human beings, members of a community, and part of a larger society. We strive to understand what is and is not acceptable behaviour, where various forms of discrimination have long been deemed unacceptable and hence written into law as illegal.

The entire concept and point of human rights is based on the idea that there is such a thing as objective truth which is not dependent on subjective opinion - rather it trumps subjective opinion. When you say that we are "striving to understand" it suggests that there is an ultimate objective truth to be discovered. This would not seem compatible with a society where individual subjective perceptions of anything are elevated to a position of primacy and citizens are obliged (morally and indeed often legally) to accept this subjective perception as unassailable factual truth, where even the idea of objective reasoning to ascertain the truth of something is deemed unnecessary and undesirable.

FWIW, your search for purely objective tests here is specious. E.g. there is also no objective test to check if someone is gay, it requires subjective response. At the same time, we as a society, understand and accept the importance of gay rights. For that matter, I would note that their is similarly no objective test to check if you are a Christian yet I note you assert your human right to worship your god on other threads. I would support you in asserting that right even though I don't share your beliefs.

I thought it was frowned upon to reference someone's posts from another forum? *Mod Snip* - Attacking another poster will not be tolerated. Attacking a poster for their actions as a mod in another forum will find you swiftly sanctioned if repeated. If you have an issue with a post report it. For the record - stating you are as Christian is not referencing anything other than you are a Christian and that you have said so "in other threads" . Of course, a Christian has a very straightforward answer when it comes to the idea of objective truth.. You may well argue that this answer is totally mistaken, but saying that objective truth does not exist, or is not desirable or even important is something altogether different.

In any case, if a society justifies its laws and rules entirely subjectively without any appeal to objective truth, and indeed says objective reasoning is not important or even necessary, there is no legitimacy or foundation in opposing laws you do not like, save a reference to majority opinion, which itself is perhaps incompatible with the elevation of the individual subjective as paramount and 'deciding'. This is a dangerous way to run society. It might seem ok when your own thought is in the ascendancy, but that is not guaranteed to last forever.

Traditionally societies have almost always held that there is such a thing as objective truth, and deemed the concept of same an essential part of the foundation for society, and justification and source of authority. Whether their understanding of objective truth was correct or not is a different discussion (if you wish, for the purposes of discussion we can take it that it was wrong) but a shift to a mentality where objective truth and reasoning is not needed, or even desired, is a major one which has undergone relatively little scrutiny by the general public. This has been a recognized issue by many of the so called new atheists for example. People like Dawkins have sought to address this by elevating the concept of materialism, scientism etc. as being the objective framework for society and for understanding the world, but as we have seen in this instance the implications of this when played out are unacceptable to many who would usually be found in the same boat as Dawkins.

Most broadly perhaps, I'm of the opinion that we should give people the space to be who they are, whether that is a matter of choice, a dint of nature, or a combination of both. Those who would choose to discriminate against any group really need to ask themselves why exactly they are doing so.

Like earlier, this is the type of broad statement that sounds very good and hard to disagree with, but ultimately requires (I would hope) many caveats which make it quite prescriptive, and hence does not really address the core issues.

smacl

Rylie Happy Potassium wrote: »

The entire concept and point of human rights is based on the idea that there is such a thing as objective truth which is not dependent on subjective opinion - rather it trumps subjective opinion. When you say that we are "striving to understand" it suggests that there is an ultimate objective truth to be discovered.

No sure where you got that idea. Human rights is the concept that we treat people on an equitable basis regardless of who they are, what they believe or how they identify. It is not a search for 'objective truth' whatever that may or may not encompass. What we are striving to understand is how best we can treat people fairly and overcome anachronistic notions that embody and defend discriminatory practises such as transphobia.

Bannasidhe

Rylie Happy Potassium wrote: »

The entire concept and point of human rights is based on the idea that there is such a thing as objective truth which is not dependent on subjective opinion - rather it trumps subjective opinion. When you say that we are "striving to understand" it suggests that there is an ultimate objective truth to be discovered. This would not seem compatible with a society where individual subjective perceptions of anything are elevated to a position of primacy and citizens are obliged (morally and indeed often legally) to accept this subjective perception as unassailable factual truth, where even the idea of objective reasoning to ascertain the truth of something is deemed unnecessary and undesirable.

That is simply not so.
People have the right to their religious beliefs in the E.U. (I am not going to get into a tangent about the situation across the Globe) yet there is zero objective proof of the existence of a god/gods never mind which one of the various religions may be 'true'.

One could say religious belief is fluid - people can and do 'change' their beliefs, sometimes quite radically. Yet, no one has been able to objectively prove that a god or gods even exist. Yet, we are expected to accept this existence as an unassailable truth by those who believe.

It is a subjective belief - not an objective. Yet there are rights enshrined in law.

I frame my argument as a human right's issue. You seek to frame it as a objective truth argument yet you yourself hold strong views that are subjective yet protected by law.

smacl

smacl wrote: »

No sure where you got that idea. Human rights is the concept that we treat people on an equitable basis regardless of who they are, what they believe or how they identify. It is not a search for 'objective truth' whatever that may or may not encompass. What we are striving to understand is how best we can treat people fairly and overcome anachronistic notions that embody and defend discriminatory practises such as transphobia.

It's not my idea, it is the state of affairs and the basis from which they evolved, or rather were discovered.

The very idea of fundamental human rights is based on the idea that these rights are in effect objectively true, even if a group of people decide that they do not apply. The very fact that you point to a "human right" as a justification for arguing in favour, or against, something is a reference to a value which is objectively true and absolute and trumps an individuals, or a societies, subjective opinion.

If they are not objective truths, then on what basis can you demand a society or country or whatever abide by them, if they, in their subjective sovereignty, decide they do not want to?

If, for example, you believe that the murder of innocent people is wrong and a breach of human rights, you may well say to people committing such horrors that this is something which is objectively wrong, and claim authority based on this objective truth to take action to stop it. If, however, you say that human rights are not objective truths and are based on either individual subjective thinking, or even a consensus of this subjective thinking in a community, then how can you claim authority to stop such horrors, if the subjective opinion of the people involved does not match your own?

If a human right is not an objective truth or value, or claimed as such, and is rather subjective, then they are subject to change, meaning that what you hold to be a human right, or even society today holds, is not fixed and can safely be discarded with should opinion change. This undermines the very concept of human rights which are based on the idea that some things are, were and will always be wrong.

smacl

Rylie Happy Potassium wrote: »

It's not my idea, it is the state of affairs and the basis from which they evolved, or rather were discovered.

The very idea of fundamental human rights is based on the idea that these rights are in effect objectively true, even if a group of people decide that they do not apply. The very fact that you point to a "human right" as a justification for arguing in favour, or against, something is a reference to a value which is objectively true and absolute and trumps an individuals, or a societies, subjective opinion.

If they are not objective truths, then on what basis can you demand a society or country or whatever abide by them, if they, in their subjective sovereignty, decide they do not want to?

If, for example, you believe that the murder of innocent people is wrong and a breach of human rights, you may well say to people committing such horrors that this is something which is objectively wrong, and claim authority based on this objective truth to take action to stop it. If, however, you say that human rights are not objective truths and are based on either individual subjective thinking, or even a consensus of this subjective thinking in a community, then how can you claim authority to stop such horrors, if the subjective opinion of the people involved does not match your own?

If a human right is not an objective truth or value, or claimed as such, and is rather subjective, then they are subject to change, meaning that what you hold to be a human right, or even society today holds, is not fixed and can safely be discarded with should opinion change. This undermines the very concept of human rights which are based on the idea that some things are, were and will always be wrong.

You seem confused between what is a right (objectively assessed) and what that right is defending (potentially subjective). e.g. freedom from discrimination based gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity or religious beliefs is a right and is objectively assessed. Gender, sexual orientation and religious belief on the other hand cannot be objectively assessed as they have significant subjective components. If someone tells us that they are gay, or trans, or Christian for example, it is not for us to tell them otherwise.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

That is simply not so.
People have the right to their religious beliefs in the E.U. (I am not going to get into a tangent about the situation across the Globe) yet there is zero objective proof of the existence of a god/gods never mind which one of the various religions may be 'true'.

One could say religious belief is fluid - people can and do 'change' their beliefs, sometimes quite radically. Yet, no one has been able to objectively prove that a god or gods even exist. Yet, we are expected to accept this existence as an unassailable truth by those who believe.

It is a subjective belief - not an objective. Yet there are rights enshrined in law.

I frame my argument as a human right's issue. You seek to frame it as a objective truth argument yet you yourself hold strong views that are subjective yet protected by law.

Again, the appeal to an objective truth as the basis or justification for something, that an objective truth or value is necessary or important, is distinct from whether the objective basis is true or not.

Saying something like "the objective truth, reasoning etc., you gesture to is wrong, here is the real truth" is a totally different conversation to saying that the concept of objective truth or reasoning is not desirable or necessary. The likes of Dawkins would insert materialism, scientism etc. in as being the objective reasoning and truth underpinning the world and humanity. But we can see here how this has got him into trouble, when he plays it out to the inevitable conclusions.

So we seem to have a position, certainly in this thread, where the individual subjective perception is elevated and accepted as reality, not just for the individual, but it is demanded that everyone's individual subjective truth is accepted as fact by everyone else. It is not clear to me how this can function in the long term, given the huge risk for conflict if it goes wrong (not to mention the inevitable conflict of irreconcilable subjective perceptions) , and the paralyzing effect this elevation of individual subjectivity as paramount to the exclusion of external objective truths, will have on good people who would otherwise perhaps 'call out' behavior they viewed as violating objective values or truths. Indeed, they would not have any justification - deciding as a point of principle, without any reference to supposed or otherwise objective truths or values, to impose your own subjective beliefs on others, perhaps by force, would seem to be most unjust. Now this happens for sure, but it is usually justified by reference to supposed objective truths. Saying that objective reasoning or truths are not necessary (or perhaps even possible) at all, is a huge departure.

In the west, even today, our societies, culture and morality is undoubtedly informed by and based upon Judeo-Christian philosophy. Much of what we take for granted is what some would term "conditioning" or "social construction" based on that philosophical basis. Much of the time of the people who hold the ideology under discussion in this thread is spent railing against these post-Christian hang ups, dismantling what they view as being oppressive elements of it. In many ways the unifying principle is one of reaction, which is fair enough. But what happens when this is all dismantled, and a positive definition for a society and culture is required, and not one based on removing the oppression of a then destroyed and disappeared culture? If there is no objective basis or understanding of truth, how can it be anything other than chaos?

We have already seen umpteen viscous fallouts among former allies when these things are talked about even in an abstract basis, or discussion is even attempted about them. Not good.

Bannasidhe

Rylie Happy Potassium wrote: »

Again, the appeal to an objective truth as the basis or justification for something, that an objective truth or value is necessary or important, is distinct from whether the objective basis is true or not.

Saying something like "the objective truth, reasoning etc., you gesture to is wrong, here is the real truth" is a totally different conversation to saying that the concept of objective truth or reasoning is not desirable or necessary. The likes of Dawkins would insert materialism, scientism etc. in as being the objective reasoning and truth underpinning the world and humanity. But we can see here how this has got him into trouble, when he plays it out to the inevitable conclusions.

So we seem to have a position, certainly in this thread, where the individual subjective perception is elevated and accepted as reality, not just for the individual, but it is demanded that everyone's individual subjective truth is accepted as fact by everyone else. It is not clear to me how this can function in the long term, given the huge risk for conflict if it goes wrong (not to mention the inevitable conflict of irreconcilable subjective perceptions) , and the paralyzing effect this elevation of individual subjectivity as paramount to the exclusion of external objective truths, will have on good people who would otherwise perhaps 'call out' behavior they viewed as violating objective values or truths. Indeed, they would not have any justification - deciding as a point of principle, without any reference to supposed or otherwise objective truths or values, to impose your own subjective beliefs on others, perhaps by force, would seem to be most unjust. Now this happens for sure, but it is usually justified by reference to supposed objective truths. Saying that objective reasoning or truths are not necessary (or perhaps even possible) at all, is a huge departure.

In the west, even today, our societies, culture and morality is undoubtedly informed by and based upon Judeo-Christian philosophy. Much of what we take for granted is what some would term "conditioning" or "social construction" based on that philosophical basis. Much of the time of the people who hold the ideology under discussion in this thread is spent railing against these post-Christian hang ups, dismantling what they view as being oppressive elements of it. In many ways the unifying principle is one of reaction, which is fair enough. But what happens when this is all dismantled, and a positive definition for a society and culture is required, and not one based on removing the oppression of a then destroyed and disappeared culture? If there is no objective basis or understanding of truth, how can it be anything other than chaos?

We have already seen umpteen viscous fallouts among former allies when these things are talked about even in an abstract basis, or discussion is even attempted about them. Not good.

With respect.
You are the poster who keeps introducing this notion of Objective truth. It is ironic that as a religious believer much of your identity is based on a subjective belief.
You very much appear to be putting forward a Miss Jean Brodie argument.

Repeating it ad nauseum is not going to change the answers you get from me as I never claimed to be seeking an objective truth, in search of an objective truth, believe in an objective truth, slightly interested in the existence of an objective truth.
My sole mentions of objective truth have been to point out that you, who keeps banging on about it, hold subjective beliefs protected by law, yet claim to be confused when gender is classified as fluid (what you term subjective) yet can still have legal protections.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

With respect.
You are the poster who keeps introducing this notion of Objective truth. It is ironic that as a religious believer much of your identity is based on a subjective belief.
You very much appear to be putting forward a Miss Jean Brodie argument.

Repeating it ad nauseum is not going to change the answers you get from me as I never claimed to be seeking an objective truth, in search of an objective truth, believe in an objective truth, slightly interested in the existence of an objective truth.
My sole mentions of objective truth have been to point out that you, who keeps banging on about it, hold subjective beliefs protected by law, yet claim to be confused when gender is classified as fluid (what you term subjective) yet can still have legal protections.

Well then it is settled (it was hard but interesting to get to this point), and my original question definitely answered. Reference to objective reasoning, and truth do not matter, or enter into it (or perhaps even exist).

It also gives us an answer as to why Dawkins fell foul, he believes it does matter, and is central.

My beliefs have no bearing on what yours are, so I don't see the need for reference to them. The point is, is that a Christian will claim authority and justification and an understanding of the world with reference to what they believe to be the ultimate objective truth and value, God. Whether this claim of objective truth is true or not, is distinct from saying no reference to any objective truth (whatever it may be) is necessary or exists at all. This is a massive moral and philosophical distinction.

Bannasidhe

Rylie Happy Potassium wrote: »

Well then it is settled (it was hard but interesting to get to this point), and my original question definitely answered. Reference to objective reasoning, and truth do not matter, or enter into it (or perhaps even exist).

It also gives us an answer as to why Dawkins fell foul, he believes it does matter, and is central.

My beliefs have no bearing on what yours are, so I don't see the need for reference to them. The point is, is that a Christian will claim authority and justification and an understanding of the world with reference to what they believe to be the ultimate objective truth and value, God. Whether this claim of objective truth is true or not, is distinct from saying no reference to any objective truth (whatever it may be) is necessary or exists at all. This is a massive moral and philosophical distinction.

The point is, as well you know that while a Christian (or Muslim, or any other religious adherent) may claim "authority and justification and an understanding of the world with reference to what they believe to be the ultimate objective truth and value, God." the fact remains that this is a subjective belief not objective truth as there is zero proof of the existence of deities.
Therefore anything based on Judeo-Christian ethics has it's foundation in subjective beliefs.
It is also fluid as across the ages the interpretation and implementation of these ethics has been subject to change as societies changed (as well as schisms among believers).
And in this instance as a nod to earlier 'confusion' by fluid I do mean changeable.

robindch

Rylie Happy Potassium wrote: »

Whether this claim of objective truth is true or not, is distinct from saying no reference to any objective truth (whatever it may be) is necessary or exists at all. This is a massive moral and philosophical distinction.

A subjective belief remains a subjective belief no matter how often the believer says that it's "objective". And an objective belief, supported only by a subjective belief, is a subjective belief, not an objective belief.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The point is, as well you know that while a Christian (or Muslim, or any other religious adherent) may claim "authority and justification and an understanding of the world with reference to what they believe to be the ultimate objective truth and value, God." the fact remains that this is a subjective belief not objective truth as there is zero proof of the existence of deities.
Therefore anything based on Judeo-Christian ethics has it's foundation in subjective beliefs.
It is also fluid as across the ages the interpretation and implementation of these ethics has been subject to change as societies changed (as well as schisms among believers).
And in this instance as a nod to earlier 'confusion' by fluid I do mean changeable.

Yes, but the fact that each of these deem it necessary and correct to make reference and point to objective truth and reasoning (be it correct or not) is of fundamental importance and is very distinct from a philosophical position that says that there is no need for reference to any supposed objective values or truth (and that this is not desirable, or even perhaps possible).

Do you follow my distinction? You may say that in effect they are similar (and have similar subjective basis because the objective truth referenced is not actually true) but there is a massive distinction in what the people involved believe they are doing, and in how they justify it, and where they claim to draw authority.

If individual subjectivity is given primary position, it places the religious belief and the individual subjectivity and perception of everything else on the same level. Each is as valid as the other. And indeed, it is not clear how to distinguish between efforts on behalf of either to coerce, threaten and demand others accept the subjective belief as being factually true.

The likes of Dawkins would elevate his materialist, atheist etc. theory to being one above that of religion, in that it is objectively true, and hence laws and society should not be subject to subjective religious beliefs of others being forced on it. But we have seen how this approach of his has caused him great trouble when he plays it out to its logical end, and people do not like the results.

robindch

robindch wrote: »

A subjective belief remains a subjective belief no matter how often the believer says that it's "objective". And an objective belief, supported only by a subjective belief, is a subjective belief, not an objective belief.

It is a difference in mentality, a vital philosophical distinction. The idea that objective truth exists, or is necessary and desirable to inform how we run society, is totally different to one that says it does not matter, is not necessary, and perhaps not even possible to establish as it does not exist.

Many would point to God as being the ultimate objective truth, others would be of a materialist mindset, or whatever. These people would agree that objective truth exists, but not on what it is. The other group (which in my opinion is a vocal section of society today) do not actually believe that there is any objective truth, but that everything is subjective and relative. This is a massive distinction, and has serious implications regarding how it can be justified to impose these views on others by trying to shape society around them.

Bannasidhe

Rylie Happy Potassium wrote: »

Yes, but the fact that each of these deem it necessary and correct to make reference and point to objective truth and reasoning (be it correct or not) is of fundamental importance and is very distinct from a philosophical position that says that there is no need for reference to any supposed objective values or truth (and that this is not desirable, or even perhaps possible).

Do you follow my distinction? You may say that in effect they are similar (and have similar subjective basis because the objective truth referenced is not actually true) but there is a massive distinction in what the people involved believe they are doing, and in how they justify it, and where they claim to draw authority.

If individual subjectivity is given primary position, it places the religious belief and the individual subjectivity and perception of everything else on the same level. Each is as valid as the other. And indeed, it is not clear how to distinguish between efforts on behalf of either to coerce, threaten and demand others accept the subjective belief as being factually true.

The likes of Dawkins would elevate his materialist, atheist etc. theory to being one above that of religion, in that it is objectively true, and hence laws and society should not be subject to subjective religious beliefs of others being forced on it. But we have seen how this approach of his has caused him great trouble when he plays it out to its logical end, and people do not like the results.

MOD

Apologies to Rylie Happy Potassium but I feel that this is becoming perilously close to soapboxing and is dragging this thread off topic. We are going around in circles.

The thread is not about objective truth vis a vis subjective belief and as interesting as this may be as a discussion it would be better suited to it's own thread. Please feel free to open one and I assure you the mod team will ensure it remains civil.

Can we please return to what was proving to possibly be the only thread on Boards.ie where Gender Dysphoria is discussed in a polite and respectful manner regardless of personal opinions.

Thanking you.
Usual caveats about responding in thread.

Yes I think it is fair enough to leave that aspect of discussion there, I think we had gotten to the bottom of it anyway, and the clarification and understanding I had sought has been given, so thanks very much for that, it was very good. I shan't set up another thread about it because it is probably not necessary (as I got my answer) but if someone else wants to and thinks it would be useful I would happily contribute if that would be welcomed.

Regarding gender dysmorphia, (to get things back on track) I do not think it is necessary to agree, or even understand, someone's identity in order to treat them with decency and respect to enable them to live their lives. I think much value can be found in treating people as people, and not (abstract or otherwise) think of them as people catagorised a certain way, or even to think of oneself in such a way, as far as that is possible. I am friends with a trans person (as distinct from being mere acquaintances) but it my mind that is not a defining characteristic in my understanding of them. Rather they are Maria* the same as any other person (in that they are not at all the same as anyone else ), in that they are more than their identity or the sum of their physical attributes or characteristics and are a sinner like everyone else. I don't need to understand how they precisely define themselves, or agree with it, to treat them with respect. I just need to accept the person as I find them and get on with things. In fact, if I only treated people with respect when they are in complete agreement with my understanding of the world, my respect is not really worth very much.

I think some of the trouble we run into is when agreement with something is demanded (legally or otherwise) from people about things which run contrary to their own values. I honestly do not think this can ever actually work anyway, it just makes people resentful.

I think an altogether better, and more achievable goal, is to encourage a situation where people are accepted as unique individual people and treated with respect, even if you do not agree with them - and if you insist on treating them disrespectfully this is socially frowned upon as being rude and unacceptable. I.e., if you do not agree or whatever, there is no need to actually say it, just get on with things and treat people as they would like out of respect, even if you think they are wrong. So if someone wants to be called a particular pronoun, and would be offended and upset if you don't, you should try and use that pronoun so as to treat the person with respect. Actual agreement on any correctness here is not necessary at all. I think most people would go along with this approach, but many would baulk at a demand that they accept it as factual reality. Of course, this is probably best seen when it comes to religious belief. Many here no doubt think I am terribly wrong about my Catholicism and would have strong views on this, but if we worked together I have no doubt that none of you would rock up to my desk and tell me I am deluded and wearing ashes on my head on Ash Wednesday is beyond stupid. You would probably pay little, if any attention, and just accept that that's "his thing" and get on with things. You also probably would not engage in profound blasphemy in front of someone, if you knew it would upset them. But if it were demanded that the validity and truth of it were accepted, you would of course have more to say, and would probably feel an obligation to speak up even if on a day to day basis you would just get on with things.

Now, it is not exactly the same situation, but the idea of accepting people and treating them with respect, without any obligation to actually believe the validity of what someone else thinks, has a lot going for it, imo, and I think this should be the underlying basis for discussion and rules. (the logic being that you are being 'punished' (preferably socially) because you were being a disrespectful you-know-what, rather than for refusing to accept the truth of something).

*Not real name

nozzferrahhtoo

Robert McGrath wrote: »

I am a cis man and I have no idea what it means to “feel” like a man.

Like the OP, I have avoid almost entirely every thread and discussion on this topic for years now. Generally I avoid topics I know nothing about. But unlike topics I know nothing about THIS topic makes me feel I also have no working intuitions to go on either.

Mainly because like you I have no idea "as a man" what it means to "be a man" really. I do not "feel" like a man.

I have been in many threads on many forums over the years where topics of phrases like "Man up" and "be a man" and "grow some balls" and so forth were included. Or I have been on threads where people were debating against same sex parenting because seemingly in their over active, evidence devoid, imaginings children need a "male role model" or "female role model".

And I have gone into those threads and genuinely asked me what all these things I put in quotes above mean. And every time the responses fall into three categories.... in descending order of regularity they are:

1) The person asked couldn't in fact answer at all.
2) The person asked arbitrarily lists stuff that are always equally true about women and so no distinction is actually made.
3) The person lists things that I do not even remotely identify with maleness or with my being a man or with any other man in my life being a man.

So not only do I know very little about Transsexual issues, I do not even have any intuitions to go on to imagine what their issues must be or be like because even without Transgenderism I do not remotely understand what being a "man" or "woman" even means outside the realm of biological reproduction. So I can not even imagine what feeling like one trapped in the body of the other must be like. It sounds hellish though so I can understand why they are miserable.

I have not once remotely felt "like a man" in my life. Or "like a woman" either. The terms are simply empty to me. I feel like me. An individual with individual traits. And manhood or maleness is just meaningless to me and has never been an anchor point in my identify. So I am ill equipped to overcome my ignorance in this particular topic.

smacl wrote: »

I think you need to be very careful in seeking to draw comparisons between conditions such as BIID (seeking elective amputation) and anorexia nervosa and transsexuality as the former are accepted to be damaging pathologies whereas the latter is not. By making this comparison, you are essentially asking the question "should we consider trans people sick, if not, why not?".

The scientist side of me however would want to embark on that inquiry as unfettered as possible. If there does turn out to be some underlying hormonal or physiological or neural correlates to being transgender I would want to know and for our species to discover this.

It is unfortunate that we have a single word like "sick" which encompasses all kinds of very varied conditions. And having such a limited word encompass so much does indeed alas create potential for bias and stigmatism as you rightly point out. But I would want to find the truth and then fight the stigmas quicker than I would want to curtail the conversation and/or the research for fear of the stigmatism.

If the research by people like VS Ramachandran and many others is to be believed, the people with things like BIID (where they feel a limb they have is alien to them and not part of their body or identity and is a detrimental intrusion to their well being) or phantom limb syndrome (the opposite where an absent limb is intrusive and detrimental in feeling like it actually is there when it is not) are due to parts of the brain going out of alignment with other parts of the subjects brain or body.

It is also interesting to question what we mean when we call something like BIID a "damaging pathology". Some subjects suffering from it have left their jurisdiction to travel to others to have the limb removed in places where it is legal. And upon their return espouse relief and happiness and well being. We as "healthy" or "normal" people see this as damaging because we view the loss of a limb as something awful to be avoided. They probably do not share that view and would wonder why our view should be foisted as the standard for evaluation on to them. Why should having all four limbs be the standard of "well" and deviations to that be seen as "harmful" or "detrimental"? Who are we, the able bodied, to espouse that as a standard? And in this way I wonder if analogies between BIID and Transgenderism is actually useful for helping us understand things?

If we found a "cure" for BIID then I suspect we would see much the same results as we do when we find working "cures" for blindness or deafness. In that many people happily roll up to obtain the "cure". But many others refuse it as the "condition" we view as detrimental has become their identify. They do not want their blindness, or deafness, or BIID "cured". They want to live their life by what they feel is their identify. And making them hear again, see again, or reincorporate a functioning limb into their identity would be the antithesis of that. Not having an arm, is the self they see as their identity. And the arm that is actually there, is an intrusion on that.

If we found a "cure" for something like transgenderism or homosexuality therefore I would expect the same. Many people who want to be "normal" would take it. Many others would not, and would see it as a termination of their very identity to do so.

So if such underlying correlates were found for Transgenderism I would want us to identify that. But I would not hasten to then describe the condition in terms of "sickness" and "cure" so much as a disparity between identity and underlying biology to which we can offer people the OPTION to bring either one more into alignment with the other in whatever way the subject sees fit for themselves. And if the person wants to stay as is, wants to bring their body more in alignment with their identity, or wants to bring their identity more into alignment with their body..... I would be happy if we reach a state where we can offer them that suite of choice.

robindch wrote: »

Can somebody who's more familiar with the area explain what the beliefs of the two sides are and why, even allowing for the fact that it concerns claims for and perceptions of identity, the discussion is so venomous?

As I said in the opening of this post, I know almost nothing about the subject and have little to no intuitions on it directly either.

But my indirect FEELINGS about the venom side of it, is that the venom on this topic compared to many other topics like homosexuality or abortion, is that in those topics the advocates were mostly trying to effect changes that affect their own lives (to be allowed marry or adopt or control their own reproductive rights).

This topic however seems more to tend towards effects that reach further. The public is being asked to talk in certain ways (some countries or social media platforms even writing this into policy or law) or change things about society in a more visible way.

Couple that with some of the things we have seen like Sexual Assaults being perpetrated against a gender of identity which were seemingly facilitated by identifying as that gender....... or people going into sports in their chosen gender and SMASHING long standing world records significantly or, worse at times, even literally smashing their opponents...... or taking very young children and giving them drugs or surgeries to transition them or belay onset of gender.... and I think the topic really makes people antsy to the core.

On top of all that though I have a suspicion much of the venom has come from Click Bait Social Media Algorithms identifying (intentionally, or maybe even not, such are the power of such algorithms) this particular topic as a rich source of promoting, perpetuating, and feeding on extreme opinions and reactions. I think such algorithms naturally create a continuum effect and SOME subject will be at the extremes of that continuum for whatever reason. If it was not this one, it would be another one. This just happens to be the one.

And finally I think our species just likes neat little labels and neat little boxes and neat little norms. Things like Homosexuality might expand labels and boxes and norms a LITTLE but not significantly really. But on this topic I think people who are not informed on the topic much (like myself) might start to feel all that neatness being replaced by a plethora of identities and boxes and labels. And I suspect a natural human reaction to being set afloat on a sea of uncertainty like that is to simply shut down thought and discourse. And I have long said on this site that the greater an impact on discourse something has....... the greater the impact it has on anger, aggression, bigotry, intolerance, violence, and even murder it will have.

Thankfully I have always been someone who is attracted more towards "continuum" thinking that "fixed point" thinking and I look at nearly EVERY topic in my life as a continuum rather than blacks and whites, or neat boxes and labels. So I would hope this will stand to me if I ever understand this particular topic more than I do. But so far lurking on threads of this nature I feel just as ignorance and lost as I always have. In fact it is a Testament to the quality of the Atheism forum and the people/mods here that I even feel comfortable enough to break that norm and post ANYTHING on such a topic at all for what I think may in fact be the first time (memory not what it once was).

Bannasidhe

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Couple that with some of the things we have seen like Sexual Assaults being perpetrated against a gender of identity which were seemingly facilitated by identifying as that gender....... or people going into sports in their chosen gender and SMASHING long standing world records significantly or, worse at times, even literally smashing their opponents...... or taking very young children and giving them drugs or surgeries to transition them or belay onset of gender.... and I think the topic really makes people antsy to the core.

.

Where have we 'seen' these things?

I have heard many many allegations but when asked for proof that these things have occurred in a concerning number of cases it all gets very vague.

What children have had surgery?
What drugs are given only to children diagnosed with gender dysphoria that haven't been given to other children?

You have listed some very serious 'allegations' based on 'we have seen' - a standard of proof as per the mod advisory is required.

Without proof that these allegations have a genuine basis in fact and have occurred in enough instances to not be outliers than it falls into the category of scaremongering.

smacl

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If we found a "cure" for something like transgenderism or homosexuality therefore I would expect the same. Many people who want to be "normal" would take it. Many others would not, and would see it as a termination of their very identity to do so.

With respect, you might want to re-think both what you're saying and how your saying it there. Putting terms the "cure" and "normal" in quotes doesn't really cut it. What are the social pressures, do you imagine, that would want to make a gay person abandon their own persona and get a "cure" for the sake of social conformity? Surely it is solely the society that is applying such pressures that needs a "cure". If you accept that gender and sexual orientation are continuous variables, what exactly do you consider the normal range? On that basis, who would you call abnormal?

If you look at Ireland's long and sordid history of homophobia versus where we are today, it becomes apparent that this cure is well under way. We would still appear to be a lot further back along the road when it comes to transphobia.

robindch

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have not once remotely felt "like a man" in my life. Or "like a woman" either. The terms are simply empty to me. I feel like me. An individual with individual traits. And manhood or maleness is just meaningless to me and has never been an anchor point in my identify.

Same here. Not only do I not feel "like a man" or "like a woman" (or any other sex/gender/term), neither do I know what other people mean when they say that they "feel like a man" or "feel like a woman" (or anything else), so there's no basis upon which I can even start a comparison, let alone conclude one. Hence my general position which is that I'll accept anybody else's statement concerning their own thoughts concerning their own identity, wish them the best, and leave it at that. Prejudice against people who make such statements about themselves is baseless, frequently incomprehensible and always offensive.

On the rare occasion that somebody might ask me what I am, I'll usually hedge as I have no wish to have their understanding of the terms applied to me, or worse still, have them publicly wondering why I'm not conforming to their understanding. For similar reasons, I typically avoid referring to myself as being "Irish" and instead say that I'm "from Ireland". As you, I believe I'm a bunch of individual traits masquerading as a coherent individual called "me", which is different from every other person's "me", despite the fact we use the same term.

Hence the question I posed, or at least implied, at the start - why do many individuals and some groups (like the AHA) imply they own contested terms and ostracize people who disagree with them, and why are these things done with such public acrimony?

smacl

robindch wrote: »

Hence the question I posed, or at least implied, at the start - why do many individuals and some groups (like the AHA) imply they own contested terms and ostracize people who disagree with them, and why are these things done with such public acrimony?

Not a humanist, but as a guess it is largely in response to blatant and unwarranted abuse that the trans community seems to attract. Having look through a similar thread here over on CA made my skin crawl.

Bannasidhe

smacl wrote: »

Not a humanist, but as a guess it is largely in response to blatant and unwarranted abuse that the trans community seems to attract. Having look through a similar thread here over on CA made my skin crawl.

Also not a Humanist, but I would suspect that you are on the right track and that Dawkins' comments were seen as feeding a quite vicious pile on.

He may have done so "inadvertently" (:P) but as a man who has commented on the use of language his claim not to wish to disparage transgender people while saying I will call her "she" - note inverted commas - rings a tad hollow. He essentially put air quotes around "she" while claiming he was being courteous. He was in his hole being courteous. As for that "academic question" excuse - give me a break - that's another way of saying "I am about to say something many people will find offensive/obnoxious so I'm going to pull academic privilege out of my ass as an excuse - If anyone takes issue they are obviously an anti-intellectual" - and I say that as an academic.

“I do not intend to disparage trans people. I see that my academic ‘Discuss’ question has been misconstrued as such and I deplore this. It was also not my intent to ally in any way with Republican bigots in US now exploiting this issue.”

Among his critics was Alison Gill, vice president for legal and policy at American Atheists and a trans woman. She said Dawkins’ comments reinforce dangerous and harmful narratives. She said: “Given the repercussions for the millions of trans people in this country, in this one life we have to live, as an atheist and as a trans woman, I hope that Professor Dawkins treats this issue with greater understanding and respect in the future.”

In 2015, Dawkins also wrote: “Is trans woman a woman? Purely semantic. If you define by chromosomes, no. If by self-identification, yes. I call her “she” out of courtesy.”

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/apr/20/richard-dawkins-loses-humanist-of-the-year-trans-comments


In the U.S. anti-trans/gender non-conforming feeling has too often run towards the murderous leading to the Human Rights Campaign compiling reports since 2013. In 2020 alone 44 was the fatal violence figure https://www.hrc.org/resources/violence-against-the-trans-and-gender-non-conforming-community-in-2020.
It has become a very heated Anti Vs Pro issue and people have 3 choices : Against/For/No comment. Dawkins' chose to comment, and he did so in a way that provided ammunition for the Anti side.

By accident?
I don't think so. The fact that he chose to comment would demonstrate to me that he is aware of the various discussions and decided to put his 2 cents in with a disingenuous "I don't want to offend any one but *offensive statement follows* - no that wasn't offensive it was academic".

Rawlings is more part of a virulent vocal as opposed to violent anti-Trans movement in the UK which is very TERFY - using a particular brand of exclusionary feminism as their justification, claiming to be seeking to protect "sex-based right", and children.
From them comes much of the arguments we herar in Ireland via a group known as LGB Alliance as they seek to expand to over here. Their statements read to me as "we love trans people, we support them and want the best for them but we don't want them in our spaces as they are sexual predators and are making lesbian invisible and won't someone think of the children".

There has been a huge kickback from within the Irish Gay Community and it's gotten social media shouty.

The reality is we have had Gender self-ID in Ireland since 2015 following a sustained and lengthy legal campaign by Linda Foy that echoed that of David Norris' work to end the criminalisation of homosexuality. Since then less than 600 people have legally had their gender re-assigned.
On the main there had been little controversy until relatively recently when Theresa May's UK Govt indicated it was going to introduce legislation similar to ROI - then it all kicked off in these here isles.

nozzferrahhtoo

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Without proof that these allegations have a genuine basis in fact and have occurred in enough instances to not be outliers than it falls into the category of scaremongering.

Well yes that is kind of the point I am making. The question asked was why is there so much Venom around the topic. And I think ONE of the reasons is because of stories like this being out there. Regardless of whether they are true or not. And of course when someone claims they are true, it makes sense to ask THEM to prove it. But quite often the damage is already done.

So when some rag news paper runs a story about parents seeking anything like surgeries or drugs for young kids (regardless of whether they get it or not) or when someone with a platform like Joe Rogan is going on about a man who transitioned to being a woman entering MMA fights, and then discussing how one female opponent was left with their jaw smashed.... I do not think their first reaction of people is to shout "prove to me this happened!".

So my point is not based on any such story being true. Nor would posting any evidence that any such story is true lend to my point. My point is that when people see/hear such stories.... this could be a potential answer to the question "why so much venom?"

smacl wrote: »

With respect, you might want to re-think both what you're saying and how your saying it there. Putting terms the "cure" and "normal" in quotes doesn't really cut it.

I do not think I need to rethink anything there really. The point of putting them in quotes is to make precisely the same point you are. That such thinking needs to be rethought.

The point of putting them in quotes is NOT to "cut it" but to distinguish between words I use and words/thinking others who are not me might use..... and thus make the same point you are that it is OTHER people (not me) who if they are thinking in these terms need to rethink it.

My entire point is that I MYSELF do not use the words "sickness" and "cure" and "normal" and "abnormal" in such contexts. Nor do I even think along those lines on such subjects. So it is not me that needs to rethink their use. I think we are saying EXACTLY the same thing, but perhaps misunderstanding the linguistic intent of my quotation marks made that unclear. Re-parse my post as me using quotation marks to distinguish between my thinking/speech, and the vicarious thinking/speech I imagine in some other individuals. It might make more sense then.

Again I feel having one word like "sick" to encompass so many conditions allows a basis for bigotry, bias, or stigmatism. And it does not help that if we find any parallels or analogies to draw between it and anything else.... that we are left uncomfortable by that because it falls under such an umbrella even partially.

I would much prefer to see a public discourse or system of thinking that separates actual sickness and disease out from what I described above as a view of a person as being a physical entity with an identity. And to varying degrees the well being of such people being based on bringing one, both, or neither of those things more or less into alignment with each other. And none of that is a "sickness" and none of those options, were we able to offer them would be a "cure". And the thinking represented by such words would seem not to serve any purpose other than as rhetoric used by the bigoted. A weapon that, like you I think, I would like to divest them of.

I would love to live in a world where people were not thinking in terms of "normal" but simply in terms of mental well being as something individual. Where if one Transgender person felt "I am in a body that is clearly female but I identify as male and so I would like to bring my body more into alignment with my identity" but another felt "I am in a body that is clearly female but I identify as male and so I would like to bring my identity more into alignment with my body"..... that BOTH of them would be able to seek intervention to achieve their goal.... BOTH of them would be seen as equally valid for doing so.... and NEITHER of them were viewed as being "sick" or their intervention being seen as a "cure". Nor would the third person who says "I am in a body that is clearly female but I feel male, but I want to make no intervention at all because I identify as a person living that struggle and disparity, and in how I represent it and overcome it each and every day."

I vaguely remember the citizens in the books of Iain M. Banks as far back as 1987 were augmented with technology to the point they could, over the course of a few weeks, transition literally at will between physical genders. I think with the ability to halt in between in some kind of genderless state. So citizens of that culture were literally made blind to gender or race etc because their very culture assumed that the physical representation of any individual they met is purely incidental to the actual individual inside. I must go back and re-read some of those and see what his thinking was on the matter. I wonder what his thinking would have been on it today. It sounds like it was something he thought about many years before I ever heard of the topic/subject. But it has been many years since I read his books now.

robindch wrote: »

I typically avoid referring to myself as being "Irish" and instead say that I'm "from Ireland".

It is actually one of the reasons I never call myself "atheist" too. Because using a term that merely identifies one thing I am not.... tells people absolutely nothing about what I am. The moment someone tells me they are atheist I realise I know absolutely nothing more about them than I did a moment before. And at worst people can sometimes ASSUME certain traits are synonymous with being atheist, and therefore assume things about me that are false.

I feel the same with the term "male" or "man". By telling people I am one of these things THEY might feel they have learned something about me but I feel like I have literally told them nothing.

"Irish" is a funny one. I think like you I also rather say where I am from than what I am. But when I think about it, I would feel one or two more traits I actually do identify with would be communicated if I called myself "Irish" than if I called myself "man" or "atheist". Or at least a lot more of the stereotype assumptions someone would make upon hearing "irish" would be accurate.

seamus

robindch wrote: »

Same here. Not only do I not feel "like a man" or "like a woman" (or any other sex/gender/term), neither do I know what other people mean when they say that they "feel like a man" or "feel like a woman" (or anything else), so there's no basis upon which I can even start a comparison, let alone conclude one. Hence my general position which is that I'll accept anybody else's statement concerning their own thoughts concerning their own identity, wish them the best, and leave it at that. Prejudice against people who make such statements about themselves is baseless, frequently incomprehensible and always offensive.

I guess for the vast majority of people over 30, it's a strange concept because it's so new.
If you think about sexuality: As a straight person, if you didn't know that homosexuality even existed at all, then you wouldn't "feel" straight. You wouldn't even really know what it meant. Men and women are attracted to eachother. That's it, that's the thing. The idea of being attracted to a man, not even on the radar.

This, for me, is kind of what transgender is like. For all of my life, there weren't men who wanted to be women (or women who wanted to be men). Not really. Drag queens dressed up for performance or sexual perversion. Lady boys were prostitutes filling a sexual niche. None of this was about gender, it was just about sexuality and kink.

So the closest I can get to understanding it is the thought experiment I posited earlier on; strip away all of the objective things that you would associate with "maleness" - you lose your genitals, you develop alopecia and lose all your body hair and to top it off you find out that you're a genetic lottery winner and you don't actually have a Y chromosome.

You would still call yourself a man. And it would be based entirely on the fact that you "feel" like you're a man. Your gender identity is entirely transparent to you right now because you've never even had to think about it. There has never been a suggestion that you are anything except a man. But the identity is there and would assert itself very strongly if it were to be challenged.

nozzferrahhtoo

smacl wrote: »

Not a humanist, but as a guess it is largely in response to blatant and unwarranted abuse that the trans community seems to attract. Having look through a similar thread here over on CA made my skin crawl.

That thread actually highlighted to me just how entirely ignorant and without even basic intuitions I am on this topic. I tried to read through it and got entirely lost and had to give up.

But I returned to it and tried to read it in a few different ways. And I STILL got nothing from it.

I even noticed one user posting a LOT there. This particular user is one I disagree with on literally every topic I have ever entered into conversation with him on. So I even tried reading all his posts thinking that if anyone is going to get it wrong HE will, and I could maybe use that as an anchor point to leap off from.

Yet by the time I read literally every post he made on the thread..... I came away not only not knowing any more about the topic..... but entirely unclear what his position/opinion on the topic actually is/was/means.

THAT is how lost I feel on the topic. When I can read the equivalent of a small novel from one person and still have not even a basic concept of what their opinion actually is/means on the topic.... then I know I am way out of my depth.

Probably does not help that I have no real world knowledge of anyone transgender. Never met such a person. I met many people homosexual or bisexual. Many people who are theists or atheists. Many people who have had abortions. And so on. But never anyone Transgender.

And the only ONLINE encounter I can think of was a user who doesn't post on boards any more who.... when I misgendered them unintentionally (it was 100% nothing but a typo, where I fully intended to type she and typed he instead)....... their response was NUCLEAR.

Not only did I get called every label I could imagine (mostly TERF but a few others)..... but no explanation was worthy, and no apology accepted. I instantly became not only the worst person in the world.... but seemingly irredeemably so. I became unforgivable scum to whom rehabilitation of any kind was not even a concept.

Thankfully I am not the kind of person who judges a whole community based off a single encounter with a single individual. But many people are. And I doubt individuals like that are doing anything but harm to their cause. I just hope there is few of them. Very. Very. Few.

Bannasidhe

I honestly have no idea who Dr Jessica Taylor is, or interest in finding out, but this popped up on my twitter so I thought I would share it as an example of the other side of the gender debate - this one framed around biology.
It's a bit shouty (both sides are equally shouty on social media) but the core points are ones often made.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EwIgXlaXYAE93jP?format=jpg&name=large

Hoof Hearted2

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I honestly have no idea who Dr Jessica Taylor is, or interest in finding out, but this popped up on my twitter so I thought I would share it as an example of the other side of the gender debate - this one framed around biology.
It's a bit shouty (both sides are equally shouty on social media) but the core points are ones often made.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EwIgXlaXYAE93jP?format=jpg&name=large

Lioke seriously, you need to spend less time on twitter and other platforms reading waffle from gob****es, particularly the ones who do not have any concept of the depth of their ignorance.

robindch

seamus wrote: »

I guess for the vast majority of people over 30, it's a strange concept because it's so new. If you think about sexuality: As a straight person, if you didn't know that homosexuality even existed at all, then you wouldn't "feel" straight. You wouldn't even really know what it meant. Men and women are attracted to each other. That's it, that's the thing. The idea of being attracted to a man, not even on the radar.

Can't speak for anybody else, but I spent six years in a boys-only secondary boarding school and male-to-male attraction was well-known and talked about, though typically as a threat or insult.

seamus wrote: »

You would still call yourself a man. And it would be based entirely on the fact that you "feel" like you're a man. Your gender identity is entirely transparent to you right now because you've never even had to think about it. There has never been a suggestion that you are anything except a man. But the identity is there and would assert itself very strongly if it were to be challenged.

As above, no, I don't think so.

I generally avoid describing myself as anything in particular to start with. And, on the odd occasion I do, I've no issue with somebody else disputing whatever term I might use as it's impossible to know if they mean the same thing as I do, and even if I was interested in finding out what they mean - which, generally, I'm not - first-hand experience has shown that the kind of people who are concerned about identity, as communicated by the medium of English words, have a hard time peaceably discussing the meanings and implications of the terms they use.