My ideas about transgenderism

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, I've noticed that everything you don't like ends up being self-contradicting. It must be awful for you running into self-contradictions everywhere you go.

If somebody wants to live under delusions that are clearly not even consistent on their own terms, they can do that.

It seems everyone except you is under some sort of delusion.

Not really. Moral subjectivism is a delusion the West is particularly fond of. In the rest of the world, people tend to favour objectivism of one kind or another. We often don't realize how odd we, in the West, are, on a geographical and historical scale.

[Harbal]

If somebody wants to live under delusions that are clearly not even consistent on their own terms, they can do that.

It seems everyone except you is under some sort of delusion.

Not really. Moral subjectivism is a delusion the West is particularly fond of. In the rest of the world, people tend to favour objectivism of one kind or another. We often don't realize how odd we, in the West, are, on a geographical and historical scale.

Well nobody can say you haven't done your bit in trying to set us all straight.

[Immanuel Can]

It seems everyone except you is under some sort of delusion.

Not really. Moral subjectivism is a delusion the West is particularly fond of. In the rest of the world, people tend to favour objectivism of one kind or another. We often don't realize how odd we, in the West, are, on a geographical and historical scale.

Well nobody can say you haven't done your bit in trying to set us all straight.

Hey, we're supposed to be here for a philosophical discussion and debate, are we not? If we can't do that without getting thin-skinned, then what are we doing? If you and I are right about various things, should we not try to say so, and explain why, and defend our positions? And if we're wrong, should we not want to hear the opposing views, consider them, and find out?

[Harbal]

Not really. Moral subjectivism is a delusion the West is particularly fond of. In the rest of the world, people tend to favour objectivism of one kind or another. We often don't realize how odd we, in the West, are, on a geographical and historical scale.

Well nobody can say you haven't done your bit in trying to set us all straight.

Hey, we're supposed to be here for a philosophical discussion and debate, are we not? If we can't do that without getting thin-skinned, then what are we doing? If you and I are right about various things, should we not try to say so, and explain why, and defend our positions? And if we're wrong, should we not want to hear the opposing views, consider them, and find out?

I suppose we are here for our various reasons, and, presumably, those of us who keep coming back are getting what we want from being here.

[Dontaskme]

So you're showing up not to make a moral/ethical argument about this, but just to tell everybody they have no right to make a moral/ethical argument about it?

And you're imagining that's a moral argument?

There is no moral/ethical argument whatsoever about a ''person'' feeling all their life that they have been living in the wrong body. Where there has been a mental state of feeling that their personal and private way of thinking is of a different gender to their actual body, whether they be male or female, their physical body appearance is simply not matching up with their mental feeling of who they really see them self as.

That feeling is something that only the direct 'feeler' will be privy to. And will be completely outside the realm of anyone else's judgement. By simply bringing morals and ethics into this belongs soley to the interference of the religious cults.

In reality, what one feels inside their mind is unique to the ''person'' in question, and is simply no one else's business to even try and refute or deny them their own personal direct feeling about who they are.

A body part surgeon's job is simply a business, it's their job to offer a service to the customer who seeks it out. This make me a specific gender phenomena has got absolutely nothing to do with your urge to impose on it as having moral and ethical implications.


.

[Harbal]

So you're showing up not to make a moral/ethical argument about this, but just to tell everybody they have no right to make a moral/ethical argument about it?

And you're imagining that's a moral argument?

There is no moral/ethical argument whatsoever about a ''person'' feeling all their life that they have been living in the wrong body. Where there has been a mental state of feeling that their personal and private way of thinking is of a different gender to their actual body, whether they be male or female, their physical body appearance is simply not matching up with their mental feeling of who they really see them self as.

That feeling is something that only the direct 'feeler' will be privy to. And will be completely outside the realm of anyone else's judgement. By simply bringing morals and ethics into this belongs soley to the interference of the religious cults.

In reality, what one feels inside their mind is unique to the ''person'' in question, and is simply no one else's business to even try and refute or deny them their own personal direct feeling about who they are.

A body part surgeon's job is simply a business, it's their job to offer a service to the customer who seeks it out. This make me a specific gender phenomena has got absolutely nothing to do with your urge to impose on it as having moral and ethical implications.

Well put.

[Dontaskme]

I don't know much about this subject, but I do know there is a recognised condition called gender dysphoria, and that living with it must be a miserable experience.

Well put H


Gender dysphoria refers to a condition in which an individual experiences discomfort or distress due to a conflict between their biological sex and gender identity.


Adding to the problem of feeling different is another concern to consider...

One of the primary concerns with the term “gender dysphoria” is that it medicalizes the experience of being transgender.
By framing it as a mental health condition, there is a risk of implying that being transgender is abnormal or a disorder. This perspective overlooks the fact that gender identity exists on a spectrum and is a normal variation of human diversity.

___________

In other words, we just need to stop believing there is something mentally wrong with any one of us, when there isn't. The chemical make-up of each and every single one of us as an individual brain, is not anywhere near to being of the person's fault, nor is it the creation of the person to be who they are. A person did not create their brain or their mental capacity to think the way they do.


Now, who is going to hold up their hand and claim they can create a brain from scratch ?
Let them who claim they have created a brain be held to account or be to blame, otherwise, you know nothing, and there is nothing ethically or morally wrong with you.





For further information about this subject topic - Read...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

[Immanuel Can]

There is no moral/ethical argument whatsoever about a ''person'' feeling all their life that they have been living in the wrong body.

If there are no moral implications, why are you discussing it?

In point of fact, there are very serious moral, personal, social and practical implications. But if you don't realize that, what's the point in talking further?

[Harbal]

There is no moral/ethical argument whatsoever about a ''person'' feeling all their life that they have been living in the wrong body.

If there are no moral implications, why are you discussing it?

In point of fact, there are very serious moral, personal, social and practical implications. But if you don't realize that, what's the point in talking further?

There may be no moral implications in transgenderism itself, but there are moral implications in your outspoken condemnation of it, and it is legitimate for that to be pointed out.

I agree that there are social implications with a moral aspect to them, but that is a separate issue.

[Immanuel Can]

Adding to the problem of feeling different is another concern to consider...

One of the primary concerns with the term “gender dysphoria” is that it medicalizes the experience of being transgender.
By framing it as a mental health condition, there is a risk of implying that being transgender is abnormal or a disorder. This perspective overlooks the fact that gender identity exists on a spectrum and is a normal variation of human diversity.

All of this is a lovely specimen of the thoroughly-propagandized mind at work. It's utter codswallop, including the graphic. But it's typical of our highly-indoctrinated age, a kind of orthodox "creed" of idiocy and denial of reality. It's really quite breathtakingly bad.

Unfortunately, this idiocy is not actually funny. It's issuing in the butchering and poisoning of young children right now, while the indoctrinated world looks on and cheers.

God help us. We have a lot to answer for.

[Immanuel Can]

There is no moral/ethical argument whatsoever about a ''person'' feeling all their life that they have been living in the wrong body.

If there are no moral implications, why are you discussing it?

In point of fact, there are very serious moral, personal, social and practical implications. But if you don't realize that, what's the point in talking further?

There may be no moral implications in transgenderism itself, but there are moral implications in your outspoken condemnation of it, and it is legitimate for that to be pointed out.

Would these be objective "moral implications," or do you just mean, "Harbal wants to think otherwise?"

I agree that there are social implications with a moral aspect to them, but that is a separate issue.

How "separate?" It seems the same. And since you said above "there may be no moral implications" to it, how can you say, one sentence later, "there are social implications with a moral aspect to them?"

[Trajk Logik]

I think what we should be doing is letting those qualified to deal with the issue decide what is appropriate, and you are obviously not one of those.

Isn't that what I was pointing to - those qualified to deal with issue of anorexia do not affirm their patients' delusions? We're talking about distorted views of one's body whether it be their weight or their sexual identity. Why would we have different treatments for the same type of disease unless one group was made out to be victims by one side of the political spectrum and deserve special treatment.

I am not qualified to comment on their treatment, so I won't, but you seem to think you are qualified.

You are confused.

Commenting on their treatment is different than deciding their treatment. We are all allowed to comment on their treatment given our right to speak freely. We are not qualified to decide their treatment.

We are also qualified to comment on how others with similar symptoms are treated by those that are qualified, which is what I was doing with my example of anorexia.

A bunch of unqualified know-it-alls on an internet forum deciding their fate will not, in my opinion, result in a compassionate outcome.

Well, the right outcome has to be based on truth. So deciding what the truth is, is the first step to making sure the right and truly compassionate treatment is what is advocated.

Their treatment is not our concern, and we have no business sticking our noses in. What is our concern is accommodating them in society without sacrificing our own rights.

But you're qualified to place limits on their treatment when your rights are at risk? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

We are qualified to talk about treatments and to point out the hypocrisy of different treatments for a special class of people and special treatment transgenders receive as a result.

[Harbal]

If there are no moral implications, why are you discussing it?

In point of fact, there are very serious moral, personal, social and practical implications. But if you don't realize that, what's the point in talking further?

There may be no moral implications in transgenderism itself, but there are moral implications in your outspoken condemnation of it, and it is legitimate for that to be pointed out.

Would these be objective "moral implications," or do you just mean, "Harbal wants to think otherwise?"

I mean that, when measured against Harbal's sense of morality, your behaviour falls short.

I agree that there are social implications with a moral aspect to them, but that is a separate issue.

How "separate?" It seems the same. And since you said above "there may be no moral implications" to it, how can you say, one sentence later, "there are social implications with a moral aspect to them?"

What a person feels about their sexual identity is not a moral issue, because it hurts no one except religious bigots and such.

Moral issues arise when a person who "identifies" as a different gender to their biological gender makes demands on society at the expense of other members of society.

[Harbal]

Isn't that what I was pointing to - those qualified to deal with issue of anorexia do not affirm their patients' delusions? We're talking about distorted views of one's body whether it be their weight or their sexual identity. Why would we have different treatments for the same type of disease unless one group was made out to be victims by one side of the political spectrum and deserve special treatment.

I am not qualified to comment on their treatment, so I won't, but you seem to think you are qualified.

You are confused.

Commenting on their treatment is different than deciding their treatment. We are all allowed to comment on their treatment given our right to speak freely. We are not qualified to decide their treatment.

We are also qualified to comment on how others with similar symptoms are treated by those that are qualified, which is what I was doing with my example of anorexia.

Well, the right outcome has to be based on truth. So deciding what the truth is, is the first step to making sure the right and truly compassionate treatment is what is advocated.

Their treatment is not our concern, and we have no business sticking our noses in. What is our concern is accommodating them in society without sacrificing our own rights.

But you're qualified to place limits on their treatment when your rights are at risk? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

We are qualified to talk about treatments and to point out the hypocrisy of different treatments for a special class of people and special treatment transgenders receive as a result.

Okay, if you think you are well enough informed to have an educated opinion, just ignore what I said.

[Immanuel Can]

There may be no moral implications in transgenderism itself, but there are moral implications in your outspoken condemnation of it, and it is legitimate for that to be pointed out.

Would these be objective "moral implications," or do you just mean, "Harbal wants to think otherwise?"

I mean that, when measured against Harbal's sense of morality, your behaviour falls short.

What is the source of my duty to care what Harbal's momentary feeling is, since it's not objectively reflective of anything but his momentary feeling?

And if somebody feels differently about that, am I obligated to Harbal's feeling, or to his? Or to nobody's feeling?

I agree that there are social implications with a moral aspect to them, but that is a separate issue.

How "separate?" It seems the same. And since you said above "there may be no moral implications" to it, how can you say, one sentence later, "there are social implications with a moral aspect to them?"

What a person feels about their sexual identity is not a moral issue, because it hurts no one except religious bigots and such.

Actually, it hurts a ton of people. It hurts the sufferer, obviously, in a multitude of ways, including depriving them permanently of sexual gratification and reproduction, and shortening their lifespans considerably by way of medical damage. But it also hurts everybody propagandized by gender ideology. It certainly harms society as a whole, economically, since it is expensive, and prospectively, since sterilized people cannot produce any more people. It hurts the detransitioner set (transers never want to acknowledge them at all). And it results in the butchery and sterilization of helpless, confused children -- particularly young women.

I'd call those "moral issues," wouldn't you? If you don't, then you should.