My ideas about transgenderism

[Dontaskme]

I'm advocating therapy that would help their mentally-ill minds become well. And that would allow them to be happy with their bodies...which you and I have agreed they can't possibly make into the other "gender" anyway. I'm talking about genuine "sex-affirming" care: where they learn to recognize, own and love the bodies they have, and the sex they literally, biologically and inevitably are.

Making mentally ill, drepressed suicidal people well again is a human business venture.

Life is a Business, and human business is amoral.



Self-righteous religious moralists are bad for business, even though we all know the most powerful business of all human endeavours is the power hold religions have over gullible believers. Morality doesn't have to follow divine God given commands, morality is more about reducing suffering. So we are individually each and every one of us soley responsible for reducing our own suffering, it's our job to be happy people, and not someone else's job to make us happy by offering a temporal cure. There is only one cure for the suffering of humanity, and that is antinatalism, but no one seems to be interested in that idea, so be it. It's our funeral, so might as well make sure we have plenty of people available to continue our addiction to mourning their loss, even though their loss is their gain because they no longer suffer the state of being alive. But lets not think about death, what an awful thought, and yet everytime we reproduce we take the risk of making mentally ill people who are just doomed to die anyway.

We've all got a mental terminal illness, it's called knowledge, the knowledge we are going to die. Whoopie doo! and some of us, just accept that, which is a very healthy thing to do. I personally can't think of anything better than never having existed.


Ironic isn't it?

[Harbal]

Moral subjectivism is based on a Godless universe, one that is merely the product of time, chance and materials. There can be no "should have been" in such a universe.

Morality is an aspect of human behaviour, and whether the universe is Godless or not is neither here nor there, so it is most certainly not based on a Godless universe, it is based on how human beings relate to one another. Morality serves an important social function, and we need it in order for our societies to work, regardless of whether we believe in God or not.

I still don't know what "There can be no "should have been" in such a universe" is supposed to mean.

[Dontaskme]

I still don't know what "There can be no "should have been" in such a universe" is supposed to mean.

I don't know either.

[Dontaskme]

Science doesn't recognise God,

Actually, it does...many of the great scientists were Theists, and many still are.

Just because one aka no one is labeling themself a theist, is no proof there is a God, it's just proof there is a scientist who is a theist.
If you want to play that game theory business, then just label yourself God, and there's your proof.

See how silly all this is when you really start to think about it?


Science requires proof, religious belief requires faith. Scientists don't try to prove or disprove God's existence because they know there isn't an experiment that can ever detect God.

In fact God is a coward for never having the courage to show up to his own show, he sent us actors on his be-half.

[Dontaskme]

I neither like nor dislike the idea of "transitioners", but I do dislike the idea of people suffering needlessly.

Then you should advocate giving them therapy to restore them to reality. In their present mental state, they're killing themselves faster than any other demographic...even after the "trans" fraud has done all it can to convince them it's solved their problem.

So is everyone who is not happy with the way they feel and look killing themselves then??, like all those who choose to have surgery to enhance the way their face and body looks. It sure looks like everyone is suffering from mental illness and killing themselves today, according to you IC

Surely, it's no ones fault that they are born with unacceptable troll ugly bodily features. They are lucky in that they just happen to live in a world where they can change the way they look and feel better about themselves, in fact it's becoming more and more common practice to change the way we look and feel about ourselves today. What's wrong with that? Perhaps people just don't have to put up with feeling like they have to be some kind of normal to be accepted in society. Perhaps they are the intelligent sane ones, who have realised that they don't actually have to live with their butt ugly troll faces and bodies anymore. I mean just look at all the beauty products people are using to enhance and reverse the aging process. It's almost like being UGLY is a CRIME these days, and that there must be something terribly wrong with you if you accept being ugly. Or there is something terribly wrong with you if you want to change from being ugly to being beautiful. Beauty is a thriving business.

Why do we care how we look and feel, and are perceived by others? ... the answer is because of OUR KNOWLEDGE... knowledge of ourselves is shame. And shame must be covered up immediately, ...that's what we are doing to ourselves and others....SHAMING THEM... How totally Shameless.

We don't have to be grateful to God for making us feel like this >

Distress and impairment, considered essential characteristics of mental disorders among transgender individuals primarily arises in response to the discrimination, stigma, lack of acceptance, and abuse they face on an unfortunately regular basis.

The myth that being trans is some form of illness comes from a long history of misunderstanding and miscategorisation.
Society has long believed people who are different to be sick or ill, and modern human rights movements have fought to correct these myths, such as in 1973, when homosexuality was removed as an illness from the DSM - The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.


Being transgender is not a mental illness. But people who are transgender face unique challenges, such as gender dysphoria and discrimination, which can affect their mental health.

Is being transgender a mental illness? No. Being transgender isn't a mental health disorder. If you’re transgender, it means that you have a different gender identity than the one you were assigned at birth. (Gender identity is defined as the personal sense of one’s own gender.) The desire to convey your gender in the way you feel most authentic is a normal aspect of human expression.

[Immanuel Can]

We're talking about moral subjectivism, not subjectivism in general. It's the belief that there is no objective basis in reality for moral values.

It requires a sentient aware subject to talk about a subject...

You're not getting it.

I'm out.

[Immanuel Can]

Moral subjectivism is based on a Godless universe, one that is merely the product of time, chance and materials. There can be no "should have been" in such a universe.

...it is most certainly not based on a Godless universe, it is based on how human beings relate to one another.

Well, you've declared yourself a non-Theist, if not an anti-Theist. So I think your subjectivism has to be based on godlessness, doesn't it? I can't see that you base it on something you claim you believe isn't true anyway...

I'll simplify, and say this again: "should" requires reference to two assumptions.

One is that the world is one way.

The other is that it "should be" another.

But unless you believe in the existence of a God, who could impart to creation a purpose and intention other than that how the world presently is, there can be no such thing as "should." For there is no other way the world could ever be, except exactly the way it already is. There are no alternate possibilities, or things that "should have been" done. Whatever is, is all you can expect. You can make whatever changes in it you want to, but those changes will be arbitrary, and have nothing to do with "should" or "should not."

Nobody has any duty at all to agree with the changes, and nobody can say more than, "Well, I like what's happening," or "Well, I don't like it." That's the limit of intelligible moral conversation, in your world -- whether you realize it or not. That's subjectivism.

The rest, all the talk of what people "should" do, is simply absurd, in your world. There's no "should" for them at all. They have no moral duties, no obligations; and they don't owe you to agree with you. Nor do they "owe it" (the meaning of "ought") to go your way and produce the future world you would prefer. They can do whatever they want.

Thus, there is no possibility of using "should" intelligibly in the world in which you suppose you live.

[Advocate]

What happened to the good old fashioned notion that what's between your legs and who you like to rub it on is none of my business?

[Dontaskme]

I'm out.

You were never in. Never have been, never will be.

[Trajk Logik]

What happened to the good old fashioned notion that what's between your legs and who you like to rub it on is none of my business?

When looking for a mate are you not concerned about what's between other people's legs and who they like to rub it on?

[Dontaskme]

They can do whatever they want.

No they can't, by your own admission, a woman cannot do being a man, even if she wanted to.

[Immanuel Can]

They can do whatever they want.

No they can't, by your own admission, a woman cannot do being a man, even if she wanted to.

You're not reading well. I said that was what subjectivists have to believe...not what's true. Quite different, you'll find.

[Harbal]

Moral subjectivism is based on a Godless universe, one that is merely the product of time, chance and materials. There can be no "should have been" in such a universe.

...it is most certainly not based on a Godless universe, it is based on how human beings relate to one another.

Well, you've declared yourself a non-Theist, if not an anti-Theist. So I think your subjectivism has to be based on godlessness, doesn't it? I can't see that you base it on something you claim you believe isn't true anyway...

No, God's presence or absence doesn't factor into my conception of morality. If you are going to insist it must be based on a Godless universe, because I don't believe in God, then you logically have to also say it is based on goblinless universe, and so on. After all, to me, God has no more to do with morality than goblins do.

I'll simplify, and say this again: "should" requires reference to two assumptions.

One is that the world is one way.

The other is that it "should be" another.

But unless you believe in the existence of a God, who could impart to creation a purpose and intention other than that how the world presently is, there can be no such thing as "should." For there is no other way the world could ever be, except exactly the way it already is. There are no alternate possibilities, or things that "should have been" done. Whatever is, is all you can expect. You can make whatever changes in it you want to, but those changes will be arbitrary, and have nothing to do with "should" or "should not."

I don't think I ever do say the world should have been different to the way it is, so I don't see the relevance of your point. I might say such and such a person should have behaved differently, because the way they did behave was purposefully and intentionally counter to my moral standards. And I don't see why I shouldn't say that as long as I have respect for my own moral standards.

Nobody has any duty at all to agree with the changes, and nobody can say more than, "Well, I like what's happening," or "Well, I don't like it." That's the limit of intelligible moral conversation, in your world -- whether you realize it or not. That's subjectivism.

That is just your take on it, but it makes no difference whatsoever. No matter how much you disparage the usefulness or efficacy of subjective morality, it gets you no closer to demonstrating there is any other kind. If you wanted to say that some people act on moral values that they believe to be objectively true, and that is objective morality, I wouldn't bother quibbling over it, but I would still make the point that there cannot be such a thing as an objectively true moral value.

The rest, all the talk of what people "should" do, is simply absurd, in your world.

As I have said before, the word, "should", is always conditional, and not just when it relates to morality, but whatever the context. Why can't I say that, in order to conform to what I consider to be morally correct, so and so should have done this, that or the other? No reason at all as far as I can see.

There's no "should" for them at all. They have no moral duties, no obligations; and they don't owe you to agree with you. Nor do they "owe it" (the meaning of "ought") to go your way and produce the future world you would prefer. They can do whatever they want.

I can't really think of a response to that, so it is fortunate that it doesn't deserve one.

Thus, there is no possibility of using "should" intelligibly in the world in which you suppose you live.

"Should" only refers to what something needs to be in order to fulfil a particular requirement. Of course I can use the word intelligibly in "my world".

And "should" has no more authority in your world than it does in mine. If you were to say, as I imagine you have, "you should be mean to homosexuals and make life as difficult as possible for them, because God says so," all that means is you should do it IF you want to please God. But if they think people treating one another with consideration and respect is more important than pleasing God -which is what they should think- then your "should" is useless.

[Dontaskme]

They can do whatever they want.

No they can't, by your own admission, a woman cannot do being a man, even if she wanted to.

You're not reading well. I said that was what subjectivists have to believe...not what's true. Quite different, you'll find.

If I'm not reading well, it could well be that you are not speaking any sense.

Subjectivists don't impose the belief they can do whatever they want to on themselves. They simply know absolutely, that they cannot do whatever they want. For example, they know absolutely that they cannot fly the way a bird can. And they also know absolutely that as a woman, she cannot do being a man, even if she wanted to...belief doesn't even apply to these absolute facts known to subjectivists.

.

[Immanuel Can]

...it is most certainly not based on a Godless universe, it is based on how human beings relate to one another.

Well, you've declared yourself a non-Theist, if not an anti-Theist. So I think your subjectivism has to be based on godlessness, doesn't it? I can't see that you base it on something you claim you believe isn't true anyway...

No, God's presence or absence doesn't factor into my conception of morality.

Right. That's "godless," by definition. God is not a factor, you claim. If He exists -- which you don't believe anyway -- you regard Him as irrelevant.

Same deal.

I don't think I ever do say the world should have been different to the way it is, so I don't see the relevance of your point.

That WAS my point. You've just granted it.

I might say such and such a person should have behaved differently, because the way they did behave was purposefully and intentionally counter to my moral standards.

You can't. At least, you can say the words, but from your worldview, they'll make no sense. He can't have been "different to the way he was," either. He had to do what he had to do...and that's the end of it, according to moral subjectivism. His moral subjectivity said one thing, and yours another. He didn't owe you to please you, so no, there's nothing he "should" have done.

Nobody has any duty at all to agree with the changes, and nobody can say more than, "Well, I like what's happening," or "Well, I don't like it." That's the limit of intelligible moral conversation, in your world -- whether you realize it or not. That's subjectivism.

That is just your take on it,

Logic's take. But mine, too.

but it makes no difference whatsoever. No matter how much you disparage the usefulness or efficacy of subjective morality, it gets you no closer to demonstrating there is any other kind.

I'm not even trying yet.

All I'm doing is pointing out, as a preliminary step, that whatever you choose to believe about morality, subjectivism isn't a reasonable option. Nihilism would be; so would objectivism, because we haven't dealt with either, yet...but we will. The important realization, for now, is that whatever turns out to be true, it won't be moral subjectivism.

The rest, all the talk of what people "should" do, is simply absurd, in your world.

Why can't I say that, in order to conform to what I consider to be morally correct, so and so should have done this, that or the other? [/quote]
Because there's nothing else they "could" have done, so there's nothing else they "should" have done. You cannot reasonably expect a person to do what they could not have done. And subjectivism means they already did what was "right to them," so to speak, and could not do otherwise.

What it means, then, is that you are speaking unreasonably. Can you do that? Sure, why not? But it's still devoid of reason.

There's no "should" for them at all. They have no moral duties, no obligations; and they don't owe you to agree with you. Nor do they "owe it" (the meaning of "ought") to go your way and produce the future world you would prefer. They can do whatever they want.

I can't really think of a response to that,

That's because subjectivism is false, of course.

And "should" has no more authority in your world than it does in mine.

That remains for me to show. But one thing for sure: if there are those two states of affairs that objectivism assumes -- what is, and what should be -- then it's at least rational on that level. Subjectivism can't even get that far.