LGBTQM

[accelafine]

Well, so do readers then. They will see a reasonable response and attempt at discussion and your abject avoidance of the same. So good job. Idiosyncratically, you “win” in your own mind, but every reader sees that at the basest level of resistance you fold like a paper tiger.

Oh no. 'The readers' might think less of me

Scarcely possible, but yes. You are clearly not an intellectual and one wonders why you’re on a philosophy site.

And you are? Who said you have to be an 'intellectual' to come on this site? In case you hadn't noticed there are no 'intellectuals' on here. There isn't even any 'philosophy' to speak of.

[Astro Cat]

Oh no. 'The readers' might think less of me

Scarcely possible, but yes. You are clearly not an intellectual and one wonders why you’re on a philosophy site.

And you are? Who said you have to be an 'intellectual' to come on this site? In case you hadn't noticed there are no 'intellectuals' on here. There isn't even any 'philosophy' to speak of.

That’s literally anybody’s fault. I’m an intellectual. You refuse to engage on a mature, factual, philosophical level so far though. Do you want to change that? I’m fine with taking a blank slate approach: the things you’ve said so far have been annoying, but I’m willing to ignore that and just start from scratch. We could even be friends. Do you want to talk about topics with good intentions, where even if we disagree we genuinely try to see where the other is coming from?

[accelafine]

Scarcely possible, but yes. You are clearly not an intellectual and one wonders why you’re on a philosophy site.

And you are? Who said you have to be an 'intellectual' to come on this site? In case you hadn't noticed there are no 'intellectuals' on here. There isn't even any 'philosophy' to speak of.

That’s literally anybody’s fault. I’m an intellectual. You refuse to engage on a mature, factual, philosophical level so far though. Do you want to change that? I’m fine with taking a blank slate approach: the things you’ve said so far have been annoying, but I’m willing to ignore that and just start from scratch. We could even be friends. Do you want to talk about topics with good intentions, where even if we disagree we genuinely try to see where the other is coming from?

Umm, that's not something you can call yourself. It has to be bestowed by others. An actual intellectual would never call themselves one. Just how drunk ARE you? What have you said that's 'intellectual'?

Give me JK Rowling any day.

[Astro Cat]

And you are? Who said you have to be an 'intellectual' to come on this site? In case you hadn't noticed there are no 'intellectuals' on here. There isn't even any 'philosophy' to speak of.

That’s literally anybody’s fault. I’m an intellectual. You refuse to engage on a mature, factual, philosophical level so far though. Do you want to change that? I’m fine with taking a blank slate approach: the things you’ve said so far have been annoying, but I’m willing to ignore that and just start from scratch. We could even be friends. Do you want to talk about topics with good intentions, where even if we disagree we genuinely try to see where the other is coming from?

Umm, that's not something you can call yourself. It has to be bestowed by others. An actual intellectual would never call themselves one. Just how drunk ARE you? What have you said that's 'intellectual'?

Give me JK Rowling any day.

You know, I’d usually agree. But I don’t right now. Yeah I’ve been drinking, whatever. A lot of intellectuals can’t just say they are. But I know that I am and it’s silly to pretend I’m not. I know a lot more about physics than you do as a fact (I have a Masters and you probably don’t in that field). You probably know a lot more about other stuff that I don’t. Whatever. But I can recognize that I think about stuff more succinctly than a lot of people and so can you. I can call myself an intellectual. It’s just a fact.

[accelafine]

That’s literally anybody’s fault. I’m an intellectual. You refuse to engage on a mature, factual, philosophical level so far though. Do you want to change that? I’m fine with taking a blank slate approach: the things you’ve said so far have been annoying, but I’m willing to ignore that and just start from scratch. We could even be friends. Do you want to talk about topics with good intentions, where even if we disagree we genuinely try to see where the other is coming from?

Umm, that's not something you can call yourself. It has to be bestowed by others. An actual intellectual would never call themselves one. Just how drunk ARE you? What have you said that's 'intellectual'?

Give me JK Rowling any day.

You know, I’d usually agree. But I don’t right now. Yeah I’ve been drinking, whatever. A lot of intellectuals can’t just say they are. But I know that I am and it’s silly to pretend I’m not. I know a lot more about physics than you do as a fact (I have a Masters and you probably don’t in that field). You probably know a lot more about other stuff that I don’t. Whatever. But I can recognize that I think about stuff more succinctly than a lot of people and so can you. I can call myself an intellectual. It’s just a fact.

I haven't seen any evidence of it so no, I'm not taking your word for it.

[Astro Cat]

Umm, that's not something you can call yourself. It has to be bestowed by others. An actual intellectual would never call themselves one. Just how drunk ARE you? What have you said that's 'intellectual'?

Give me JK Rowling any day.

You know, I’d usually agree. But I don’t right now. Yeah I’ve been drinking, whatever. A lot of intellectuals can’t just say they are. But I know that I am and it’s silly to pretend I’m not. I know a lot more about physics than you do as a fact (I have a Masters and you probably don’t in that field). You probably know a lot more about other stuff that I don’t. Whatever. But I can recognize that I think about stuff more succinctly than a lot of people and so can you. I can call myself an intellectual. It’s just a fact.

I haven't seen any evidence of it so no, I'm not taking your word for it.

Heh. This goes both ways, 100%. I trust in readers to see the difference.

[accelafine]

You know, I’d usually agree. But I don’t right now. Yeah I’ve been drinking, whatever. A lot of intellectuals can’t just say they are. But I know that I am and it’s silly to pretend I’m not. I know a lot more about physics than you do as a fact (I have a Masters and you probably don’t in that field). You probably know a lot more about other stuff that I don’t. Whatever. But I can recognize that I think about stuff more succinctly than a lot of people and so can you. I can call myself an intellectual. It’s just a fact.

I haven't seen any evidence of it so no, I'm not taking your word for it.

Heh. This goes both ways, 100%. I trust in readers to see the difference.

I don't go around calling myself an 'intellectual' (although oddly others have called me that)
Anyway, arguing with someone steeped in the 'genderwoo' cult is even more pointless than arguing with creationists. Banging my head against a brick wall has lost its appeal.

[mickthinks]

… having tantrums when others don't play their little games …

lol project much?

[accelafine]

Skin crawl alert.

[Astro Cat]

I haven't seen any evidence of it so no, I'm not taking your word for it.

Heh. This goes both ways, 100%. I trust in readers to see the difference.

I don't go around calling myself an 'intellectual' (although oddly others have called me that)
Anyway, arguing with someone steeped in the 'genderwoo' cult is even more pointless than arguing with creationists. Banging my head against a brick wall has lost its appeal.

You’re literally broadcasting that you’re incapable of intelligibly interacting with other views. You’re a clown and it shows visibly.

[attofishpi]

- tragically screwed and removed -

[Trajk Logik]

No one is “preaching,” they are asking for basic dignity. It doesn’t hurt you to use chosen pronouns and names any more than it hurts you to call your friend by their preferred nickname. If your friend Richard doesn’t want to be called “Dick,” you don’t call them “Dick,” it is basic cordiality.

So you're telling us that you've never called someone a name that they did not identify as (ie idiot, asshole, bigot, etc)?

It seems to me that if you are so confident in who you are then you don't need others to confirm it for you, or calling you things that you are not would not bother you. Overreacting to someone else's name-calling is just giving power to their words. Just don't react, at least not in an oversensitive, irritable and hostile way.

Equating pronouns with proper names is a mistake. Pronouns have historically referred to one's sex. Demanding that someone to use different pronouns than one's sex is demanding that someone to change their views.

In a free society with free speech and thought as an inherent right of all, we are all free to speak our minds. You are free to agree or disagree, but not control what others can say. Make a logical argument against it. Trying to control their speech, or calling them a bigot, and using your emotional state as justification, just shows that your arguments don't have a leg to stand on.

Nobody is pretending that chromosomes and biology aren’t a reality, but that isn’t what gender is. Gender is a societal concept about coding: we treat some people feminine-coded, some people male-coded, some people in between-coded, and so on. Gender is about social response and treatment, not about genitalia and chromosomes (that is the basic contention).

Gender is not about parts. It’s about how society treats a person. SEX is about parts.

This is an old argument that has already been debunked. If it really was only about how society treats someone, then why do trans change their biology? If gender is a social construct then changing one's gender would involve changing society and how it views individuals, and not involve changing body parts.

Gender is simply the way a society expects the sexes to behave. In a society where it is illegal to walk around in public naked, we need ways to distinguish between the sexes when the body parts are covered. It's no different than mating rituals seen in nature where the male or female display their sex. So gender is a social construct to a certain degree, but is intimately tied to sex. Tell me, what would gender be in a society that does not wear clothes.

https://qz.com/1190996/scientific-resea ... -construct

We don't validate an anorexics distorted view of their body by putting them on a diet, so why would we validate another somatic delusion by giving them hormone treatments and sex change operations?

Wanting to act like the opposite sex just reinforces the gender dichotomy - as you aren't really trying to break down the barriers between sexes - you want to BE the opposite sex.


Somatic type: delusions that the person has some physical defect or general medical condition (like believing that your body is the wrong sex)

The following can indicate a delusion:

The patient expresses an idea or belief with unusual persistence or force, even when evidence suggests the contradictory.

That idea appears to have an undue influence on the patient's life, and the way of life is often altered to an inexplicable extent.

Despite his/her profound conviction, there is often a quality of secretiveness or suspicion when the patient is questioned about it.

The individual tends to be humorless and oversensitive, especially about the belief.

There is a quality of centrality: no matter how unlikely it is that these strange things are happening to him/her, the patient accepts them relatively unquestioningly.

An attempt to contradict the belief is likely to arouse an inappropriately strong emotional reaction, often with irritability and hostility. They will not accept any other opinions.

The belief is, at the least, unlikely, and out of keeping with the patient's social, cultural, and religious background.

The patient is emotionally over-invested in the idea and it overwhelms other elements of their psyche.

The delusion, if acted out, often leads to behaviors which are abnormal and/or out of character, although perhaps understandable in light of the delusional beliefs.

Individuals who know the patient observe that the belief and behavior are uncharacteristic and alien.


Additional features of delusional disorder include the following:
It is a primary disorder.

It is a stable disorder characterized by the presence of delusions to which the patient clings with extraordinary tenacity.

The illness is chronic and frequently lifelong.

The delusions are logically constructed and internally consistent.

The delusions do not interfere with general logical reasoning (although within the delusional system the logic is perverted) and there is usually no general disturbance of behavior. If disturbed behavior does occur, it is directly related to the delusional beliefs.

The individual experiences a heightened sense of self-reference. Events which, to others, are nonsignificant are of enormous significance to him or her, and the atmosphere surrounding the delusions is highly charged.
— Wikipedia

Transgenders exhibit most, if not all, of these symptoms - especially being oversensitive about their belief and accepting it unquestioningly - similar to the religious. Any attempt to contradict the belief is met with hostility.

In diagnosing their condition correctly, we aren't being disrespectful to anyone, just like we aren't being disrespectful when we diagnose an anorexic correctly. We are attempting to help the patient instead of hurting them more by reinforcing their delusion to the point where the pay a doctor handsomely to cut them up. People that don't get this are inconsistent are actually the haters they label others to be.

[attofishpi]

Young lady, you must be close to revovery mode - what do they do (LGBTQ-XYZ) - smash an avacado onto a ciabatta with garlic (dunno) wiv orange juice?

My cure if hangover is (I still stick to eggs bacon mushrooms, tomato if i think i feel a hippy vibe, BLACK PUDDING from the UK only - cooked animal blood is lovely for breaky,,,um what else...sausages Y not, and since U R in USA - I've had almost all of the above - but with pancakes and maple syrup - I thought I would fight against such nonsense, but instead I devoured it and real eyesed I could never live in the US for more than a few months else I turn into a WEEBLE (*they wobble but they don't fall down)

So anyway Atto Cat!! Glad U R back..I'm happy - 4 am in Oz - stayed up to see my football team play at the Mecca of football - Wembley and are now promoted back to the Premier League..as if u care.. lots of beer excuses me for pretending u might.

I find the Planck scale of shit fascinating as an aside to nonsense (above)

You know, I’d usually agree. But I don’t right now. Yeah I’ve been drinking, whatever.

I'm sure you haven't been drinking 'whatever"!! Out of interest, what was the nights tipple.

A lot of intellectuals can’t just say they are. But I know that I am and it’s silly to pretend I’m not. I know a lot more about physics than you do as a fact (I have a Masters and you probably don’t in that field).

You most definitely are intellectual, and know a lot more about physics than me (congrats on the Masters)...but do you know anything of any consequence occurring below the Planck scale? (I think I do)

[accelafine]

No one is “preaching,” they are asking for basic dignity. It doesn’t hurt you to use chosen pronouns and names any more than it hurts you to call your friend by their preferred nickname. If your friend Richard doesn’t want to be called “Dick,” you don’t call them “Dick,” it is basic cordiality.

So you're telling us that you've never called someone a name that they did not identify as (ie idiot, asshole, bigot, etc)?

It seems to me that if you are so confident in who you are then you don't need others to confirm it for you, or calling you things that you are not would not bother you. Overreacting to someone else's name-calling is just giving power to their words. Just don't react, at least not in an oversensitive, irritable and hostile way.

Equating pronouns with proper names is a mistake. Pronouns have historically referred to one's sex. Demanding that someone to use different pronouns than one's sex is demanding that someone to change their views.

In a free society with free speech and thought as an inherent right of all, we are all free to speak our minds. You are free to agree or disagree, but not control what others can say. Make a logical argument against it. Trying to control their speech, or calling them a bigot, and using your emotional state as justification, just shows that your arguments don't have a leg to stand on.

Nobody is pretending that chromosomes and biology aren’t a reality, but that isn’t what gender is. Gender is a societal concept about coding: we treat some people feminine-coded, some people male-coded, some people in between-coded, and so on. Gender is about social response and treatment, not about genitalia and chromosomes (that is the basic contention).

Gender is not about parts. It’s about how society treats a person. SEX is about parts.

This is an old argument that has already been debunked. If it really was only about how society treats someone, then why do trans change their biology? If gender is a social construct then changing one's gender would involve changing society and how it views individuals, and not involve changing body parts.

Gender is simply the way a society expects the sexes to behave. In a society where it is illegal to walk around in public naked, we need ways to distinguish between the sexes when the body parts are covered. It's no different than mating rituals seen in nature where the male or female display their sex. So gender is a social construct to a certain degree, but is intimately tied to sex. Tell me, what would gender be in a society that does not wear clothes.

https://qz.com/1190996/scientific-resea ... -construct

We don't validate an anorexics distorted view of their body by putting them on a diet, so why would we validate another somatic delusion by giving them hormone treatments and sex change operations?

Wanting to act like the opposite sex just reinforces the gender dichotomy - as you aren't really trying to break down the barriers between sexes - you want to BE the opposite sex.


Somatic type: delusions that the person has some physical defect or general medical condition (like believing that your body is the wrong sex)

The following can indicate a delusion:

The patient expresses an idea or belief with unusual persistence or force, even when evidence suggests the contradictory.

That idea appears to have an undue influence on the patient's life, and the way of life is often altered to an inexplicable extent.

Despite his/her profound conviction, there is often a quality of secretiveness or suspicion when the patient is questioned about it.

The individual tends to be humorless and oversensitive, especially about the belief.

There is a quality of centrality: no matter how unlikely it is that these strange things are happening to him/her, the patient accepts them relatively unquestioningly.

An attempt to contradict the belief is likely to arouse an inappropriately strong emotional reaction, often with irritability and hostility. They will not accept any other opinions.

The belief is, at the least, unlikely, and out of keeping with the patient's social, cultural, and religious background.

The patient is emotionally over-invested in the idea and it overwhelms other elements of their psyche.

The delusion, if acted out, often leads to behaviors which are abnormal and/or out of character, although perhaps understandable in light of the delusional beliefs.

Individuals who know the patient observe that the belief and behavior are uncharacteristic and alien.


Additional features of delusional disorder include the following:
It is a primary disorder.

It is a stable disorder characterized by the presence of delusions to which the patient clings with extraordinary tenacity.

The illness is chronic and frequently lifelong.

The delusions are logically constructed and internally consistent.

The delusions do not interfere with general logical reasoning (although within the delusional system the logic is perverted) and there is usually no general disturbance of behavior. If disturbed behavior does occur, it is directly related to the delusional beliefs.

The individual experiences a heightened sense of self-reference. Events which, to others, are nonsignificant are of enormous significance to him or her, and the atmosphere surrounding the delusions is highly charged.
— Wikipedia

Transgenders exhibit most, if not all, of these symptoms - especially being oversensitive about their belief and accepting it unquestioningly - similar to the religious. Any attempt to contradict the belief is met with hostility.

In diagnosing their condition correctly, we aren't being disrespectful to anyone, just like we aren't being disrespectful when we diagnose an anorexic correctly. We are attempting to help the patient instead of hurting them more by reinforcing their delusion to the point where the pay a doctor handsomely to cut them up. People that don't get this are inconsistent are actually the haters they label others to be.

Unfortunately that's only part of the story. Most of these so-called 'transwomen' are AGPs--men who get a sexual kick out of wearing women's clothes etc. They don't believe they are women. They are well aware that they are not. Does anyone seriously believe that Eddie Izzard thinks he's actually a woman? He doesn't even say it himself, yet we have outlets like the BBC reverently referring to him as 'her' and 'she'. We also have the opportunistic 'trans', the ones who simply want to invade women's spaces. Their reasons are many and varied, eg, winning at sports that they wouldn't otherwise stand a chance in and doing women out of prize winnings and lucrative sports scholarships, being put in female prisons, having access to women's changing rooms/toilets, intimidating women, controlling, dominating and 'superseding' women... It's all deeply misogynistic.
Then there are the children who are being told that they were born with the 'wrong body' and can simply become the opposite sex if they want to. No one is born with the 'wrong body'. If you tell a child something they will believe you. That's what children do. A boy who plays with dolls is a boy who plays with dolls. Nothing more. Nothing less. He may have grown up to be a healthy gay man (or healthy straight man). Sadly many will never get that chance. So added to all its other evils, the so-called 'trans movement' is steeped in 'homophobia'.
Elective breast removal has become the latest sick fashion trend with confused young women, and it can only get worse. Very lucrative for surgeons of course.
It's all such a convoluted mess that there seems to be no solution, but I suspect that the key to solving it lies with women (and not the traitorous handmaiden, male-worshipping kind). This is exactly why it's so important for the 'transrights' movement to instil the idea into people's heads that there is such a thing as 'gender identity', and to have it set in law--meaning that men can legally 'become' women with everyone else forced to comply with their little charade or suffer legal consequences, making it a 'hate crime' to use the wrong (correct) pronouns to validate their cosplay/power tripping/attention-seeking/narcissism. A return to sanity could also come in the form of massive lawsuits filed by those who were fed the lie that they could change sex by mutilating their bodies and ruining their health both mentally and physically.

[attofishpi]

Then your earnestness (or lack thereof) in intellectual discourse is revealed. Big shrug from me, readers will see.

People are either born with female stuff or male stuff. Are you saying people are born with neither, or both? If so, pick a team!

To attempt to respond to this again, in a lesser way than I did originally. Gender is not about parts. It’s about how society treats a person. SEX is about parts.

OK. So I decided to look up GENDER in an old dictionary. It's so old that it is made of paper and it took me a while to find 'G' - the alphabet confuses me these days, not sure why.

Anyhoo...
Gender: Grammar Any of the classifications given to nouns or pronouns according to the SEX of the person or thing described as masculine (he), feminine (she), neuter (it) or common (child).

So SEX is still the deciding factor. I think it then comes back to my original question: People are either born with female stuff or male stuff (SEX). Are you saying people are born with neither, or both? If so, are they the "neuter" - hence 'it' is the appropriate pronoun?