My ideas about transgenderism

[Harbal]

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?

You have no duty whatsoever to care what I think, just as I have no duty to care what you say God thinks, but you are wrong about my feelings; they are not momentary.

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

Just do what you usually do: Go with your own feelings and pretend it's what God wants.

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,

Are they morally wrong for experiencing feelings that cause them emotional distress, then?

including depriving them permanently of sexual gratification

What, like you would deprive homosexuals of it, you mean?

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.

Well if it is imposed on anyone, and if it is inappropriate, then of course it is wrong, but it is necessary to the happiness and well being of a significant number of people, and they should not be denied that opportunity because of the prejudice of loud mouthed "moralists".

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

Yes, the worse case scenario you have painted is certainly a moral issue, but the principle of transgenderism for those to whom it is appropriate is only a moral issue if we deny them what they need.

[Immanuel Can]

...you are wrong about my feelings; they are not momentary.

Well, of course, you don't know that. They might be gone in the next ten seconds, for all you know. Feelings are like that -- they come and go without warning.

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,

Are they morally wrong for experiencing feelings that cause them emotional distress, then?

No, they're not morally wrong...just factually wrong. They're men who imagine they can be women, and women who imagine they can be men. And they all find out the same thing: that they cannot.

...it is necessary to the happiness and well being of a significant number of people,

"Happy" is not the right word for transgenderism at all. It begins with a hopeless delusion, and inevitably ends in defeat, disappointment and early death. You will not find an unhappier group than the transers: their suicide rate, both before and after transing, and regardless of whether they can 'pass' or not, is equally high, and higher than the rate of anybody else except for Jews during the Holocaust.

That, if nothing else, should tell you we're not dealing with anything normal, but with very serious mental illness...which any good society should treat, not encourage. Why would a society be good for encouraging suicidal ideation in some part of its populace?

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

Yes, the worse case scenario you have painted is certainly a moral issue,...

Objectively moral? Or just subjectively?

Because if it's only subjective, then so long as I am subjectively content with any particular position, what have you to say about that?

[Dontaskme]

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.

Yes, it's all mind stuff, and that is what the dream of artificial separation entails unfortunately, anything within the dream will and can happen, since reality is totally and utterly free in every moment, including the false idea there is a you who has the free will to change what is happening into what must not happen according to your own will... as if in the instant of now, you somehow had sole possession of a time-machine that could instantly change what is happening right here and now into what you do not want to happen.

The sense of I exist, can only see the world according to how this sense of I views it...the world is identical to what you think it is IC ..And that's exatly what you fail to accept as a fact.

You also fail to accept there is no God to help you or us, the proof is obvious as you constantly cry out for this God to help you or us. If God helped you or any of us for that matter, then you wouldn't have any more need to cry out those immortal words..God help us.

[Dontaskme]

No, they're not morally wrong...just factually wrong. They're men who imagine they can be women, and women who imagine they can be men. And they all find out the same thing: that they cannot.

Obviously, in the context of how we understand the human anatomy. A man is a man, not a woman, and vice versa. So of course if you are born a male, you are a male and not a female.
No one is disputing that or denying it.

What's being discussed here is not what you are discussing. We are discussing the idea that a person born as a male can be born by no fault of their own to be only familiar with having the mind of a female, and simply wants to honor that internal identity as having a female mentality, which is a perfectly normal thing to do according to the mental state of the person who was born like that, and it's obvious by now that some people are born like that.

[Immanuel Can]

We are discussing the idea that a person born as a male can be born by no fault of their own to be only familiar with having the mind of a female, and simply wants to honor that internal identity as having a female mentality...

To say that, you're essentializing femaleness/maleness. You're admitting that male/female is a biological type of mind, a "mentality". (For some reason, you're also thinking that body doesn't count, and doesn't essentialize male/female...and also at the same time, that a person with that mind needs their body to be changed so they can become a male/female...but that the body both does and does not matter, in the determining of what this person is. That's totally irrational, totally self-contradicting, of course: either the body matters, or it does not. Either the mind can be male/female, or it cannot. But if either really IS male/female, and is determinative of essential maleness/femaleness, then no change is possible, since that determination is essential. In other words, you're making not one lick of sense, there.)

But what is a woman? According to your definition, it's only somebody who wants to be a woman. But that's circular: what is it that this person wants to be? What is a woman? What is the essential determinant of woman-ness? You say it's a "mentality." Okay, but then why does the body matter at all? Why should we not encourage people to learn how to live as they are, and be grateful for how they've been made, without butchering their genitalia, since you say the body doesn't determine anything?

[Harbal]

...you are wrong about my feelings; they are not momentary.

Well, of course, you don't know that.

I wasn't meaning to suggest that I know more about my feelings than you do.

Are they morally wrong for experiencing feelings that cause them emotional distress, then?

No, they're not morally wrong...just factually wrong. They're men who imagine they can be women, and women who imagine they can be men. And they all find out the same thing: that they cannot.

Of course men can't be women, and women can't be men, but if it is possible to make them feel more like the gender they feel they should have been, and that makes life more acceptable and satisfying for them, why on earth would you have a moral objection to that?

it is necessary to the happiness and well being of a significant number of people,

"Happy" is not the right word for transgenderism at all. It begins with a hopeless delusion,

Here you are again with your proclamations of delusion. Feelings and emotions are not delusions, they are very real to those experiencing them.

You will not find an unhappier group than the transers:

Statistics, please. It is true because IC says so isn't good enough.

their suicide rate, both before and after transing, and regardless of whether they can 'pass' or not, is equally high, and higher than the rate of anybody else except for Jews during the Holocaust.

That suggests it is the condition that drives them to it, and not the treatment that is responsible.

That, if nothing else, should tell you we're not dealing with anything normal, but with very serious mental illness...which any good society should treat, not encourage. Why would a society be good for encouraging suicidal ideation in some part of its populace?

What grounds do you have for saying that the only thing that is capable of depressing someone to the point of suicide is mental illness. If you woke up tomorrow and found your body had turned female, how cheerfully would you go about your day?

Yes, the worse case scenario you have painted is certainly a moral issue,...

Objectively moral? Or just subjectively?

It would be an issue that falls withing the category of morality. Morality is not a fixed thing, but it does exist in an abstract sense, so I suppose you could say a moral issue exists in an abstract sense, but I have no idea whether a philosopher would say it was objective existence or not.

Because if it's only subjective, then so long as I am subjectively content with any particular position, what have you to say about that?

I could condemn or approve of your position, just as you could with mine. The only difference is that you would claim to have objective truth backing you up, but a claim of truth is not the truth itself, so that would mean nothing.

[Dontaskme]

We are discussing the idea that a person born as a male can be born by no fault of their own to be only familiar with having the mind of a female, and simply wants to honor that internal identity as having a female mentality...

To say that, you're essentializing femaleness/maleness. You're admitting that male/female is a biological type of mind, a "mentality".

If that is how it is appearing to the particular mind, then so what? ..what does it matter if one is born of the mind that is of a biological type, that even appears different to how that same mind knows it's own body parts as appearing to look like the complete opposite of what it is thinking and feeling? I fail to understand how this is even becoming an issue for you?

(For some reason, you're also thinking that body doesn't count, and doesn't essentialize male/female...and also at the same time, that a person with that mind needs their body to be changed so they can become a male/female...but that the body both does and does not matter, in the determining of what this person is. That's totally irrational, totally self-contradicting, of course: either the body matters, or it does not. Either the mind can be male/female, or it cannot. But if either really IS male/female, and is determinative of essential maleness/femaleness, then no change is possible, since that determination is essential. In other words, you're making not one lick of sense, there.)

I have absolutely no idea what you are going on about.

Only the owner of the mind can know what's going on in that mind...as to what they feel and think themself as in the context of conceptual identity.

Other minds can only make-up ideas about what they think is going on in another persons mind...they can only speculate, and that includes the ideas, that are both yours and mine. We have absolutely no access to another persons mind, so to even make out we know anything about them is impossible. We can only go on the evidence of what another person is thinking and feeling about their true identity only when and if they actually TELL US ABOUT IT. And it is only when and if they actually tell us about it, then that would be their truth, and not anyone elses.

But what is a woman? According to your definition, it's only somebody who wants to be a woman. But that's circular: what is it that this person wants to be? What is a woman? What is the essential determinant of woman-ness? You say it's a "mentality." Okay, but then why does the body matter at all? Why should we not encourage people to learn how to live as they are, and be grateful for how they've been made, without butchering their genitalia, since you say the body doesn't determine anything?

A woman is whatever the mind believes a woman to be in this conception.

The body matters because without one, there is no way of knowing anything at all, the body is simply an image of the imageless. The body is the seen observed of an ever elusive unseen observer. There is no separation there between the mind and body.

And what does ''butchering their genitalia'' have anything to do with what is being discussed here, which is about a person who is born with the sense of being a female although born with male genitals??? known about because that person is actually able to tell the tale to someone else.

[Dontaskme]

That, if nothing else, should tell you we're not dealing with anything normal, but with very serious mental illness...which any good society should treat, not encourage. Why would a society be good for encouraging suicidal ideation in some part of its populace?

If people are suicidal, it's maybe because of people like you stating there is something not normal about them, stating they have serious mental illness. The human psyche is fragile, belief is a powerful phenomena that affects all of us. It can't be a good thing hearing the words..you have a serious mental illness, or that you are not normal.

Heard words are all we can relate to as we grow and develop. We become our conditioning, and our habits.
We've all agreed that the colour red is indeed red. We've all believed there is an I who expriences feelings and emotions. Even if it is all just a story, no one ever wrote. That's the power of illusion, it all feels so real. The world can only be how you are, how you perceive it to be, based on your own private projected thoughts and feelings about it, and never how it actually is, which is unknowable.

Also, the mind that is easily seduced into believing it is a separate entity is also quite easily able to transcend that belief as a false belief, leaving behind a clarity of being that is the peace that passes all understanding. Meanwhile, if people choose to continue on with the false belief, and choose to play the game of life, then that's their own choice to do so, that's their prerogative, no one else is forcing you to play. No one else is forcing you to reproduce and make more players, the game can be played or not, it's simply all your choice, so you only have yourselves to blame for how the game plays out. The game only ends when there are no more players left, which will not happen as long as you are perfectly happy to play it.




.

[Immanuel Can]

...you are wrong about my feelings; they are not momentary.

Well, of course, you don't know that.

I wasn't meaning to suggest that I know more about my feelings than you do.

Hey, you have a new feeling everytime somebody sends you a message. That's how transient feelings are.

Are they morally wrong for experiencing feelings that cause them emotional distress, then?

No, they're not morally wrong...just factually wrong. They're men who imagine they can be women, and women who imagine they can be men. And they all find out the same thing: that they cannot.

Of course men can't be women, and women can't be men, but if it is possible to make them feel more like the gender they feel they should have been,

"Should" have been? "Should have been?"

Wow. You're implying a lot, there. You're implying there's a way things "should have been" that they are not. But how do you know what "should have been"?

But who "intended" that things "should have been" anything? Are we not mere products, according to your worldview, of accidental forces that didn't "want" anything to happen at all. Heck, natural laws are not even capable of "wanting" anything, or "intending" that anything "should" happen. They just make stuff go as it does. Thus, there's no way things "should have" been...there's only what is, what exists, what's here, right?

Or shall we anthropomorphize? Shall we say there's a "Mother Nature," who thinks that body-dysphoric people "should" be other than they are? But how do we know that this "Mother Nature," this source of "shouldness" you're imagining, "intended" some people to struggle with gender dysphoria, overcome it, and become better people for that? Detransitioners certainly say that's how the story runs.

The problem is this: not whether body-dysphoric people deserve compassion, understanding and help, but rather what compassion, understanding and help actually look like. You say that telling them they're fine, and encouraging their delusion is "acceptance" and compassion. I'm saying that helping them overcome their delusion is compassion. And you'll find that a lot of those who have undergone the relevant transitions, and have discovered the results, are on my side, not yours.

So we can both be thinking compassionately, but coming up with opposite expressions of compassion. One of us will turn out to be right, and the other will turn out to be wrong. But my money's on the person who respects reality, biology, and scientific facts.

Feelings and emotions are not delusions, they are very real to those experiencing them.

That they exist is real. What they refer to is not. That's what a "delusion" means.

You will not find an unhappier group than the transers:

Statistics, please. It is true because IC says so isn't good enough.

Keep reading.

...their suicide rate, both before and after transing, and regardless of whether they can 'pass' or not, is equally high, and higher than the rate of anybody else except for Jews during the Holocaust.

That suggests it is the condition that drives them to it, and not the treatment that is responsible. [/quote]
It doesn't actually tell us what's "driving them" to it. What it does tell us, though, is that whatever we're doing, it's not working. And right now, what we're providing is that euphemistically-named "gender-affirming care," which really means encouraging them to ignore their biology, be restentful of their lot in life, and refuse to accept themselves as God made them. Not a very loving thing to do, ultimately.

That, if nothing else, should tell you we're not dealing with anything normal, but with very serious mental illness...which any good society should treat, not encourage. Why would a society be good for encouraging suicidal ideation in some part of its populace?

What grounds do you have for saying that the only thing that is capable of depressing someone to the point of suicide is mental illness.[/quote]
I did not say that, so I will provide you no such "grounds." What I'm pointing out is that body dysphoric people, both before and after transition, are the most self-loathing, suicidal kinds of people on the planet. And that, it seems to me, argues they need mental health care, not an indulgent and ultimately uncaring society to drive them deeper into their mental illness.

If you woke up tomorrow and found your body had turned female, how cheerfully would you go about your day?

I would no doubt struggle. ButI hope I would thank God for what He had made me, accept the challenge of it, and become a better person through overcoming my confusion and learning to live gratefully for the things I have been given.

Yes, the worse case scenario you have painted is certainly a moral issue,...

Objectively moral? Or just subjectively?

It would be an issue that falls withing the category of morality. [/quote]
Objective? You say there is no such thing. So if it's merely subjective, you're just saying, "Harbal likes the idea of transitioners, for now."

Because if it's only subjective, then so long as I am subjectively content with any particular position, what have you to say about that?

I could condemn or approve of your position, just as you could with mine.

Not with any reasons. Your own viewpoint would undermine your credibility in the condemnation.

When somebody comes along and says morally-judgmental things that their own reasoning says are purely "subjective" anyway, no more than their personal feeling-of-the-moment, should you listen to them? It's hard to see why you would.

[Dontaskme]

Speaking of playing the game IC

There are even some people born to this world who simply do not want to play the game, I have personal contact with such people, who simply admit to themselves that they do not want to play the game. And they go on to say that there would be nothing wrong with their choice, if that's what they want, and then go on to say, it is always other people who are labeling them as being depressed and mentally unbalanced for feeling like that...

I guess those same people who call out a person who simply does not want to play the game, as being depressed, and a mentally ill person is the same person who would also say there is nothing depressing, wrong or abnormal with someone who does choose to want to play the game of life...that to the person who doesn't want to play, would see that to be their view of hell, mental unbalance and depressing.

IC is suicide wrong?

[Dontaskme]

"Should" have been? "Should have been?"

Wow. You're implying a lot, there. You're implying there's a way things "should have been" that they are not. But how do you know what "should have been"?

Probably the same way you know when you said this ...

That, if nothing else, should tell you we're not dealing with anything normal, but with very serious mental illness...which any good society should treat, not encourage.

The problem with this ''should'' reasoning IC...is that maybe the person who is feeling suicidal, doesn't actually want your's or anyone else's 'shoulds', and feels like these 'shoulds' should be kept silent. . which is like asking a still wind to keep blowing.

[Immanuel Can]

"Should" have been? "Should have been?"

Wow. You're implying a lot, there. You're implying there's a way things "should have been" that they are not. But how do you know what "should have been"?

Probably the same way you know when you said this ...

That, if nothing else, should tell you we're not dealing with anything normal, but with very serious mental illness...which any good society should treat, not encourage.

But I'm a moral objectivist. So for me, "should" is a concept that makes sense, and is perfectly consistent. Not so for Harbal, obviously. He can't suppose anybody "should" have been any other way than they are. I can.

[Dontaskme]

What I'm pointing out is that body dysphoric people, both before and after transition, are the most self-loathing, suicidal kinds of people on the planet. And that, it seems to me, argues they need mental health care, not an indulgent and ultimately uncaring society to drive them deeper into their mental illness.

Harbal the sensible philosopher wrote:

If you woke up tomorrow and found your body had turned female, how cheerfully would you go about your day?

I would no doubt struggle. ButI hope I would thank God for what He had made me, accept the challenge of it, and become a better person through overcoming my confusion and learning to live gratefully for the things I have been given.

Maybe that's also a view (body dysphoric people) can adopt. How should or could it have been otherwise? Did a body dysphoric person choose the way their brain functions. Did they choose to be the most self-loathing, suicidal kinds of people on the planet, in need of mental health care. Did they choose to be born into a society that drives them deeper into their mental illness?

Or did God choose that life for them? in which case, SHOULD they be grateful, and thank God for what He had made them, accept the challenge of it, and become better people through overcoming their confusion and learning to live gratefully for the things they have been given. Or should they just accept their self-loathing suicidal thoughts, and not burden other people with it. Rather, just thank God for the challenge of it, and be grateful for the things they have been given.





.

[Dontaskme]

But I'm a moral objectivist. So for me, "should" is a concept that makes sense, and is perfectly consistent. Not so for Harbal, obviously. He can't suppose anybody "should" have been any other way than they are. I can.

But people cannot be any other way than how they are, that is a fact. ..the concept ''should'' is not necessary. There is simply how one is, and how one is can never be how one is not.

The concept of 'should' or 'should not' should only apply to oneself...not another self.


To inform other people 'you should be this way' as opposed to 'not that way', is implying they should only follow a certain way of being according to someone else's worldview....but to impose a 'should' or 'should not' upon someone else, is simply no one else's job or business to make. The other person can only be who they are, and never have to think they should comply with someone else's 'shoulds and should not's'.

The point is IC, if you already know the true and real concept of what are 'shoulds and should not's' ...then it's only fair to say that so too can everyone else know what you know, this has nothing to do with being a moral subjectivist or a moral objectivist.. as everyone with a sentient living brain capable of knowing and understanding linguistical conceptual language, will have acquired their own personal moral and ethical standards in the exact same way you did, they would have got them from the exact same place you did, you see.

But then of course there are people who know what morality and ethical means by definition, but choose not to adhere to their understanding of the concepts, just because they believe they have the free will to do what they want in life....and that free will is of course no one else's business but one's own...So you see IC, you can do absolutely nothing about what other people choose to do in life, all you can do is reject it as being an expression of mental illness that is abnormal and should be eliminated at once with treatment, even though free will is what is being expressed, you know, that divine gift your God gave you.. Who bless his little cotton socks simply can do nothing about since that would make an ass out of him since he was the one who gave them that free will in the first place, and now the deluded poor thing can only sit back and watch on helplessly, just like you his beloved son. And that's the reality you believe exists, and cannot accept.




.

[Immanuel Can]

But I'm a moral objectivist. So for me, "should" is a concept that makes sense, and is perfectly consistent. Not so for Harbal, obviously. He can't suppose anybody "should" have been any other way than they are. I can.

But people cannot be any other way than how they are, that is a fact. ..the concept ''should'' is not necessary. There is simply how one is, and how one is can never be how one is not.

That's why Harbal can't use it. Subjectivism has to be fatalistic, in that respect: it has to assume that whatever is, is all that could ever be. But Christianity does not assume that the way things are is the way things had to be, or the way they ought to be.

The concept of 'should' or 'should not' should only apply to oneself...not another self.

You can't say that, rationally speaking. There is no application for "should" in a subjectivist world. You have no obligations, no duties, no ways you ought to be.

To inform other people 'you should be this way' as opposed to 'not that way', is implying they should only follow a certain way of being according to someone else's worldview....

Are you trying to say that we ought not to use "should" for other people? But there are no "ought nots" for subjectivists. So you're accidentally smuggling in a preference of your own as if it were an objective obligation.

The truth, from a subjectivist perspective, is much simpler: every person can do whatever he or she can get away with. And so long as he/she is subjectively happy doing it, or even if not, there are no rules, no obligations, no duties, no oughts and ought nots, nothing a person cannot do.