When we cite "emotional blindness" - to what are the emotions blind? Clues and signals from the body. — Questioner

Hmm, tough one. I can't say this strikes me as 'right'. Emotions seem to come from (or at least arise in) the mind. Not being able to adequately parse the mental states that accompany what we routine call.. pick your poison: sadness, exultation, disappointment etc.. seems to be what it refers to. But you're otherwise right, in that this is included in the loop that creates a perceived self-identity.

Not exactly. From what I read, being "nonautistic" was a controlled variable in the study, since autistic persons tend to have higher rates of alexithymia. The two relevant variables in the study were transgender vs. cisgender. — Questioner

I'm unsure what control is used changes my (tentative and certainly not detailed) conclusion. I understand that the groups in question were those groups - I would want to see a comparison with autistic non-trans people and non-autistic trans people. I think the results would edify this study nicely. But again, replication etc.. so happy to accept both possible interpretations.

I don't mean connected by muscle, blood and bone, but by the electrochemical signals coursing through your nervous system. Nervous system communication is confused and can result in depersonalization. — Questioner

Oh, ok I see what you mean. Fair enough - maybe hte terms were just unclear.

I can't see a reason to introduce self-absorption or an "internal ignorance" into the discussion. — Questioner

Because they adequately explain the results. It might not be the case, or might be a mild contributing factor (I think that's fairly uncontroversial to claim).. I suppose partially i'm going by experience too. Again, happy to accept both interpretations as it stands.

I do not see that as sexism. Sex expectations are biologically expected statistics and are not gender. Admiring and wanting the body of the opposite sex for yourself is an entirely different subject. — Philosophim

I would say having surgery to appear as a (caricature, naturally) of the opposite sex is sexist pretty much by definition. I just don't think all sexism is bad. Clearly not, as law instantiates several instances of it.

Grow up.

That is the standard response to being asked to challenge your own views. Particularly when evidence is presented. Not sure why.

1. Uhh, the claim is his personal view is that trans people are awful and shouldn't exist. This context puts paid to that egregiously stupid claim. It is incorrect. Given that we have several instances of Charlie defending minorities against his own followers, maybe you should reconsider the ridiculous caricature you seem to have in mind.

2. We've just found out that it may have been (well, that's dramatic - but certainly there's truck to some claims made back then). But I don't defend that - everyone says elections are stolen and it's always stupid. Russian influence etc... Plenty of people claim Trump stole both elections. Not serious people, to be sure (well, to my knowledge). This is wholly irrelevant to what's been said, though.

I suggest you make an effort to falsify your incorrect view on this person. I've provided one link.

L1. If something is "different from what is usual," then it is special
{from the definition AmadeusD provided}
L2. Humans are different from what is usual
L3. Therefore, humans are special — Leontiskos

L2 is false (it is usual to be unique, and choosing human traits above others is arbitrary).

A1. If that which is different from the usual is special, then everything is special
A2. But not everything is special
A3. Therefore, it is not true that that which is different from the usual is special
{modus tollens} — Leontiskos

Yep. It's not that the definition is inadequate or that 'special' is arbitary under those terms - it's just meaningless. which leads me to believe only the anthropocentric use matters. If that's the case, I have no problem(which I've noted) but this is entirely contingent and we cannot say that humans are special, other than in this contingent, parochial sense.

You keep implying that the definition that you picked out is insufficient: — Leontiskos

I do not. As above, L2 is false under this definition. I do not need to revise it at all. I cannot follow you, because you're not making much sense.

So, to run again the claim you made that "babies are special". The support was that babies become adult humans, and humans are special.

As noted, if this is a claim contingent on being a human, looking at other humans(seems that it is, by your elaborations) - humans can be special in the contingent sense outlined above, but babies cannot. They are entirely usual for a human.

Humans are only special insofar as the majority of beings are special. Is that hte type of 'special' you mean? If so, it's pretty empty to me. If you genuinely mean humans are 'special' per definition, I think you're committed to the anthropocentric use which to me, precludes babies being special.

But that still leaves you with a difficult argument to make, namely the argument that humans are not better or greater than what is usual. — Leontiskos

Not hard at all for a non-theologist.

Hmm, you think so? It seems to me a threat has to exist for us to note one. Albeit, this could be memorial threat rather than imminent and so sometimes it'll be erroneous.

I think outgroups function fine when they stay apart from yours. I, personally, have absolutely no issue with voluntary social segregation along cultural lines - I'm fairly sure any form of Islam which is anything but mild is fairly incompatible with a free and open society - so too is full religious right-wing Christianity.

I just don't know how to create a central control mechanism like a federal govt without favouring different groups in ways that suck.

Just a thanks - I've enjoyed it, and we got past the nasty stuff. Rare. Thank you!

No, not at all. That's not semantics. "death" is an event. "being dead" is not "death".

Corvus is literally using poetics to try to make metaphysical points. Its weird and empty.

aniv has caused more harm than help to the cause of transgender persons, so not quite so comedic. — Questioner

That's fair - As i say, from a detached perspective. But I agree, anyway. It's just cartoonish. Maybe that would have been better phrasing.

She is no more representative of that community than Trump is of the American people. — Questioner

I think the apt way to put this is "republicans". Otherwise its apples and oranges. Not to say your point about Yaniv isn't meaningful. But do bear in mind, that applies to plenty of voices in the trans community, including those who carry out violence and intimidation on behalf of their identatarian thought regime. I know this isn't representative of "trans" but its what the world has to deal with. I hope it's been noted I know (well, and not so well) plenty of trans people due to both my previous "extreme left" social life and my work life. I have no problem with people expressing themselves. Its that I do not believe for a moment that "trans" is some immutable, born-this-way characteristic of anyone. Feminniity and masculinity may be biologically influenced, but I can't go much further than that. Clear, social aspects influence those traits far more than biology in the modern world and that gives pause.

psychobiological processes: interoception and alexithymia — Questioner

This may become redundant, but I don't understand either of these as processes. They appear to be either conditions or facilities (one of which I have been diagnosed with in the past). Onward..

Alexithymia is a difficulty in interpreting those signals. — Questioner

It seems more correct that this is an issue identifying and processing emotions and noting them via body language or subtle spoken language. Its a very "spectrum" condition. I was diagnosed with it as an aspect of DsD at one point. It is known as "emotional blindness". Careful not to conflate the former, which is the body's ability to process internal signalling like temperature, hunger and muscle tension with the latter, which is problems processing emotions.

Further research shows that “nonautistic transgender participants reported significantly higher mean levels of alexithymia than nonautistic cisgender participants, and that there was a significant overrepresentation of individuals in this group who met the clinical cutoff for alexithymia. — Questioner

This indicates an overlap between trans and autism spectrum disorder. This is expected by most who do not take trans as a standalone mental state. It actually indicates that what's being discovered is high levels of autism in those claiming a trans identity. Two ways of looking at hte same coin.

Transgender individuals experiencing dysphoria are literally and biologically less connected to their bodies. — Questioner

These terms do not make sense, I don't think - you are, biologically, your body (well - not quite. But you cannot escape your body in any way). You cannot be biologically disconnected from it in any way other than to remove parts of it (lets not go there). I don't know what you might mean by "literally" in this case.

This interferes with the construction of self-identity, which naturally relies on the signals interpreted by the brain. Only if you feel connected to your body can you say, “This body is me.” — Questioner

I disagree, but i fully understand the point and take it. As with the previous note above, that conclusion could (and I read the majority of the paper) equally indicate that being focused on oneself for long enoguh will do the trick. That seems true.

The suggestion in the paper could be correct, but it could also simply mean that TW who have been self-obsessed for a long enough time increase their bodily awareness and therefore interoception. It could just be a matter overcoming an internal ignorance.

I don't know - but it's hard to read those papers (particularly in the middle of hte replication crisis, and with such incredibly small sample sizes) as showing much.

My favourite sentence of all time, a friend and I stumbled across some 12 years ago:

"Nothing means it.." in reference to... something.

Yep. In the exact context I gave.

He also, multiple times, stood up for minorities even against his own fans, spoke highly of all people as children of God. This speaks to delusion, as I'm not religious, ubt it is outright wrong to suggest that he, personally, had some moral issue with trans people tout court.

This is a genuine thing, not my suggesting something about you - if you're willing to see Charlie for what he actually was, and see his utterances in context and without specious commentary, you may find this interesting. It was one factor that made me realise my understanding of Kirk as hateful was woefully inaccurate. It is an analysis from a Christian perspective, which is important - but also from a Kirk critic (in his lifetim).

I'll number responses rather than quoting - posts are getting quite long and gummy, as I see - sorry if that makes it more difficult.

1. Ah yep; thanks. I see nothing there that doesn't anything whatsoever to challenge the existence of trans people (and the claim that they are being x'd "out of existence" is pure theater anyway).

Gender ideology is internally inconsistent, in that it diminishes sex as an identifiable or useful category but nevertheless maintains that it is possible for a person to be born in the wrong sexed body. — Questioner

This is true, for instance. Nothing in those lines has much of anything to do with being trans other than uses of hte words 'woman' and 'man'. We can use 'transwomen' and 'transman' and do, in most cases so I'm not seeing much of anything worth noting there? Are you able to perhaps parse out what you think supports the claim? Even if its a quippy claim for effect..

2.

I think an important part of what I said is.. — Questioner

I'm fairly sure I understood the claim. It seems far more often(to me and on the interrogation I've made of self-report surveys) that trans people will divorce from those closest for reasons important to them, and then retroactively say they were rejected. That doesn't even violate the claim that social/personal pressure caused this (i don't think so, but that's not relevant). I'm just saying that it is quite rare (and i see nothing in your posts yet to support the idea) for people to entirely reject a person for being trans, rather than doing or demanding something or other that doesn't fit with that context or those people. Clearly that can cause distress, but is very different from the claim.
Suffice to say neither of us could support our contention given self-report is all either could refer to. I don't take self-report seriously for various reasons on this matter. So, that's my thoughts but I'm not banging a drum about it or anything.

3.

but the starting point has to be to believe them. — Questioner

It absolutely does not (in my view). I can understand the impetus, and I understand its follow ons. We're approaching from different angles, it seems and ethically just don't align. The psychological starting point should be "your mind tells you your body is wrong. That's divorced from reality - lets figure out whether we can ameliorate this distress in the least invasive, least dramatic way (probably therapy and appropriate support for non-conforming behaviours or desires assuming we're not talking about hte autogynephile types). Again, that's my position - not something I'm banging a drum about. We may just need to shake hands and leave these points.

4.

Why? What did they tell you? — Questioner

I've had several good trans friends over the years (50% of which have desisted :P ) and i deal with them from time to time professionally. Professionally, I have to interrogate their stories to assess how best to action their cause (bit of a banal legal pun there lol). More often, the story breaks down into "I didn't like x" or "I don't respect my parents/friends/siblings views on y" and so they left or took offense to something and went on to attempt a cause of action. I am almost always having to advise that there is no cause of action - they made personal choices to do with who they will accept in their lives and what beliefs/views they will accept into their lives. That's fine, but not in any way anyone else's fault and certainly not a legal issue. Granted, this is often a misunderstanding of what constitutes a cause of action, but that almost further illustrates the confusions I'm trying to get at. And it is fully acceptable that this is perhaps an "educated" anecdote in the sense that its corroborative across multiple domains for me.

One of the trans people I knew quite well came to me for counsel about six years ago. I heard their entire life story. I had to pinpoint the moment they psychologically painted their parents as x and that this coloured all of their further interactions, until they tried to assault their parents on the basis they were being 'emotionally abusive" for maintaining that they can't change sex (solely. They respectly pronouns). So I know tihs type of thing happens. I'm just, mostly-speculatively suggesting it is more prevalent, and results in more of the types of reports you're (i presume) referring to than is generally accepted among TRAs.

5.

It's invalid because young white men do not face the same misunderstanding, ignorance and prejudice that transgender persons do — Questioner

Well, that's a claim. One I think is entirely wrong. You still have not grasped the point of that comparison. The logic is clear. I think this response just shows me I was right about how you're applying the standards across groups. White men (and women) are routinely assaulted (sometimes killed - certainly more than trans people, but that's to be expected given pop. numbers), ostracized, marked out as somehow defective and taught that they are inherently bad and need to work, from birth, to overcome the stain of their sex and colour.

I'm sorry, but it is not credible to claim what you have in my view. Daylight looms large..

6.

"Delusion" and "affliction" are not characteristic of the transgender identity. A delusion is a break from reality, and transgender identities are real. — Questioner

Hmm. But I am claiming that they are not 'real' in any sense required to get around "affliction" so this is somewhat mooted (not uninteresting, though!!). Even if I were to take this seriously, the "affliction" is that the identify conflicts with their body (or, ought to biologically/evolutionarily speaking). That is an affliction. Plain and simple. If it wasn't, there would be nothing to do about it. But there is, regardless of either of our positions being more correct.

I'm definitely far more reticent to invoke delusion, but if you're under the impression (which plenty are) that sex is non-binary and one can simply change one's sex then you are deluded. I'm unsure that can be argued away. I also suggest that the plenty of trans people who openly acknowledge what I'm saying gives us good reason to think perhaps an absolutist take on "trans identity" as "real" is perhaps fraught.

I massively apprecaite the far more nuanced and polite tone of this exchange. Sorry for any part i've had in creating the previously tension-laded one.

I've always said that if you would have a democracy that would be the closest to libertarian values, the libertarians themselves would be the ones very disappointed with the system. But that's their problem, not mine. — ssu

LOL. Yep.

But the outliers should not decide the rule — Questioner

Definitely with you this. I do my best not to - but then, I don't see someone like Kirk as an extremist where plenty will. I thikn that's unfounded and unfortunate - again, there may just be daylight we can't cut across if so. Not an accusation on you, just talking about the wider conversation more generally.

I like that you introduced the word "worldview" - good word. Although, I am not sure what you mean by the "trans identity worldview." — Questioner

Well, there seems to me to be a stark different between trans people who essentially just see the world as it is, and accept there's an unfortunate aspect to their nature on the one hand, and trans people who make it their entire identity and everything in their life hinges on ways in which that identity can be inculcated into all those other aspects. That seems ideological. Yaniv is probably a good, while comedic (from a detached perspective anyway), example there. The way people make that joke about how a Vegan will let you know they're vegan - even if trans people weren't, in 99% of cases easily identifiable physically, the group I'm talking about will make it plenty obvious before you have a chance to assess their height and find out their surname (quip, not claim).

No, sorry, that study does not apply, since it compares stable families with families that have dissolved. Not the same thing at all as comparing cisgender parents to transgender parents. — Questioner

That wasn't specifically a question I was answering (hence, not quoting it). In a "fully trans" family, it will be a nuclear family, albeit with the sexes switched for the gendered roles. I think the logic applies.

I also don't see how that difference changes the conclusions of the study - the point is that the dissolved families are more likely to draw outside the noted framework (fwiw, I don't care and wouldn't encourage or discourage any type of family unit that isn't abusive).

But if you are adhering to it, then what is wrong with the argument I provided you? — Leontiskos

I've treated it. In response, you essentially made the claim that certain novelties of being human is what supports the label, right? If that's wrong, correct me and I'll have another go. If that's right:

We only have two options:
1. "special" is human-centric (i.e to do with only the human lens on the world, let's say). In this case, Humans are the norm. Babies are the norm. Nothing special going on; or
2. it's not human centric and choosing specifically human attributes to support use of the label reverts to a sneaky form of using 1. It also violates the definition, eventually, as if all beings (or most) beings on Earth carry with them specificities and uniqueness not shared by others, then that is normal. Nothing special about being unique.

So in any case, It doesn't seem humans are special outside of the (totally fine, reasonable and acceptable) parochial, contingent and non-metaphysical use.

It is extremely tedious having to walk through this again in the face of claims like this:

I gave you an argument showing that, according to the definition you provided, human beings are special. — Leontiskos

Because you didn't do this. You claimed it. The argument didn't work. I have "thought about it" a lot.

Right back at you. You'd have to actually explain yourself.

On your question; No. That doesn't make any sense.

Engaging with your cite (and pointing out the flaws) is not being an "honest interlocutor"?
What exactly am I allowed to post in this discussion forum? I must agree with you uncritically? — Mijin

I did not cite it - you'll note from my language that this is obvious. As I've addressed. Please read clearly and carefully before responding. I think it's pitiful to be engaging in this way.

Yes you do; that's the whole point of trying to cite something. — Mijin

As above. You do not read posts clearly before responding. It makes things very difficult.

Your argument is baseless right now — Mijin

Err, nope. You haven't even identified it, despite my pointing it out clearly and concisely. And here you go anyway. This also shows that the comments above about domestic-abuse related crimes both doesn't hold up, and doesn't make sense.

ChatGPT warns that, given the limitations in the data, arrests are likely to be higher.

There we go. Now my argument is perfectly well founded, even based on your misreadings and fallacies.

If I posted anything incorrect then please correct me. — Mijin

Fallacies are not 'incorrect'. They are bad arguments. You:

1. Poisoned the well;
2. Made statements without backing (about an identifiable person);
3. Strawmanned.

Anti-Islam isn't racist. It isn't even bigoted. It's having a preference against a religion. Antichristian themes have been well-accepted across most of society (to the point of extremely offensive provocation) for decades. Nothing wrong with it.

The majority of claims about Robinson stem from reports. Not facts. He's clearly not the greatest spokesperson for anything, but these claims are just lazy and uninteresting.

Still not actually doing anything. Cool man. Perhaps just don't post in threads you have nothing to add to.

Interesting opener.

My position has been that gender identity is something formed during fetal development, during the differentiation and organization of the brain during the third trimester of pregnancy. — Questioner

I reject this, so we're already at big odds.

But I mean being gender critical isn't an ideology either. Yet, you have people citing it to support clearly ideological nonsense, some of which is obviously dangerous. So to on the TRA side with the Zizians and plenty of small (and yes, mainly inconsequential) militias arming to the teeth and going after those they decide are wrong, or individuals like Jessica Yaniv waging legal wars against people due to her clear delusional world view.

I suggest we can bring up plenty of examples like your clip there to indicate an "ideology" behind trans activism, at least, and it does clearly seem to be a 'worldview'. So, to me, 'being trans' is clearly not an ideology, but the worldview it tends to embed within can be. There are plenty of trans people who entirely reject the worldview that tends to come along with trans identity - this is the biggest point to me in assessing the factions at play.

So "being trans" might or might not fit the bill, but I think more clearly both sides are talking about legitimately scary, dangerous factions. No problem admitting there's no parity when you have groups like the one you've posted the clip of supporting shit like that as compared to usually pretty isolated examples on the other side. The only comment I will make on the other side is that we're yet to see the psychological damage done by the trans ideologues (small as those groups might be) in convincing children they can change sex. A fair bit of the psychological distress seems to be borne from this lie.

I can retort to this by asking, what evidence do you have that any family outside the "father-mother-children" paradigm is less stable? — Questioner

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10313020/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Not conclusive, but it seems to be pretty replicable. Averages and all that as a pinch of salt. It wont work for everyone.

"exist spatially"? Then first response is right.

"exist conceptually"? Then definitely more that do not exist, in fact exist. See. Philosophy can be fun.

The main argument against an emotivist position that adherents of it tend to struggle with is precisely what you outlined. If there is no point from which two people can agree on then it is impossible to figure out a better course. — I like sushi

This isn't a struggle for an emotivist. It's just a fact of life. Co-operation operates the way it does and the a majority of people, emotivist or not, seem to understand that. We get on. It is what it is.

I think the struggle comes from others not being able to accept that position (maybe its seen as incomplete? I can't see how).

An emotional – arbitrary – "justification" for e.g. betrayal or cruelty or rape. Lazy. :mask: — 180 Proof

No, 180. What's Lazy is just repeating yourself when you've been addressed. If you're uncomfortable with it boiling down to feelings, make an argument, not an appeal to your discomfort or an ad hominem. It is not my problem if you have trouble accepting that there is no further grounding than your feelings for your moral positions. Do you consistently do things you think are morally right but make you feel bad? No? Interesting.

very well said. I shall add to this that I am not actually required to give anything more than what I've said to support my point. Being called lazy just indicates the bolded above which was entirely anticipated from 180.

Of those who do seek detransitioning - — Questioner

This is a Jack Turban paper. Here's some counterpoints to Jack Turban being much more than an activist with an agenda

https://www.theoryandsocialinquiry.org/article/18211/galley/41714/download/ An interesting paper (though not directly related to this, just thought it worth posting here. Jeremy will enjoy im sure.

Delusion as false belief doesn’t necessarily describe the schizophrenic experience either. — Joshs

No, but it does describe some schizophrenic experiences uniquely. That's all the inference there was. If we can accept that this it the case, and we accept that 'trans' experience can differ (you've been very open-minded in this way earlier in your comments) then we cannot discount these possibilities.

In any case, my point was that it is not prejudiced to note that there are delusions and afflictions exist. Trans people are obviously afflicted by something. Perhaps its the reticence to say what, but still claim the distress that makes this so fraught. I don't know the solution because they don't work together...

You guys really aren't honest interlocutors are you?? The point that matters was this, which you conveniently ignored:

Largely, it is the pattern of intimidation that people have an issue with - it's hard to put people in prison over words, like the above cases. But cases like Elizabeth Kinney illustrate extremely well how hte UK is attempting, using law enforcement, to dampen and reduce speech. — AmadeusD

I don't require those numbers to be correct for this point to stand, I didn't cite them as some authority, I didn't get them from a meme. Your continued dishonesty is continually noted.

Tommy Robinson (for non-Brits who are not familiar with him: he's someone who's been in and out of jail many times for violent offences, and is popular on the right for being an outspoken racist). — Mijin

I see you've devolved into several fallacies at once. Good job. I can see why Banno likes it.

This is not true in the US. They have been executive-ordered out of existence. — Questioner

The level of dramatics in this is alarming. Can you please clarify what you mean by "out of existence"? Last I checked, trans people still exist in the USA and, for the most part, enjoy the same freedoms everyone else enjoys.

I think this fails to understand how central gender identity is to transgender persons and that it often results in full-person rejection by those closest to them. — Questioner

It doesn't. But I can see why that is your take (not disparagement. Its reasonable). The vast majority of "rejection" trans people endure, as it were, is to do with their behaviour and this is often the result of manic issues, and so empathy is needed, but we best not lose sight of the actual reasons***. Exactly like everyone else. I don't deny that there are bigots, and particularly bigots in this arena. If we remove religion (because its another discussion about motivations and being able to parse them, or ignore them I guess) then I think you'll find the vast, vast majority of people you claim this about are actually not going through this as-stated and self-perception has coloured their take. I know this firsthand from several personal friends or acquaintances. So, that's an anecdote, but it stands to reason. I would assume your point is also anecdotal (or even inferential... do you know trans people who have been disowned?). None of this is to discount hte feelings of trans people who think tihs way. But i imagine if I started advocating for young white men who experience racism, ostracization and violence you'd probably be skeptical despite.
** this is, in some large way, based on reading case after case after case where a trans person makes a claim or accusation against another and ends up being found either in the wrong, or essentially making it up. We do not see the other way around, generally. I would need to find the statistics again, but my memory tells me I'm safe in saying that there's some Trans day of Remembrance in California to remember the like 3 trans people killed in the last three years. Its clear that mostly this isn't motivated by prejudice against trans people either, so I can't find a reason to accept the alarms about this.

An invalid "whataboutism" — Questioner

That would be fair, but that's not at all what it is. It's not "whatabout". It's "apply your same logic and see where it leads". I can see why this isn't going particularly deep. If I were saying "yeah, well look at this" you'd be right. I didn't. I gave you another vessel to pour your view into and see how it looks. I take it that it looks ugly?

Ah, but you have introduced the words "delusion" and "afflicted" - signaling a prejudice that does not accurately describe the transgender experience — Questioner

It is a fact that some people are deluded. It is also a fact that some people are afflicted by delusion. There is absolutely nothing prejudiced about observing these facts. I suggest your immediate need to frame things as somehow prejudiced (in a negative way. We are all prejudiced constantly, so I want to be clear and not leave myself some kind of out there) or somehow ignorant without explaining or supporting that contention strikes me as a bit naive.

If I can admit that there are "genuine" trans people (in my view of trans, anyway) who are genuinely going through experiences of prejudice but you cannot admit that the above is the case, we have no further to discuss because we're living in different linguistic worlds.

Your low-level posts are noted and will be dealt with if they continue.

Ah yes, poetics.

This is not philosophy mate. All good.

A decent repsonse, but I think you need to look very hard, and very close at "perceived" in most of these circumstances.

Trans people definitively do not lack institutional support and accomodations in the West. So, is it just that other people don't accept your self-image? That's true of most people. It is rare to find a group lacking resilience such that the world not conforming to their self-image is considered a 'potentially fatal' aspect of their situation. Even rarer to find the world taking that as rote. This may be the only example.

So what's left is the maladaptive aspects of the trans personality (as such. I don't take this type of framing too literally). This isn't me claiming this is the correct analysis. But I think the analysis which starts with "you are telling me x, therefore x is the case" is probably the worst approach. It will, almost definitionally, result in the group blaming others for their plight. You could apply this to young white men, who are in fact, not given support by institutions and are given the opposite.

Schizophrenics are not upset because the world wont conform to their delusion - it is the delusion which supports the upset. I am not running together being trans and being schizophrenic, though they share aspects. I am merely trying to make it clear that taking the afflicted at their world is a problem. A big problem. Particularly when one of the requirements to enter your discussion is that we do so.

The closest we can get, in my view is the empirical observation that things like murder, rape, theft, devious deception and exploitation are despised by most people across cultures — Janus

This is the 'bingo' that I think most thinkers miss.

Edit: Not worth the time. Sorry to bother you.

Your appeal to popularity here seems quite lazy. — 180 Proof

I still cannot make any sense of your overuse of formatting. It makes you harder to read than most anyone else here. So If i've misunderstood something, that might be why.

I'm not 'appealing' to authority. I'm saying this is what people in fact, do. And that's fine by me. Lazy? No. It's taken quite some time and quite some difficulty accepting this. Wrong? Could be, but that begs the question :P

this provides a truth maker for the following moral claim: 'It is right to prevent preventable harm or reduce reduceable harm, whenever possible, and wrong not to do so'. — 180 Proof

It doesn't. It just gives us an ability to coherently make that claim - not something to make the claim 'correct' in either direction. It boils down to feelings. I maintain this.

People are also, as a natural fact, liable to be taken by an illusion. That doesn't give us a truth maker for "illusions are bad".

Then humour me - are you trying to fit the term "the state of being dead" into the word "Death"?

Because I don't think anyone is going to take that seriously, in same sense no one considers "life" an extension of "birth". You are not "born" for your entire life. You are born at one moment, right? And hten your life extends beyond the moment of birth. Hence use of that term. THe same applies to Death. So what are you talking about? It would be helpful to not repeat yourself, because that has been poetics so far. But you seem hell-bent, to the point of being childish, on having this taken seriously - so help me out.

It's more telling that you just continue to make shit up and can't understand why someone might avoid that. I get that this is the lounge, but if you continue to lie about my positions (in this case, damningly) I will be making something of it with the Mods.

I understand you're trying to be poetic. I am uninterested given the context. Death is an event, it is momentary and after that time you are no longer.
That is my position and you haven't said anything that even could move this. All good.

But how do you handle the familiar objection to emotivism: that when moral disagreement arises between people who do not share the same emotional responses, the theory seems to lack the resources to adjudicate between competing moral positions?

If morality is just about how you feel, why should anyone else care about your feelings at all, and why should you care about theirs? — Tom Storm

I don't think its an objection to the position. I think its an emotional response to someone else clearly stating the facts of the matter.
Emotivism can't adjudicate between competing moral positions. No morality rightly can, because it cannot appeal to anything but itself (the theory, that is - and here, ignoring revelation-type morality as there's no mystery there). The only positions, as I see it, that can adjudicate between conflicting moral positions on a given case is are 'from without' positions such as the Law attempts to take. I still don't think there's a better backing than 'most will agree' for a moral proclamation.

On the question's face, they shouldn't, and neither should I. But harming others makes me feel shit. It seems to do the same for the majority of people. That's good enough, and the best we can wish for imo.

Relativism is a peculiar position because it is a view one cannot hold without also claiming moral truth which is the very thing it purports to deny. — L'éléphant

I'm unsure it does (but could be wrong -bear with). Banno has made a very good job of discussing with me moral positions that rest of "what people do". In this sense, he claims (if im not making a pigs ear of what he's said to me in the past) there are moral truths which are not objective. But are true.

A relativist can make this claim - but they can make the claim relative to specific sets of value which are contained with specific cultural contexts. I think Banno's tries to avoid the constraints found there and so its not relative.

I definitely see where you're coming from, but it's not cleanly divested from violent rhetoric enough for me to say "oh the uk jails anybody for saying anything non-woke". — flannel jesus

fwiw, I don't claim this. It is getting dangerously close, but that only works with my internal nuanced use of 'woke' which hasn't fit with any uses i've seen around here.

People have been temporarily jailed for tweets completely devoid of suggestions of violence, but never fully sentenced and imprisoned. Jailed is, of course, already too far, and I consider that a trampling of free speech in its own right, but of course not quite bad as sentencing and imprisoning. — flannel jesus

Definitely not as bad, but the slippery slope is almost at completion at this stage. The idea that we shouldn't be worried about it strikes me as sanguine to a fault. Most comments tend be specifically about 'illegal migrants'. A group which is not protected.

That's exactly the claim I'm testing. — QuixoticAgnostic

The next part informs this one pretty well. You cannot have an identity divorced from reality and expect others to participate. They cannot. They do not live in that world.

Is the claim "I am (physically) strong" subject to a potential conflict with "reality"? And how could we determine such a thing without establishing arbitrary hypotheticals (e.g. "You're only strong if you can lift 100lbs")? — QuixoticAgnostic

Strong is a relational/comparative claim. It's always easy to figure that out. No humans are strong along most metrics for instance. But if we restrict it to primates, we're somewhere in the middle. If we restrict it to higher primates, we're near the bottom. If we restrict it to humans, Eddie Hall wins... There's always a way.

I think anyone ought to express themselves such that someone else can understand their experience, and trans people do express their experiences such that non-trans people can understand. — QuixoticAgnostic

If that's what you think, sure. It's not what many people think. It also doesn't inform me about their identity if that identity is divorced from reality.

And before you say "adult human male/female", I will follow up to ask what is "adult", and is that necessary to the meaning you're actually trying to convey when you say "We know what men and women are"? — QuixoticAgnostic

But that is what a woman is (as best I can tell, see, understand and grok from looking at the world around me - and in fact, why there is any debate).
Adult is a well-defined term. It gets used in two ways: Fully grown (in terms of general size and strength) or of reproducing age. The latter is cleaner, the former is easier to write policy around. Both work to demarcate gender in this way.

We know what men and women are. I've just noted, though, that two views you seem to hold are this:

1. I understand women's concerns with expanding the meaning of 'woman' to include males, but I also don't care; and
2. You believe transwomen's experiences are unique in virtue of being women who cannot do what typical women do (lets use Typical to mean 'old fashioned' to not ruffle feathers for now).

The former tells me you're not open to discussing the topic, other than from a single perspective: trans women (i also note you outright said you're not interested in "anti-trans" views but do not define what they might be. The inference from your comments is anything which might want to restrict the social participation in a certain groups self-identity - which is fine, but should be clear so as not to confuse people when you don't respond to perfectly reasonable discussion). I very much hope the inference is wrong.

The latter tells me you're not adequately contacting the subject material. You have to accept "trans women are women" is always true for that question to be reasonable. Otherwise, the answer is simply "no, they have the experience of being men". While reductive, it does exactly answer the question. The question is whether or not they are women. My prior comments my position clear. I just want to point out why it's not a dead end - you just have the choice to not discuss it.

I don't think you understand what is being said: Birth is an event. So is death. Your take is a weird elongation of a concept it isn't apt for.

If you're going to just repeat yourself, that's fine but you're wrong.

Hard to figure out what you're talking about.

I gave you a fact. Suggesting we 'reconsider' our clientele is bizarre.

The link does not help, either. I am aware of those statistics (roughly). I suggest the lack of productivity around anecdotes and opinions in your approach. That's fine. But it's not my issue.

Once again, what he actually did was quote scripture and fit cross dressing into a bible outline of 'abomination'. He did not outline any personal view, or suggest that trans people are not loved by God and was always extremely clear that no matter what he thinks of people's choices and lifestyles, he loves them and wishes them the best.

I am not having a go. Being accurate is really important when making accusations about people to support vilification (particularly in light of defending the idea that his speech was hateful).

So in what sense is your "moral thinking" moral? — 180 Proof

Well, you've got to stop (not saying you do but it's common) making fun of emotivism to get an answer to this :lol: . It has to do with any behaviours of mine which will (intentionally, or at least obviously predictably) affect someone else. That is moral thinking, no? Yes, it is. I just reduce my moral lens to myself, and how things make me feel. So If i were to for instance attempt to stop someone harming my child, it's not because I think its right, its because I, personally, don't want that to happen because it'll make me feel bad.