A functioning society is prior to individual human rights, because without a functioning society there is no way to protect any kind of rights. Traditions are typically a key factor of how those societies are ordered and remain functional. — ChatteringMonkey

What kind of traditions are you talking about?

If that means one needs to constantly fight said traditions until there is no more oppression, that essentially means you will end up dissolving the very foundation that enables one to even talk about rights. — ChatteringMonkey

I think the best foundation of a society is one that includes basic human rights.

Tradition is good, too, but tradition should not be elevated to something untouchable when said tradition interferes negatively in the lives of others. Slavery was once a tradition, too.

There's nothing rationally 'necessary' about human rights. They came out a particular Western tradition, out of Christian and Greco-Roman notions of natural law, that diverged from how the rest of the world saw things. — ChatteringMonkey

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights came out of the abuses of WW2.

1) the idea that we should attach rights to an abstract notion of the individual removed from cultural, familial and societal contexts is I think antithetical to how human beings naturally tend to behave. — ChatteringMonkey

How do the protection of human rights erode attachment to family, culture, or country?

From the occasional reporting about say a gay-pride event in mainstream media, at a certain point LGBTQ+ issues became front and center in a deliberate attempt to 'normalize' it to the general public. First in the US, and then with some delay in Europe, with interviews, seperate LGBTQ+ sections in newspapers, opinion pieces etc etc...

Edit: Also the whole pronoun debate. It doesn't get any more 'normative' than demanding everybody to change how to use language. — ChatteringMonkey

Eek, you're getting into nuisances here. Like, kinda like, whining.

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. — AmadeusD

Yes, there are extremists in all groups. But the outliers should not decide the rule. We need to look to leadership to provide the greatest benefit for the greatest number of its citizens. For example, the policy coming out of the Trump administration has led to transgender persons fearing for their lives.

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. — AmadeusD

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

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 — AmadeusD

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.

Can you please clarify what you mean by "out of existence"? — AmadeusD

Sorry, I should have been more precise. I meant the executive order Trump signed January 20, which in part states:

Sec. 2. Policy and Definitions. It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female. These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality. Under my direction, the Executive Branch will enforce all sex-protective laws to promote this reality, and the following definitions shall govern all Executive interpretation of and application of Federal law and administration policy:

(a) “Sex” shall refer to an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female. “Sex” is not a synonym for and does not include the concept of “gender identity.”

(b) “Women” or “woman” and “girls” or “girl” shall mean adult and juvenile human females, respectively.

(c) “Men” or “man” and “boys” or “boy” shall mean adult and juvenile human males, respectively.

(d) “Female” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell.

(e) “Male” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell.

(f) “Gender ideology” replaces the biological category of sex with an ever-shifting concept of self-assessed gender identity, permitting the false claim that males can identify as and thus become women and vice versa, and requiring all institutions of society to regard this false claim as true. Gender ideology includes the idea that there is a vast spectrum of genders that are disconnected from one’s sex. 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.

The vast majority of "rejection" trans people endure, as it were, is to do with their behaviour — AmadeusD

I think an important part of what I said is "rejection by those closest to them" and it is wholly unfounded that this rejection stems from their "manic behavior"

hen 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. — AmadeusD

Sorry, this goes against everything I have read about the subject. No doubt, it is complicated, psychologically, but the starting point has to be to believe them.

I know this firsthand from several personal friends or acquaintances. — AmadeusD

Why? What did they tell you?

t'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? — AmadeusD

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

It is a fact that some people are deluded. It is also a fact that some people are afflicted by delusion. — AmadeusD

"Delusion" and "affliction" are not characteristic of the transgender identity. A delusion is a break from reality, and transgender identities are real. Also, you would no more say that a cisgender male is "afflicted" by his brain because it is a male brain - it is just the brain he has. Same idea with transgender people - it is just the brain they have.

No it's meant to imply that it is an experiment that hasn't been shown to work in the longer term, as opposed to other traditions. — ChatteringMonkey

Oh, so you are arguing against individual human rights. Sorry, this just opens the door to all kinds of suppression and oppression done in the name of "tradition."

Yeah but pointing to Universal rights is a bit like pointing to the bible to argue in favour of some Christian teaching... it's only convincing to those that already believe in it. — ChatteringMonkey

I can't agree with this analogy. Universal human rights is a rational response to abuses of the past. Christian teaching from the Bible is based on ancient stories. But I will say I do believe that Jesus would be totally on board with universal human rights.

But if your argument is that you do not believe in basic human rights, you have lost me.

Allowing more and more exceptions does erode the norm, that's just how human psychology works.... The idea "Why should I adhere to the norm if other shouldn't?" creeps in. — ChatteringMonkey

What "more and more" - this seems a fear-based response.

Also there is a difference between tacitly allowing some people to deviate from the norm (like it was before say 2010) and actively promoting it like it is some kind of new norm (after 2010). — ChatteringMonkey

I'm not sure what you mean by "actively promoting"

Have you just made these up by theorising about it or is there actual evidence that these are indeed the characteristic that make a stable society? The proof of the pudding is in the eating. — ChatteringMonkey

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

In any case, certainly you are not arguing against those characteristics contributing to a society's stability?

Again, this only follows if you already believe we should view these things solely from the point of view of individual rights. Not everybody does. — ChatteringMonkey

This opens the door to harm done to others.

Who's "them"? Trans people??? — RogueAI

I think you are referring to this:

the current US government gave them an inch, and they took a mile. — Questioner

if so, no, I meant the anti-transgender faction

I think the issue is viewing everything from a point of view individual rights to begin with, that is an ideology in itself, — ChatteringMonkey

Yes, I did say that. It's an ideology adhered to by a wide swath of different groups

nd historically a pretty unusual one at that. — ChatteringMonkey

is this meant to discredit it?

We have many norms that have little to do with individual rights, but are aimed at making society work collectively. And they can even be arbitrary (non-natural) to some extend, and still be important to be followed. It's important that everybody drives on the right or the left side of the road for instance to avoid a mess in traffic... it really doesn't matter what anyone's preferences are on the issue. — ChatteringMonkey

What side of the road a society drives on does not interfere with anyone's personal rights.

Active anti-transgenderism interferes with Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

One could see the institution of hetero-sexual marriage and gender-roles in something of a similar way, in that is presumably beneficial for a stable society to have man an women committed to each other and to the families they raise. — ChatteringMonkey

Yes, stable families are good for society. But this particular "norm' does not work for everyone. Besides, it's an inaccurate presumption that anything outside the "norm" is bad for society.

The characteristics that make a society stable are trust, fairness, inclusion, safety, mutual support, respect, honesty, compassion and empathy - and there is no indication that transgender persons cannot contribute in these ways.

People like their norms and get angry, like in traffic, if they get broken. I do think that is something that comes natural to humans. We get educated into following a certain set of norms, ideals and role-models and we then usually spread those in turn to the next generations etc and that ultimately produces a certain kind of society... we are mimetic beings is you will. — ChatteringMonkey

Anyone who gets angry at transgender persons for living their lives according to their own (nonharmful) "norm" needs to check their judgement at the door.

Contrary to what most seem to believe, Liberalism, individualism and the promoting LGBTQ+ rights is a certain way of viewing and organising the world. It does promote certain kinds of ways of living that are different from say those that Christianity promotes.... there's no 'ideology-free' society. — ChatteringMonkey

if a society is to respect human rights, respecting the rights of transgender persons comes under that umbrella. it is not a category unto itself.

That's scary. — RogueAI

the current US government gave them an inch, and they took a mile.

can you concede that you have significantly underestimated detransitioners? — Jeremy Murray

No. The stats I find this morning are similar to the stats I have previously posted:

The point-prevalence proportions of shifts in requests before any treatment ranged from 0.8–7.4%. The point-prevalence proportions of GnRHa discontinuation ranged from 1–7.6%. The point-prevalence proportions of GAHT discontinuation ranged from 1.6–9.8%.

Of those who do seek detransitioning -

Of those who had detransitioned, 82.5% reported at least one external driving factor. Frequently endorsed external factors included pressure from family and societal stigma.

Trans people definitively do not lack institutional support and accomodations in the West. — AmadeusD

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

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. — AmadeusD

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.

But I think the analysis which starts with "you are telling me x, therefore x is the case" is probably the worst approach. — AmadeusD

I think this fails to understand that the best person to tell you who they are is the person telling you who they are.

You could apply this to young white men, who are in fact, not given support by institutions and are given the opposite. — AmadeusD

An invalid "whataboutism"

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. — AmadeusD

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

Here is Kinnon Makinnon's substack. Try anything he writes. You will find nuance. — Jeremy Murray

Thank you for that, but I cannot say that it revealed much to me that I didn’t already know, or posted about.

Transgender persons experience psychic distress. Yes, they do, no sh*t, but let’s be clear this co-relation does not indicate a causation - that transgenderism does not cause the mental stress per se, but rather it boils down to a lack of support.

As the article makes clear:

… high levels of psychosocial stress and elevated scores on the nonsupport scale, reflecting a strong perception of lack of social support.

… it may reflect a heightened need to communicate suffering, possibly as a response to stigma or barriers to being taken seriously in clinical settings.

… Elevated externalizing patterns and substance-related problems may reflect maladaptive coping strategies developed in response to chronic minority stressors such as discrimination or interpersonal rejection.

And the treatment required focuses again on social support -

… a trauma-informed approach that builds resilience against chronic social stressors and discrimination is also likely beneficial.

… developing social connections to buffer against the observed pattern of social inhibition and perceived stigma.

… There is an urgent need to address suicidality and the perceived lack of support.

I am non-partisan and ProTrans.

You, apparently aren’t, since you can’t be bothered to do basic research, as demonstrated by your lack of basic knowledge on the subject throughout the thread. Again, just do the Google search. Or try Ben Ryan and his hazard ratio sub stack. — Jeremy Murray

Please share your research with us.

I read this thread from beginning to end before posting. I believe your 'stats' have already been debunked. — Jeremy Murray

Lol, I do wonder who is standing on ideology

'according to Google'. — Jeremy Murray

I did include another source.

yours that are so clearly ideological — Jeremy Murray

No, I quoted statistics

so clearly informed by ideology only — Jeremy Murray

I invite you to read the totality of my posts before making this presumption.

If your goal is advancing the position of trans people, you owe it to them to do better research. — Jeremy Murray

I take exception to this statement. It shows a clear lack of having read the totality of my posts.

You sure about that? — creativesoul

I'm not sure which part you mean, but yes, our well-developed theory of mind separates us from other primates.

here's a fascinating book called Baboon Metaphysics: The Evolution of a Social Mind, by Cheney and Seyfarth, that makes a strong case that baboons have a more-than-rudimentary "theory of mind" which allows them to make predictions based on what they believe other baboons are thinking. — J

Sounds like a fascinating book, thanks for the recommendation. Yes, I have read that other primates do have at least some capacity to develop theories of mind, but that they are not anywhere near as developed as the human capacity.

For example, only the human capacity for theory of mind led us to apply this ability to supernatural beings (gods) - paving the way for the development of religion.

And even to objects - like Wilson the volleyball in the Tom Hanks movie Cast Away

knowing which sorts of thoughts and/or beliefs only humans are capable of forming — creativesoul

Well, only humans have a well-developed mental capacity called "theory of mind." it's the ability to make inferences about what is in the mind of others - reading another's mind - being aware that the thoughts of another mind may be different from ours. It was a crucial step in our evolution as a social species.

I’ll bet you a twinkie he insists that there is nothing a priori it feels like to be a man or a woman, because these feelings are merely the result of arbitrary social conditioning, and the only feelings that aren’t socially imposed have to do with how a male body (not mind) feels different from a female body. — Joshs

Well, that would be a very ignorant position.

Philosophim would say that my awareness of my gayness as a gender was either concocted in my head by piecing together arbitrary fragments of behavior to force a narrative out of them , or forced on my via my unconscious exposure to some outside arbitrary narrative. In either case, I caused myself all that suffering for no good reason other than my own whims. — Joshs

I'm sorry that you face that prejudice and that ignorance.

Many people are uncomfortable with the idea that innate brain schemes organize the processing of incoming stimuli such as to form a gender affective-perceptual ‘style’. — Joshs

Well said. But I do wonder whether it is a matter of discomfort or an inability to comprehend.

Of course such a style, whether we label it with terms such as masculine, feminine or something other, is inseparably intertwined with cultural influences, but this does negate the fact that we arrive to the world armed already with gender-based stylistic proclivities prior to our exposure to social influence. — Joshs

Again, well said. But we must understand that external stimuli are in and of themselves no more than that - stimuli - and the telling is in how they are perceived and processed by a living brain.

Those who oppose such a notion simply don’t see any overarching categorical pattern uniting the myriad behaviors and perceptions people report as belonging to their experience of their gender as individuals or as belonging to a group. — Joshs

I think with this failure "to see" is a failure "to look."

arbitrarily invented in one’s imagination or is learned from others. — Joshs

This may very well be, for those who cannot grasp the concept of a gender-based mind, who insist that gender is something externally imposed, rather than the result of neurological patterns.

only the claim by those who say gender is a core part of their being — Joshs

But, if you ask any cisgender male or female, they will tell you what it feels like to be a woman or a man.

So, I find it curious that when a transgender person says, 'I feel this way or that way." - many do not believe them and search for spurious arguments to discredit them.

(Does it mean something like believing that one's gender is more important than one's sex, and is contrary to one's sex, and acting on that belief while at the same time requiring others to do the same? I.e. creating public policies that are gender-based rather than sex-based?) — Leontiskos

If I may - it means that your identity formulated by your brain should take precedence over whether or not you have ovaries or testes.

Women are subjects, not objects. — Philosophim

I'm using the terms here metaphorically and structurally, not literally or grammatically

“Subject” = locus of agency and perspective
“Object” = target of action without agency

Again, a person is not an object, but a subject. Unless you're talking English grammar? In which case we're talking about very different things. — Philosophim

See above

If I view that the men should not cry, that is a gendered identity. If I view that women should always agree with men, that is a gendered identity. — Philosophim

No. This is not at all how I have been using the term "identity."

What you describe is sexist, but there is nothing linking these examples with the experience of a transgender person.

Sexism is an action that elevates one's prejudices over the biological reality of the the person. — Philosophim

To apply this to transgender persons, you would have to characterize their gender identity as a "prejudice" and I hope you can see that this is not the case.

is to propose a trans person claims an identity, then indicate why its true. — Philosophim

To whom? the gender police?

That keeps the logic organized and clear for both parties. — Philosophim

I'm not clear why anyone should justify their identity to another party.

o be transgender, you must first have a gendered opinion about the sexes. Men act like X, Women act like Y. Then, you have to pick the gender that is opposite to your sex and act that way while rejecting acting like the gender of your sex. — Philosophim

Again, a profound misunderstanding of what transgenderism is

Also, we do not take AI summaries on this board. — Philosophim

Are you sure about that? I have seen them in other threads. And the rules simply state that members are not to use AI to write their posts. I have written my own posts.

I've just noted that gender is a prejudice, and that elevating that prejudice over sex in importance fits the definition of sexism. — Philosophim

Gender is most assuredly not a "prejudice" - again:

Sexism is relational - anyone can be sexist - whether or not they are transgender - if they hold sexist views towards others - but transgenderism is about identity - it is not relational. Your point-of-view fails conceptually. Sexism is an attitude. Transgender is an identity condition.

This is just a basic stability of self. Anyone without psychosis has this. I have changed roles many times in life but I understood that all of those roles were a part of me. — Philosophim

yes, diachronic unity is something to be maintained, even with life changes

It doesn't mean that identity accurately represents reality, is healthy for the individual, or should be entertained. I loved speeding when I first drove. It was part of my identity. It was something I had to get under control because it was inappropriately expressed on public roads. You can be sexist, and that be a part of your identity. No break in diachronic unity. — Philosophim

It appears you have no conceptual understanding of what I have been trying to explain to you.

My point that it is that my claim that gender elevated over sex is sexism has not been refuted by any of your arguments so far. — Philosophim

No. Transgenderism in and of itself is not sexism. I've provided you will ample counter-arguments to this, but you're holding on to your prejudice with both hands, and maybe one foot.

So to my point again, if you deny yourself the right to cry because as a man, you believe you shouldn't cry, you're making your bodies natural capabilities inferior to your gender identity of yourself. That is sexism. I don't see any way around it. — Philosophim

Anyone's ideas about whether or not men should or should not cry is immaterial to the transgender experience. Yes, any individual can be sexist - cis or trans -

But sexism is about some people reducing others - not about which identities exist. Sexism exists in the attitude and the behavior, not in the very nature of being.

Remember that my definition of gender is aligned with gender theory and you have not shown any credible evidence or argument that would demonstrate I have not. — Philosophim

Well, I disagree, but I'll try to add more to it here in this post.

If I tell a woman, "Women shouldn't work" when they are clearly working and there is no reason why they shouldn't work besides my personal feelings on the matter, I'm telling them they shouldn't commit an action. Where's the object? — Philosophim

The women who you think should not work.

That would be interpersonal sexism between two subjects. — Philosophim

Not quite. In any one example of interpersonal action, there is the sender of the action (the subject) and the receiver of the action (the object)

But a subject can also be sexist towards themselves. There are men who think they can't cry. There are woman who think they should always agree with what a man says. You can absolutely have sexist perspectives of yourself. — Philosophim

But this is something different than what we have been talking about. it's got nothing to do with gender identity and transgenderism.

Sexism is an attitude. Attitudes are formed in the brain. Are you suggesting that if a person claims a transgender identity they’re being sexist against their penis or vagina?

When a transgender person claims their true identity, it is not so they can fulfill some expectations society places on this or that gender, or even expectations as that person might see them. It is about being who they are in their head, and a chief element of that is “diachronic unity.” More about that later, but first a little background info:

Gender is a biological reality involving patterns of identity produced by the brain. The prenatal hormone environment during fetal development is crucial to this brain organization. Thyroid hormones, progesterone, and steroids are critical regulators of fetal neural differentiation. They direct development of the hypothalamus, the amygdala, and connectivity patterns. That’s the biology.

It’s important to remember that fetal body sex-differentiation (during the first trimester) is a separate process from brain organization and differentiation (in the third trimester). Studies show that transgender persons’ brain patterns align more closely with their experienced gender than with the brains of cisgender persons of the same physical sex. These patterns - related to emotional processing, body perception, self-representation, and social cognition – emerge from neurological networks and influence gender identity.

And gender is indeed part of identity. Lots of research into gender identity has been done, including investigating the relationship between transgender transition and “diachronic unity.” Diachronic unity describes a stable sense of self across time, like a self-continuity. If the unity is intact, then memories linked with an internal narrative are able to say – “That was me then, this is me now, and I am the same person.”

The interesting thing is that gender transition does not fragment diachronic unity – it restores and strengthens it. Before transition, transgender persons feel alienated from themselves, and it’s hard to imagine a future self. But following transition, their internal narrative becomes more coherent and they feel more connected to their current self. They have reclaimed their identity.

I found three research papers supporting these conclusions. Here are AI summaries of the three papers:

Autobiographical memory phenomenology in transgender and cisgender individuals

Finds that transgender participants rate memories from after coming-out with higher phenomenological quality than memories from before coming-out, and that these changes relate to well-being — i.e., coming-out/transitioned periods are experienced as more connected to the current self, supporting phenomenological continuity

The phenomenology of gender dysphoria in adults

Synthesizes qualitative literature showing that gender dysphoria often produces alienation from one’s life narrative and body prior to transition, and that many respondents describe transition and affirmation as restoring coherence and ownership of their life story. (Qualitative evidence that transition often repairs disrupted self-continuity.)

Exploring trans people’s narratives of transition

Qualitative interview study in which participants narrate transition as a process of re-emplotment of life events; many describe the post-transition narrative as the one that best fits their autobiographical story — again, consistent with increased diachronic unity after transition.

How would you reconcile these findings about restored diachronic unity in transgender persons who have transitioned to your theory that transgenderism is sexist?

when you elevate your gender over your sex, you make your sex inferior to gender. And that is where sexism occurs. — Philosophim

This represents a profound misunderstanding of transgender identity, and the challenges they face as they seek a life in which they can live as who they really are.

But gender is based on sex. Its a belief that a person should act in a certain way in society without regards to biological limitations. — Philosophim

Hello, I'm back. I see you are still incorrectly defining gender, but I will proceed...

It is when the prejudice of gender elevates itself above the reality of sex that it becomes 'sexism'. — Philosophim

I have figured out another aspect of your theory that is troubling.

You’ve been using the word “sexism” to describe a transgender person’s insistence that they put their gender above their sex.

But – sexism is not a solitary feature. It is relational. It requires both a subject and an object.

The subject would be the person (or group or institution) that expresses sexist beliefs or practices.

The object would be the person (or group) that is being devalued because of sex (or gender).

So, a person (the object) has to be positioned as inferior because of their sex or gender, by the person (or group) applying the belief (the subject). Sexism is not a private belief, but exists in power and practice.

So, in your theory, who is the object? And who is the subject?

The question is badly formulated. If someone owns a life, that is slavery. — Ludwig V

Well, since we were talking about suicide, I thought it understood that we were talking about the life in question. Sorry for the imprecision.

What about capital punishment? I oppose that. — Ludwig V

On principle, so do I.

euthanasia — Ludwig V

Just a note - if it's assisted death we are talking about, it is not referred to as euthanasia, which removes the agency of the person making the decision.

lots of people are anti-trans: sure. It's been whipped up as the moral panic of the day. — Mijin

They've been force-fed that this is the prime issue to care about, and it works because it's easy to sell the idea that something that makes a person uncomfortable must therefore be immoral. — Mijin

You’ve hit the nail on the head with this. Give the people something to be disgusted about, and you can con them into accepting all sorts of damaging policy.

In the US, the push to deny transgender persons their rights has been a real distraction – a bugaboo - and a convenient excuse for the administration to gut medical research, science, and the civil service, and transform the military. The US even voted against the recent UN resolution titled “Safety and Security of Humanitarian Personnel and Protection of United Nations Personnel” (a recurring UN General Assembly topic, addressing threats like violence, kidnapping, and attacks against aid workers and UN staff, aiming to ensure their protection through international law and host country responsibility.) - citing “radical gender ideology” as one of the reasons for such a huge policy shift.

The resolution passed at the UN, in a vote 153-1. The US was the only country that voted against it.

Laws should never be based on disgust. As Hannah Arendt tells us in The Origins of Totalitarianism - disgust can be used to justify damaging ideological outlooks and moral standards that do not align with basic human rights.

Consider the first paragraph of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world …

And so, the following position from @Philosophim presents as being based on disgust, rather than sound philosophy:

“I'm just noting it is sexist if they think their gender should be elevated over their sex.”

Imagine referring to people who wish to live in the gender their brain tells them that they are - as sexist!

As if the obligation to accommodate the prejudices of others should supersede Article 12 of the Declaration of Human Rights:

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

What should be “elevated” is the human right to transgender persons to live an autonomous, authentic life free from persecution - that right should be elevated above living their lives according to the expectations of others, especially when those expectations are grounded in a disgust for a state of being they do not understand.

In every other case it applies, what makes trans gender special? — Philosophim

Again, why? You may be right. But without a good reason we can't know that. For a claim about reality to be valid, there needs to be a situation in which the claim is correct, and a situation in which the claim is incorrect. Otherwise we're not talking about something real. — Philosophim

I have sufficiently answered these questions in previous posts. Your position is predicted on the inaccurate premise that transgender persons are not who they say they are, and this is just false.

there are people who detransition who claim they had their identity wrong. — Philosophim

Not according to my research:

The most common reasons cited (for regret) were pressure from a parent (36%), transitioning was too hard (33%), too much harassment or discrimination (31%), and trouble getting a job (29%).

The detransitioning rate is actually pretty low. According to Google - A 2021 systematic review and meta-analysis of 27 studies, pooling data from over 7,900 patients, found the pooled prevalence of regret after gender-affirming surgery to be approximately 1%. When detransition does occur, it is often temporary.

The detransition rate varies from country to country, depending mostly on the level of community support. In Denmark, the regret rate is 0.06%, in the UK is 0.47%, in Australia it’s 1% - but in the US it’s closer to 8% - (where external factors like family pressure, societal stigma, and discrimination are higher) – but of those, about 62% later retransitioned.

***

In any case, it seems we cannot agree on the most basic definitions and facts and have fallen into repeating ourselves, so I will bow out of the conversation now.

Do we have one thing, Nixon, or two things, Nixon and that-which-makes-Nixon-what-he-is-and-not-another-thing?

I'll opt for one thing, not two. — Banno

I would say that the function (the mind) cannot be separated from the structure (the brain) so we have one thing, not two things. It's not a dualism.

I would also say that of the billions of brains that have ever existed, no two were structurally identical, so the mental output is unique to each individual.

The sentence you have quoted is a criticism of T Clark. Not you. — AmadeusD

Please don't gaslight me. You made a presumption about something I said or did.

and can be misaligned (wrong) or there is a failure in one or other of those elements, to be objectively anything. This would mean gender isn't real, — AmadeusD

The conclusion does not follow from the premise.

What I would say is that if you have a male body and female brain something has gone wrong. They are not aligned, and, on the vision needed for your side of the argument, cause you immense distress to the point that society is obligated to affirm you and adjust itself to your self-perception — AmadeusD

When terming "difference" as "wrong" - judgement comes into the equation.

The "obligations of society" to accommodate difference should not be the sticking point.

We don't have a fixed identity. No one does. Our 'self' obtains in a set of dispositions, feelings and reactive faculties which are different moment-to-moment. The 'seat' of our self-perception is reflexivity observation of the world around us (one reason why, if gender is a social construct, you don't get to choose your own!). It is simply reading the room and understanding what it says about your mishmash of "selfhood". Perhaps my rejection of fixed identity also means there's not much more to say. — AmadeusD

You are talking about changes in outlook, not identity.

But, granted, our identity may get fine-tuned as we process new stimuli, and develop our mental faculties. But there are some parts of it that are fixed, determined by the basic structure of the brain.

I also have some trouble with describing the seat of self-perception as observation - since observation is by itself only stimuli and has no effect on us until we analyze and respond to it.

That said, it is largely true, so what do I make of this? Well, given that these are networks in neural pathways, they are subject to change through out ones life and thinking can quite literally change one's neural situation significantly. Is the idea here that one can be trans at t1 and not at t2, or vice verse, swings and roundabouts? That's not meant to be reductive - it seems required to put too much into this piece of neural data. I would add to this a bit of a can of worms, in that psychedelic psychotherapy seems to intensely change how we process both types of information (disclosure: friends of mine do this work and I used to have a hand in designing similar studies locally). — AmadeusD

Yes, how much easier it would be to just believe it when someone says, "I am transgender."

I'm wondering why we don't do that?

We gain identity, at all, from how we are treated as babies and young children. We don't get active in creating an identity for some years which should give you pause — AmadeusD

Yes, I agree. I did not say gender was the whole of identity, only part of it. That a newborn is born with some identity I think is a reasonable claim to make.

If you're identity exists in your head, you act it out as an expected set of behaviours so others around you see you as your internal identity. — AmadeusD

Identity does not only exist when it is being expressed, but when you are all alone with nothing but your thoughts. Otherwise, it would be like saying the Sun only exists when you see it.

Just because we can identify ourselves as "X" it doesn't mean we actually are "X". — Philosophim

This does not apply to transgender persons.

In other words, an identity claim can be incorrect. — Philosophim

This does not apply to transgender persons.

There is nothing innate in one's identity that has any value apart from an emotional feeling — Philosophim

But there is. It's a mental understanding of who you are.

So if I identified as a female, when its objectively true that I'm a male, I would be wrong. My feelings or desire that it be true are irrelevant. — Philosophim

No. Your identity is produced by your brain, not your body.

To be transgender is not based on a wish that it be true - it is true.

Do you not understand that to declare yourself transgender makes things a lot harder for a person, not easier, and one would only do so if it was the only way they could be their authentic self?

Gender is again, a subjective belief that a sex should act in a particular way in society. — Philosophim

No. Gender is an internal, emergent property of the brain.

Expectations flow from it, not into it.

What is sex to you? What is gender? — Philosophim

Sex is the biological differentiation to male or female of physical structures in the human body.

Gender is the male or female differentiation in the brain.

Should gender ever be elevated over sex? — Philosophim

It sounds like you're asking for permission to deny transgender persons their authenticity.

First, you speak about identity. What is identity to you? — Philosophim

I learned a new word in the thread "SEP reading on possibility and actuality" - and thought it might be a concept that can be applied to this thread, and your question about identity.

The word is "haecceity" - often termed as "thisness" - the essential presence that causes something to be an individual.

If we look at this from a biological standpoint, we can consider the human brain in terms of its structure and function. The brain is the structure, and the function of that structure is to produce the mind. The mind consists of all the mental output of one's brain, and that mental output produces an individual's "thisness" - or "haecceity" - the sum total of that person's reality.

In that reality, is that person's concept of self - their identity.

Identity is not external to a person, but part of their "thisness" - their "haecceity"

Did you understand that by "begging the question" I meant the logical fallacy of assuming what was to be proved? For it seemed to me you were making an implicit argument concluding that suicide is (sometimes) morally permissible. But then in your reply you used "begs the question" in another sense. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

Sorry if I used the phrase incorrectly. I meant "raises another question"

"Thisness", usually.

Seems to me the epitome of philosophical reification. — Banno

You've taught me another new word, and I thank you for that - "reification" -

"treating an abstract idea as if it were a concrete, real thing."

My first question is this - just because something is not concrete, does it follow that it cannot be real?

I'm looking at this through the lens of my biology background - in which all living things, and all parts of living things, are described in terms of structure and function, and structure complements function.

So, if we consider the structure of the human brain, its function is to produce a "mind." And the "haecceity" - or the "thisness" of each individual person results from the mental output of the mind. The "mind" is not a concrete thing, but it's real. Indeed, it produces the only reality we know.

Since we each one of us have our individual take on reality, the mind is the set of our "thisness" - or our haecceity.

Or have I misunderstood in limiting "haecceity" to the concept of consciousness?

↪Questioner It's moral if the individual is competent, free from external coercion and dealing with permanent agony/suffering. — LuckyR

Agreed.

We have a poster with a little over 100 posts. They come in, they're polite. They post great arguments and points. They cite papers. They run absolute intellectual and moral circles around you. A fantastic human being. — Philosophim

You know I can read this, right?

For example, I can have a personal identity that I am a doctor. — Philosophim

I'm sorry, but to use the example of calling yourself what you do for a living is to indicate to me that you have not processed a single word I have said.

Gender is specifically an expected set of behaviors — Philosophim

This contravenes my earlier posts, and I am not inclined to repeat them. But I will say it is not about the kind of hats you wear.

What then is a gender identity? First, you have to have a gendered view. You believe "Women/men should do X." "Women/Men should not do Y." — Philosophim

Not quite. it is not only about what you do, but what you are.

Gender is a part of you "being."

"Even though I am sex A, if I follow my expectations of how sex A should act, I really feel like acting like sex B" Basically, "I'm a man, I feel like acting the way I think a man should act." Or "I'm a man, I feel like acting the way a woman should act." — Philosophim

You keep talking about "expectations" and "acting" - as if you have no notion of the identity that exists in one's head - the brain's activity that produces one's unique sense of self.

Your identity is not defined by others, but by yourself.

The way I think a man/woman should act makes a person a man/woman" is the point that you enter into sexism, or elevate gender over a person's sex. — Philosophim

Honestly, this is a bit of a convoluted sentence, and strikes me as faulty reasoning. I'm not sure what expectations have to do with a person's claimed identity.

Haecceity — Banno

I love learning new words and had to look that one up.

"a non-qualitative property responsible for a substance’s individuation and identity."

Of the three words associated with it - "thisness" - "suchness" - whatness" - I would say humans, in their individuality, comes most closely to "suchness."

The doctrine of forgiveness of sin provides a method to avoid responsibility. Why be virtuous when you can always be absolved on request? — Ciceronianus

Hmmm ... I think all religious people are looking to religion for something divine beyond this trying world, and religion provides them with that. All of the major religions promise something greater beyond this mortal existence, whether it is salvation and eternal life, or enlightenment and liberation from suffering, or bodily resurrection and purification, or escape from the cycle of rebirth ... and always some sort of unification with the their God.

Suppose you have a man who identifies as a woman walking around in the women's locker room at 24 Hour Fitness with their junk hanging out? — RogueAI

No, I would say that only transgender women who have completed their transition should be allowed in female changing rooms.

People who judge that suicide is wrong are judging a kind of act. They are not necessarily judging any *person*. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

Good point - separating the person from the behavior

"They" may be the most moral person you ever knew *except* (possibly) in the matter of suicide. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

And this begs another question - in what circumstances is suicide moral?

I few posts upthread I shared my personal experience with my spouse, and I am very satisfied with the morality of his decision to use MAID

How does this apply to, say, women's sports? — RogueAI

Good question. Since sports involve physical attributes, rather than mental, I think it's pretty apparent that transgender women should not be allowed in female sports, since with their male bodies they would have an unfair advantage.

The claim that one can be born in the wrong body then looms large. — AmadeusD

Well, I wouldn't use the words "right" and "wrong" - just different.

I'm going to ask you to put on your thinking hat - and ask yourself - where is the seat of my perception of myself? Is it in the brain? Does your perception of yourself - which is constructed by putting together all your thought processes - tell you that you are one particular gender rather than another?

I think we really need to get a firm understanding of what identity is, and accept that gender, in most cases, is part of that identity. Yes, outside perceptions may influence our identity - but they trigger an internal dialogue - and then how they are analyzed, processed, and responded to are determined by our brains.

Here's a quote from The Neuroscience of Identity -

... that there are two parts of the prefrontal cortex used for processing information salient to the human identity—the medial prefrontal cortex, or mpfc (BA10) and the dorsal medial prefrontal cortex, or dmpfc (BA9) (Lieberman 2018). The mpfc is active during our default mode, or when we are not focused on the external environment, and biases us to shift our thinking to become egocentric, while the dmpfc is active when processing salient social information pertinent to one’s position in groups as well as the perspective of others. We quite literally process thoughts about ourselves and thoughts about others in different parts of the brain. This is a reflection of the dynamic and co-optive nature of identity.

https://creatingwe.com/news-blogs/articles-blogs/psychology-today/the-neuroscience-of-identity

nd along with with Questioner) have obviously, and unfortunately obviously on purpose, ignore the several sources (and quotes there from, along with explanations of how they link with the context we're talking in) I have provided. — AmadeusD

This is not true, I had the last word about male vs female brains, in a reply to you, citing more accurate and recent research, that sex differences in brains can be read with fMRI

Questioner going "yeah, get 'em!" — AmadeusD

This is your interpretation of my motivations for posting what I did, and it is wrong.