As far as who gets to get naked in what public rooms, it’s probably best to keep all the penises segregated from the vaginas. — Fire Ologist

There's logistical problems with this. What about people with manufactured penises or vaginas? Who checks and how do they check? Would you subject a man-ish lesbian to a genital check before you let her use the women's toilets, because she kinda looks like Justin Bieber or Adam Sandler?

Really? We need to get into this.

For all of the relatively tough calls, let’s hope the people involved can show courtesy and maturity and charity and just work it out. No policy covers 100% of use cases. I don’t think we need to toss all of the penises and vaginas into one big bucket and resort things and redraft a simple policy because of newly manufactured genitalia on a few people. People are still pretty private in the bathroom. Transpeople should give others privacy and expect their own will be honored. Pick a lane in the spirit of “men’s room” or “ladies room” and be courteous.

This is the problem. We’ve skipped to making policy before defining membership in our groups.

The groups should likely be men, women, transmen and transwomen. We are talking about bodies. So nothing is equal here. As persons, as humans, all are equal; as bodies, like male or female child, things are unequal. Why did we think of separate men’s and women’s rooms in the first place? Whatever drove that, (privacy/security while vulnerable) seems to now beg for more types of bathrooms. I would disagree that because of genital surgery we now need to work up a new theory about how some penises now belong with the some vaginas, in spaces they never belonged before.

But at this point, we’ve recognized men, women, transmen and transwomen, as different and distinct from one another.

So you are coming around to the need to hold terms down with clear definitions in order to make policy, or just communicate clearly?

Or can you and me have totally different ideas of what a bathroom is and still communicate? Can we have any genitals, whether naturally occurring or manufactured, and identify as any gender we want when choosing a bathroom, or competing in “women’s sports” or expecting people to remember who is a she and who is a he?

This is a bizarre take — flannel jesus

Yep.

So instead of getting all confused about what a woman is and the gender being whatever society wants it to be. Why not use the term female for sports and exclusive places and do away with gender for everything else as it is now a meaningless term that covers tired sexist tropes.

Seduction of Grammar... this whole thread...

"Man" and "Woman" are merely a category of specific traits that not all "men" and "women" share.

"Man" and "Woman" are Platonic concepts... Man is not men and Woman is not women, it’s a generic representation of men and women. In Christianity/Platonism, the generic representation is more real than the many actual things it represents. And it’s “supposed to” represent all of them… even when it doesn’t… because it can’t actually do that.

But what this means to them is that, when it doesn’t, the actual thing is “should” make itself conform to the representation—whatever doesn’t do so is a “bad thing,” a sinner.

It's kinda retarded to think everyone fits a single category as the platonic representation...

How a person is, depends on the VALUES they accept and express. Which has nothing to do with anyone except the valuator.

I just like how people use language to subvert communication, and talk about it, and think they have said something, that doesn’t contradict themselves.

So you are saying there is no metaphysical issue here, it is a misunderstanding of what language does, and the question “are transwomen women” is more of a psychology issue, or legal status issue, and the philosophy part is easy peasy?

Is Philosophim’s question “can people use ‘transwomen’ interchangeably with ‘women’ in a sentence coherently?”
Or is the question “are transwomen women?”

I thought it was the latter. I thought these were two different questions.

(“Latter question” cannot point to my first question above, or you will be confused, and language no longer serves its intended purpose.)

Are the above two questions the same question, or does one relate individual words to language, and the other relate words and language to things in the world that are talked about?

Can’t a man, who transitions his body so that it presents as a woman, call himself a “man”, a “woman” and a “transwoman” functionally? Sure he can, depending on the context. And if we all retrain ourselves we might not be confused when s/he speaks.

Here is a question: if there is any difference in the world between the two things that “man” and a “woman” used to refer to, can a transwoman in the world be referred to as a “woman” or a “man” whichever he/she chooses without reshaping both the man AND the woman? Does it make sense for us to agree that “woman” now meaningfully refers to that person with a penis and a dress, since she told us that is what she refers to herself as - is that how linguistic communication or “grammar” as you call it, is supposed to work, and does that make sense when trying to move people around in groups, with sports/bathroom policy, in the world?

Or dare I ask “what is a woman anyway?”

The bathroom thing is a stupid issue but it demonstrates the metaphysical point. What distinction in the world (if any) produced the first male/female segregated bathrooms, and can we meaningfully squeeze transwoman into the ladies room without subverting or ignoring whatever that distinction was?

There was the feminist line “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” Great line. It’s funny. Or if you are a man, you might be insulted.

But it’s only funny or insulting if you have a solid sense of what a fish is, what a bicycle is, and what a man is and a woman is. As things. In the world. As objects named “fish, bicycle, man or woman.” The words only have meaning because of the things they refer to. The line is only funny if you’ve met a few men, women and fish, and bicycles, and you are keen enough to spot some differences among them.

So is a transwoman a woman?

Are differences similarities?

Does a language that fosters miscommunication function as a language?

Do two different bathrooms meant for two different groups of people serve any purpose unique to each one?

Bizarre indeed.

Or maybe everyone is a Heraclitean, embracing the absurd paradox it is to be an human being, and “the way up and the way down are one.”

Heraclitus wasn’t much of a communicator or community builder either.

———

ADDED:

Seduction of Grammar... this whole thread... — DifferentiatingEgg

You forgot to use the word “is”.

By “Grammar” do you mean “bicycle”? Or does this thread need no being, despite your presence in it?

This is an online forum to communicate. Words are about all we have. Grammar is always at issue. But is it the only issue?

You forgot to use the word “is”. — Fire Ologist

Left out quite a few words "This whole thread is filled with people seduced by grammar." ...

Never said don't use grammar, just be aware of how using an irreducibly platonic tool forces a style of psychology upon the person, a style that is exceptionally seductive. Even Heraclitus fell to the seduction of grammar, and he was an opponent of BEING! That's to say all grammar forces "being" upon the experiences of "becoming" in order to discuss a "thing."

First and foremost humans are animals. Causa sui categories came from the metaphysics of language...

If someone doesn't fit another person's category and they say that someone is wrong... well. That's just the person projecting their platonic idealism. Projecting their unreality upon reality. Projecting their "True World."

I thought these were two different questions. — Fire Ologist

There's your problem.

experiences of becoming in order to discuss a "thing." — DifferentiatingEgg

Spot on. That is what is at stake. How do we identify a “thing”, (any thing, like a trans woman or a woman), and discuss it? Identity, and communication through language of identity. Spot on.

platonic tool forces a style psychology upon the person that is exceptionally seductive. — DifferentiatingEgg

Ok. But then the person who identifies as mom, sitting at her child’s public school play, in her dress with her beard, asks “where can I find a bathroom for me?” Don't forget, there are two bathrooms available with two different words on the doors intended to invoke distinctions among people for the sake of creating a sense of safety and privacy.

Do we need to read Plato and Wittgenstein first? She herself admits she can’t just pee on the floor, or anywhere she wants. Where do you tell her to go, and here is the real question, why do you think where you tell her to go makes any sense for her, and for everyone (since the signs don't magically change themselves)? The world around you fancy grammarians is making policy and defining terms. We all need more input. Is your final answer to this mom: "Man and woman are platonic concepts - I don't know - it doesn't matter to me."

A couple Platonic dialogues are implicated, but this isn’t just platonic theory - it’s policy. Can a person list “wife” on a benefits application if they are a transwoman, or is this fraud? That is really the exact same question as "are transwomen women." Or "what is a thing."

I am not denying context impacts definitions. I just asking questions in the largest possible context, and admitting the fact of definitions. This is all convention, I get it - so, what is the specific convention going to be?

And I’d argue this is Aristotle, not Plato. We are talking about immanent form (the intelligible aspect of a thing becoming a thing) not some battle of absolute ideal notions, pitting being against becoming. We are talking about particular people representing themselves through language to other people. There is a whole world of praxis in which these "platonic" ideals are being used. We are fixing definitions based on things in the world for the purpose of communicating meaning to others in the world through that language. The moving parts are not just the words. It’s a bitch.

Ignoring the issues as metaphysical folly says nothing. Maybe that is by design. Hope you never have to run anything or manage people.

But you seem to understand the question, as you highlighted "experiences of becoming in order to discuss a 'thing'." That is the nut of the issue.

So are you just not interested in the context of trans? Or are you seduced by fire, and you really think man and woman are concepts only? Maybe to avoid "thing" you've reified something else?

-------

Heraclitus was an opponent of BEING! — DifferentiatingEgg

That's what they teach us Socrates and Plato and Aristotle said. But Heraclitus wasn’t an opponent of being. We should all understand Heraclitus better. He recognized that the “ing” in being is the same “ing” as in becoming, and therefore, that being itself, is moving. He defined being as becoming. Our grammar broke apart Heraclitus' wisdom. We've mostly fabricated the importance of the grammatical distinction between being and becoming, when in experience, there is no such distinction, and "becoming" is the better term for all of it.

“There is an exchange: all things for Fire and Fire for all things, like goods for gold and gold for goods.” - Heraclitus Fragment 90.

Becoming things, is not just becoming - we need things too. You need to fix goods, to then exchange them for Fire. We need to carve out a man, to then notice he both steps and does not step into the same river. (See Fragment 49)

That doesn't therefore mean the goods, the things, are not in-themselves becoming and moving. That is another issue (one that makes defining things fraught with error). But we need not ignore the fact of things being things as we throw them back into the fire.

You guys staying so strong against the seduction of grammar, all sound like you only see Fire. Ok. But then how is there any distinct issue to clarify in the first place? If all is just Fire? Where are the woman versus men versus transwomen? And what are you doing when you see one thing distinct from another? What does the Fire consume? How come you even know what Philosophim is asking, or how Philosiphim formed his question?

You are saying there is no question. But the question still is, where am I supposed to pee without creating a shitstorm? The shitstorm is real, if protests and legislation are real. You seem to think we invent this metaphysical controversy by misunderstanding how seductive grammar is, and that the little girl who is shocked by the person in her bathroom invented her own shock because she reified “woman” beyond all practical application and expectation. Maybe it’s not the Platonic form and our discussion of forms so much as it is the beard and the deep voice. She needs a word for "beard" if she is to describe what happened to her in the bathroom. Or maybe she needs a word for "man" distinct from "woman" or "transwoman". Or is she just being a sexist little girl, or imagining beards, and her sense of shock can be trained out of her by an enlightened society (which would still require fixed things and definitions to do the training, just new things and words.)?

“How can anyone hide from that which never sets?” - Fragment 16 This cuts both ways - Fire, for all things.

"For though all things come into being in accordance with this Law, men seem as if they had never met with it (sleeping), when they meet with words (theories) and actions (processes)..." - Fragment 1.

“To those who are awake, there is one ordered universe common to all, whereas in sleep each man turns away [from this world] to one of his own.” - Fragment 89.

Sounds like a warning against private languages. As in "I identify as a X" as if we were good at identifying anything. Sounds like he recognizes language, law and becoming - not just becoming (in its sense that we've made it an opponent of being).

Ever since Plato, Heraclitus has been pigeon-holed as only speaking of fire and flux. He just wisely recognized that defining terms, seeing the law, was precarious and perilous, so his language confused people. “The path of writing is crooked and straight.” - Fragment 59 "Nature likes to hide." - Fragment 123

I would agree there is no platonic form of "woman" or "man" - but there are things that we call men, and things that we cannot call men. I'm not trying to reify any notion or idea - I'm trying to talk about particular things that come to be in our faces, or bathrooms.

---------

As we both grapple with this: "experiences of becoming in order to discuss a 'thing'." here is the only thing you need to explain: How is the person who says "Transwomen are women is true" not using language to subvert clear communication among all women, men, transwomen, transmen, kids, people? Do we really think we can take a convention so simple and basic as gender, and allow individuals to privately shuffle all of the moving parts without breaking down communication, confusing our laws, shocking children, angering moms and dads, disappointing athletes, sparking allegations of fraud, and in some cases, harming the individuals who were told they are trans?

The metaphysics here needs to be addressed better than "seduction of grammar". We need to use grammar to influence policy, and impact particular lives and situations. There are consequences to playing with words and meaning this way.

Is Philosophim’s question

“can people use ‘transwomen’ interchangeably with ‘women’ in a sentence coherently?”
Or is the question

“are transwomen women?”

I thought it was the latter. I thought these were two different questions. — Fire Ologist

There's your problem. — Banno

I'm interested. Can you explain that to me? My answer to the first question is "yes, by setting a context and defining our terms accordingly, we can create conditions where these two words create subtle distinctions but can be often be used interchangeably with coherence". My answer to the second question is "no, they are distinct things in the world."

So what is my problem?

This is for people who are really trying to dissect the phrase and think about it in non-political way. — Philosophim

OK, I can see how my argument won't seem constructive to you because it doesn't accept enough of your basic premises to help you refine it. But I think what you're really doing here is smuggling in the deeply, inherently political and pretending you can treat it as non-political, in order to establish norms which make trans political victory inevitable. And by "inevitable" I mean that one can't even say one diasgrees, not just because it's against the rules but because this aims to take away the words necessary to even express the idea. Meaning, "trans" language use is Orwell's Newspeak.

Exactly. Once you downplay and subvert the function of language to define itself and fix its terms, you destroy the ability of two communicants to coalesce on a shared understanding. Once you try to argue that “woman” need not mean the same thing to me and to you, today and tomorrow, then why bother trying to clarify anything? Whatever is clarified is not actually clear, and the words used to clarify it are not clarifying. — Fire Ologist

I would usually not want to bring up Matt Walsh because he's not philosophically deep and the politics he normally espouses are neither original nor interesting. The Daily Wire people are not only shallow but still not critical enough of the dogmas of the old Conservative Inc faction for my taste.

But Walsh was right about this one thing. What you just said is the central thesis of his mockumentary, "What is a Woman?" If it was OK to cite Michael Moore's documentaries in the 2000s, then turnabout is fair play. Walsh directly hit the very heart of the issue dividing our civilization.

Can you explain that to me? — Fire Ologist

the history of our interactions in this forum would suggest not.

How do we identify a “thing” — Fire Ologist

Thinghood came through categorization via language and grammar which differentiates through definitions. Trans is an adjective that modifies a noun.

Ok. But then the person who identifies as mom, sitting at her child’s public school play, in her dress with her beard, asks “where can I find a bathroom for me?” — Fire Ologist

waves a gesturing hand towards the two bathrooms. "Overthere."

It's quite simple, you treat them by your mutual term, human. That you let platonic categories scew with your thinking just shows you dont really give a shit about the person but are more seduced into projecting your own platonic concepts upon them.

But Heraclitus wasn’t an opponent of being. — Fire Ologist

"Blah blah blah, No fux for flux." Since being is always moving it's becoming. Regardless of if you wanna be like "no he said BEING MOVES!" lol aight homie...

You didn't say a damn thing other than Heraclitus doesn't believe in a static being of permanence... which is Being... so more or less you said he does and doesn't believe in Being. Absurd.


Added:

Once upon a time, in some out of the way corner of that universe which is dispersed into numberless twinkling solar systems, there was a star upon which clever beasts invented knowing. That was the most arrogant and mendacious minute of "world history," but nevertheless, it was only a minute. After nature had drawn a few breaths, the star cooled and congealed, and the clever beasts had to die. One might invent such a fable, and yet he still would not have adequately illustrated how miserable, how shadowy and transient, how aimless and arbitrary the human intellect looks within nature. — Nietzsche. TLNMS

the history of our interactions in this forum would suggest not. — Banno

So your problem is you think those two questions are the same? Since you’ve identified my problem I don’t think this is too bold.

Blah blah blah, — DifferentiatingEgg

That was fun.

Nice exchange folks! It’s not like there is any philosophy to discuss here anyway.

And Egg, Heraclitus said “it rests from change”. Rest is static. I don’t think you understand Heraclitus (or much of what I said above.) But I assume you aren’t interested in talking with me either.

And “human” is a category, an ideal, just as much as “trans” is. That makes my whole point (again) - no one is avoiding reification as and definitions of things in the world and then communicating with other people. You can’t help it. Which is Heraclitus’ point.

And “human” is a category, an ideal, just as much as “trans” is. — Fire Ologist

Yeah, all language is irreducibly platonic. The point is to not project upon them the notion of "man as such" or "woman as such." That's just a clumsy handling, you're not even treating them as a human at that point, rather more of an attack on your ideals.

Ps: When I say Heraclitus fell to the seduction of the of Eleatics, I'm talking about his stance on material monism. So using his material monism as a defense is just kinda silly.

He thought everything was in flux, but believed in material monism due to the seduction of grammar which forces the psychology of unity in definitions.

The point is to not project upon them the notion of "man as such" or "woman as such." — DifferentiatingEgg

Isn’t the point nothing anyone says means anything to anyone else but themselves? Meaning is a private invention - a choice.

But then, telling people they are wrong or have problems is fun isn’t it. Meaninglessness is a real pickle when you are as eloquent as Nietzsche.

Didn’t Heraclitus’ student Cratylus answer questions by just wiggling his finger? True commitment to avoiding the seductions of grammar. Also useless in a discussion.

I could never understand the obsession with the need to have a rigid definition of "man" and "woman." As if the fate of humanity rested upon it. Can't we just accept that we all humans, riddled with variation?

It seems there are a lot of people out there taking the absurd position that, "You cannot be what you are, because I do not know what you are."

Well, then, learn.

Learn.

Paradigm shifts are difficult. We have to let go of old beliefs that no longer fit the new reality, and our instinct is to be resistant to that. But you risk nothing when you try to understand where someone else is coming from.

Approach the issue as a fellow human, not some pedant.

It seems there are a lot of people out there taking the absurd position that, "You cannot be what you are, because I do not know what you are." — Questioner

Excellent.

OK, I can see how my argument won't seem constructive to you because it doesn't accept enough of your basic premises to help you refine it. But I think what you're really doing here is smuggling in the deeply, inherently political and pretending you can treat it as non-political, in order to establish norms which make trans political victory inevitable. — BenMcLean

No, I'm really just providing a discussion ground for people to think about this idea. If you've noticed, I've largely stepped away and let people discuss amongst themselves. Its important we talk about things like this in a different way from politics. Again, I encourage you to make a topic of your own on the subject if you would like. Just make sure that its well thought out, cites good evidence, and isn't merely an attack on a group of people.

I could never understand the obsession with the need to have a rigid definition of "man" and "woman." As if the fate of humanity rested upon it. Can't we just accept that we all humans, riddled with variation? — Questioner

We can both accept that we're humans riddled with variation, and accept what the normal use of man and woman mean in general language and culture. And do you know who cares very much about there being a distinct separation between men and women? Trans men and women. They see something fundamentally different from their own sex that they have an obsessive need to obtain for themselves. If there wasn't a difference, they woudn't care and transition would not be a thing.

Its important to understand that wanting clear defiinitions is not an intention to hurt other people. The OP is primarily concerned with the language itself, and seeks to demonstrate that the phrasing is poor. All I'm saying is if honest trans gender people are trying to communicate accurately, they are best to avoid the phrase and instead modify it to be clearer. "Trans men are adult human females that act in gendered ways associated with men." What's wrong with clear language?

Paradigm shifts are difficult. We have to let go of old beliefs that no longer fit the new reality, and our instinct is to be resistant to that. But you risk nothing when you try to understand where someone else is coming from. — Questioner

You know I know very much about trans individuals. So that's not an argument against what's being posted here. I'm also not treating trans people like pedant's either. I help people speak more clearly and say what they mean in my daily life. Clear communication is important. And many people get confused on this subject. If we want trans and non-trans people to get along better, honesty and openness are the way.

I could never understand the obsession with the need to have a rigid definition of "man" and "woman." — Questioner

It is essential for sport and women’s exclusive spaces.

It seems there are a lot of people out there taking the absurd position that, "You cannot be what you are, because I do not know what you are."
— Questioner
Excellent. — Banno

I don’t think that is true but even if so, isn’t that a separate discussion?

I mean, you are right, it is disrespectful and oppressive to tell anyone “you cannot be what you are (maybe unless you wanted to be a sociopathic murderer.) But this thread is more about, Person A is trans and Person A is saying they are a woman, and Person A is saying they deserve “women’s rights” and that Person B needs to acknowledge and support that.

A person walks in to sign up for a women’s swim meet, and says they have a right to be there, and to point them to the locker room. And the swim meet lady says “You are telling me you have a right as a woman to compete and use the women’s locker room as a woman, and you are telling me this is a right that men do not have, but as a woman, you have that right.” Can we ever interrogate that person’s claim? Can the swim meet tell a man (or person who identifies as a man) “No you cannot enter” and also admit a transwoman?

Or do we need to throw away all policy distinctions between men and women, all allowances for men over here, and protections for women over there, so that we never have to make such an inquiry?

It just doesn’t seem practical to refrain from segregating men from women. Transwomen pose issues to what previously seemed like a natural segregation between men and women for simple reasons surrounding fairness, privacy and security. Transwomen flat out defeat these segregations in sports for instance. I agree they greatly threaten these segregations when it comes to privacy and bodily security (bathrooms, locker rooms, girls clubs).

It all seems like a valid discussion is needed to me.

It seems there are more people averse to discussing the issues than there might be people telling others what they can be. People can be whatever they want but why does it have to undo all of the institutions built around the notion “for women only”?

Maybe we don’t have to define men, women and transwomen to have the discussion (although I am amazed at how many philosophers seek to avoid defining terms), but, I’m not sure what to say if you don’t see any issues created by the more recent teaching that we all get to privately determine what gender means and what gender we are, as we publicly announce to others who they are and what words we are to use to refer to them.

I mean is gender purely a personal and private determination? Doesn’t it have a public component and even public function to it? Gender and biological sex were once considered deeply connected. Maybe a complete definition of “woman” is impossible, and maybe it includes many malleable, changing social conventions, but it used to also include by default things like “having a uterus” and a certain body found in nature.

Transwomen are people formerly considered men, and they even considered themselves to be male. They then seek to distinguish themselves from men and males, and no longer call themselves men and tell others not to call them men. This is their will and their reality - they were considered men, and now want to show their distinction from men. That all sounds like a workable start (if you ignore psychology and reproduction of the species trends, and maybe the way legal fraud protections are written). There are men who transition themselves away from being called men. Fine. Great. Be what you want to be and who you really are.

But do these people now transitioned and transitioning people get to take any word or any concept and use that to publicly declare who and what they are? Is that practical for anyone? Do these males, formerly named men, get to commandeer the word “woman” for themselves and demand one of her lockers? Is it reasonable or transphobic for a female born woman to see a transwoman as a new type of human being coming in from outside the group called “women” to redefine the shape of the community of women? Is it reasonable for the transwoman to expect others to give her the same protections and access as women?

So it’s not about telling people what they can and can’t be. Maybe a transwoman isn’t a man and can be something or someone else, but why do they get to take “woman” away from women? Why do they get access to all of the things held exclusive for women just because they say “I am a woman now”?

Can transwomen be women in a functioning society that has so many institutions for women only, built to exclude men? Does that not raise the issues for you?

And I’m sure the only reason many politicians support equating “transwoman rights” to all things formerly “women’s rights” is more cognitive dissonance training for a more easily manipulated population of sheep. It will help train people for statements like “you are better off today” and “it’s the right thing to do” despite all evidence to the contrary. But I digress from the metaphysics and the practical applications of the metaphysics into stupid idiot politics.

Depends on what it is you're talking about. Like suppose I start just lambasting you with how much of a failure you are to fit my category of "man"?

Could you function outside of the emasculation of Christianity?

Since it rules over your every impulse...? If you can make externalized values "woman"ize you through Christianity... Then why cant a man simply adhere to internal values to emasculate themselves?

See how easy it is to turn the same style of bs talk around on you? For not fitting categories?

What's to stop any man from following a woman into a bathroom and raping her? Your chat about it is bullshit because you try to bring up issues with platonic categories for man and woman and are like.... "YOU CANT BE TRANS BECAUSE ONLY 'MAN' AND 'WOMAN' CATEGORIES EXIST FUCK THEM!"

As long as I'm allowed to show you what a failure you are at lambasting, and ignore your opinions when I have to pee at a public establishment, or when defending my designation when I apply for a Real ID, then who TF cares about "your category" whatever "your" means in that scenario? Transwoman can say they are anything they want and you can call me a skunk, or "not a man". That isn't the issue. Do I have to say it - that is the issue. Will the government force me act in some new way, choosing new bathrooms for instance. You have it backwards. The issue is, can you tell the world that the world's category of "man" that has been forced upon you, is being rejected by you, and that you are now forcing the world to see you as "whatever the hell you want" and forcing the world to speak accordingly and provide rights accordingly.

Oh no, however are they going to handle a Real ID?... the same fucking way you do. Lol by going to the DMV...

The real question is ...
How are you going to survive the future knowing Trans wont ever go away?

"YOU CANT BE TRANS BECAUSE ONLY 'MAN' AND 'WOMAN' CATEGORIES EXIST FUCK THEM!" — DifferentiatingEgg

I never said that or even implied that. Please read this post: this is what I think: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/1030360

It welcomes transpeople as human beings the same as anyone else. I agree, this is stupid issue. There are about 15 transpeople in the world and everyone has to have an opinion about it. And no one knows how to speak about it.

You really have no idea who I am and how I regard people, or what I say to them. Please read my post above.

Regarding your quote above, my point is more like this: YOU CAN ONLY BECOME A 'TRANS PERSON' IF PRIOR TO THAT SEPARATE 'MAN' AND 'WOMAN' CATEGORIES EXIST, AND IF ANYONE TELLS YOU THAT IS METAPHYSICAL TRICKERY, FUCK THAT!"

Please read my post, and chill out.

How are you going to survive the future knowing Trans wont ever go away? — DifferentiatingEgg

Again, it's already been proven multiple times in this thread that the average person is rather dense and highly impressionable. I can make you think you're a dog or a bird or some animal with enough coercive force and trauma on your mind. This is not new. These studies are simply hidden from the general public for good reason.

There was no such thing as an actual physical "transgender" person until the first surgery barely 50 years ago. I can think of a dozen things that were "revolutionary to human progress and understanding" that nobody talks about now.

It's ostracization meets the need for social beings to conform. Just for whatever reason the forces in control of this world are propping it up. If the majority is hairy and muscular and generally beast-like, while you're thinner and more youthful (feminine), that means you're like a girl or a child. If the majority is thinner and more youthful, and you're the opposite, you're some wretched beast that belongs in the field or chained up somewhere. This is just how commoners think. They are like children who must be guided. By force if necessary.

Commoners are often cruel, crude, wretched people. The only thing they hate more than others, is themselves. For some reason they have temporary control of a government. This is because once the monarchy fell, people went to war. And obviously, in a physical world, the bigger guy tends to win. No real strategy needed. It's basic physics. Until the monarchy returns. It will be a divine event no mortal can stop. Many will likely try. I would avert thine eyes if one doesn't like bloodshed.

There are about 15 transpeople in the world — Fire Ologist

Perhaps you should broaden your social circle.

Because they're trapped in platonic ideals. (A bit of a reduction but its a tldr statement).

I don’t really think those things of you, I was just grasping at straw, and making up fiction to place you outside of categories to pretend like you were a sinner.

I was like... damn, I know over 100% of the trans population?