"I think the phenomenon of transsexualism involves such a degree of infatuation of desire with its object that the object is transformed from an empirical one into a metaphysical one. This leads to a metaphysical vision of the other sex."

How am I supposed to understand this? — Michael

Well how do you understand it? Translate the corresponding words.

"I think the phenomenon of transsexualism (ie, what the transexual experiences) involves such a degree of infatuation of desire with its object (ie, the object is the opposite sex) that the object is transformed from an empirical one into a metaphysical one (ie, the other sex becomes a source of metaphysical fascination - it becomes a metaphysical object that can then be desired). This leads to a metaphysical vision of the other sex."

What's unclear there?

What's unclear there? — Agustino

The bit where I said "I don't think [transsexualism] has anything to do with metaphysics" and you responded with the rhetorical "Oh and I said it is? :s", despite the fact that you clearly talked about metaphysics with respect to transsexualism.

The bit where I said "I don't think [transsexualism] has anything to do with metaphysics" — Michael

Right transsexualism itself isn't metaphysical - I never meant to imply that. So no, it doesn't have anything to do with metaphysics. When something - in this case the sexual object - is treated as a metaphysical object, that doesn't have to do with metaphysics either. We're not discussing metaphysics when we say that.

Furthermore, you say that the nature of the self is metaphysics - which is precisely what transsexualism is in the end. It treats one's sex as a metaphysical object, exactly as I've described it - thus it can divorce physical sex from the real and desired sex which is the metaphysical. This operation can only be performed when the object of desire is transferred from the empirical to the metaphysical.

Someone born with the male genitals and wanting to be a woman isn't [metaphysical] — Michael

This is what you said that underlines your misunderstanding. I never implied that someone born with male genitals and wanting to be a woman is metaphysical itself.

Transsexualism is a form of pathology, much like some forms of homosexuality are, which emerge due to the intensification of desire which leads to treating either the object or the rival as metaphysical. Insofar as it rejects the empirical for the metaphysical it treats the real as illusory and the illusory as real. In this sense, it is a self-rejection, as LW said.

Having to with the self, it actually has a lot to do with metaphysics, perhaps more than bodies with respect to how someone is talked about or related to. Being trans (with disphoria about sex) is an identity which is regardless of whether or not someone's body changes, some don't want to or cannot alter their body.

In these instances, it is about the body, but only insofar as the body goes. How someone is spoken about, related to or postion in society isn't the body. That's always a logical significance with respect to the self.

With respect to this, even Augstino's metaphysics account is too defined by bodies, as if the logical expression of self was an an existing state. There is no opposition of the ""real" or "illusionary" self, only the real self and the existence of the body. Try to reduce the question to bodies, you end up reading in conflicts which aren't there.

real self — TheWillowOfDarkness

Which is the real self? The metaphysical self? :B

I assume you mean in comparison to the "bodily self."

Both are real. One the one hand their are logical significances of the self, such as what one means, how one should related to, what space someone fills in various discourses about being spoken or thought about, on the other three s the presence oft he body with its particular form.

In the case of this trans person, they are aware of both, an identity of self on the one hand (i.e. trans rather than cis) and their body (their existing body isn't what they sense ought to be),which is why they are trans in the first place.

If the real self (identity) was just a body, the trans person could not be trans, for they would have to mistake their body for what it was not, and so would just think themselves cis with a body they didn't have.

In terms identity, the self is always real and with whatever body might be present.

okay I would like to correct you on a few things, with a degree of experience myself in the subject, keep in mind however that I do not speak for everyone and everyone has a different experience. For me, my transition was not about gender but rather about changing my physical sex to female, and I also publically changed my gender to fit. Pre-transition i was not uncomfortable in just public places, I was more than uncomfortable in my own skin, I felt like I was wrong for existing and even now bathrooms are a problem. I also think that you are wrong about the bathroom thing because post-transition you end up with very manly men, and you want them to go to the women's restroom? And what about the opposite, would you want women going into the mens room, look we just want to live our lives.
I may be biased but I do not believe that hormone treatment and sex reassignment surgery is not mutilation and is not sketchy either; to get these things I had to talk to several licensed medical professionals and psychiatrist that specialized in the field I actually felt MORE safe there than I did and do with normal doctors. Okay so about the not being able to switch genders, I'm just going to disagree with you and state that this makes me very angry and not make any further comments. and we are not trying to reinforce the idea of gender we just want to feel more comfortable in our skins.

Thread has two years since the last post in it, original participants are less likely to respond.

I may be biased but I do not believe that hormone treatment and sex reassignment surgery is not mutilation and is not sketchy either; to get these things I had to talk to several licensed medical professionals and psychiatrist that specialized in the field I actually felt MORE safe there than I did and do with normal doctors. — sarah young

I don't understand the double negative distributed over that clause. Do you mean that:

(1) You don't believe that sex reassignment surgery is not mutilation; leaving open the possibility that you do believe that it is mutilation and the possibility that you have no standing at all on the matter.
(2) You do believe it is mutilation.
(3) You believe it is not mutilation.

Or something else entirely?

I think one needs to be cognizant of the relationship between norms and laws here. And the fact that due to some new features of telecommunication the notion of political correctness has resulted in a lot of new anti-norms receiving legislative status. Norms are norms because, by and large, they represent the behaviour of the vast majority of people.

I'm totally tolerant. More than that, I'm supportive of individual differences. But they are just that...differences. My experience with the gay community is that most gay people are quite happy to identify with their birth genders. The actual percentage of people for whom the transgender issue is life-altering is small compared to the number for whom it is not.

I am totally against prejudice and discrimination of every kind. I think the notion that transgender identity has the right to co-opt and alter mainstream gender norms is itself prejudice of the worst sort, and reverse discrimination.

I think it is necessary that the two biological sexes have certain areas that are separated from each other. A transwoman may feel comfortable in a women's restroom, but this is unfortunately a violation of a standard safe space for women. — darthbarracuda

I agree with much of what you said, but take issue with the above.

I actually agree with the first sentence - it makes sense that women would like to feel safe in the restroom. However, the second sentence is a bit tricky. A biological male who dresses as a women would feel unsafe in a men's restroom - particularly if they look like males.

I've noticed that some places of business are putting in multiple single-person restrooms that anyone can use. This sort of thing seems to me the best solution for all considered.

I don't understand the double negative distributed over that clause. Do you mean that:

(1) You don't believe that sex reassignment surgery is not mutilation; leaving open the possibility that you do believe that it is mutilation and the possibility that you have no standing at all on the matter.
(2) You do believe it is mutilation.
(3) You believe it is not mutilation. — fdrake

I am sorry for being unclear in what I wrote, I will try to be more clear in the future by actually following basic grammar rules and checking what I write before commenting it,I meant that it is not mutilation

I will try to be more clear in the future — sarah young

Always a good idea. Advice I could do with following.

I meant that it is not mutilation — sarah young

Thanks for clarifying.

Regarding mutilation it’s a tough question. The word has very negative connotations, and applying it to surgical modifications might cast certain aspersions on transgender individuals and their choices, which in my opinion should be accommodated. But then again, to the extent that one wants to disfigure and modify his body through surgical means so as to appear a certain way, mutilation is an apt term. It can apply to all types of body modifications such cosmetic surgery, tattoos and piercings, so you wouldn’t necessarily be in bad company.

okay, so I see your point but

mu·ti·late
/ˈmyo͞odlˌāt/
Learn to pronounce
verb
inflict a violent and disfiguring injury on.

so what I draw from this is that for something to be mutilated it would have to be a violent injury and

vi·o·lent
/ˈvī(ə)lənt/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

I draw that for something to be mutilated, it has to be done with malice intent and gender reassignment is no done in an aggressive or threatening

One of the potentially useful side effects of this issue...is the way pronouns are getting increased attention.

Pronouns can be a pain-in-the-ass in Internet discussions, where the gender of many posters is not known. The can also be a pain when speaking generally about some things...and the male pronouns dominate.

Using "they" rather than "he" or "she"...and "their" rather than "him/his" or "her/hers"...may become standard. Then all we'd have to work on is the plural "you" which we in New Jersey handle with "youse."