If someone says they are gay or transgender we have to have a really good reason to frame them as suffering from some form of mental disorder > which is a separate item to transgenderism or sexual orientation as far as we currently understand these phenomena. — I like sushi

I want to be clear that the desire to be the other sex is not a disorder. Being trans gender is not a disorder. It is when that desire starts disrupting your life to the point you cannot function normally that you have gender dysphoria. Yes, some people talk about it like teenagers talk about 'my OCD' in a slang way, but diagnosed gender dysphoria sucks.

It is not the desire to be another sex that is the disorder, it is when it consumes your life. Just like you can be depressed at times and not need medication, you can have gender dysphoric moments and manage it fine in your life. Transition is not a way of life. It is a medically prescribed coping mechanism for chronic gender dysphoria that does not respond to any other methods or medication. In my experience, these are usually not trans gender individuals, these are trans sexuals that desire the body and recognition of being the other sex. That is why it is covered by insurance. It is not a normal or natural thing for anyone to do. It is a treatment for an inability to regulate oneself normally anymore.

Are there people who want to make it a life style? Yes. I don't mind personally as long as they don't make insurance pay for it. Insurance is for treatment, not cosmetic alteration of the body for one's own pleasure. I would argue that if you have a desire to alter your body its a disorder of a different kind, but not gender dysphoria.

Maybe many people here do not appreciate that this century people will very likely be able to literally switch their bodies from male to female. — I like sushi

Could be. Stem cell research could come along finally and we could eventually change someone's sex. In science a species is considered to have changed their sex if they can serve the reproductive role of the other. So a male would shift to producing eggs which can be fertilized and hatched. A female would produce sperm to fertilize other eggs. But again, this is really trans sexuals we are talking about. Plenty of trans gender individuals have no desire to change their body. Nice contribution!

The main point Banno seems to be making here is there is a clear difference between stating something is logically true and making a judgement call. Ironically he agrees with Jordan Peterson here, — I like sushi

:wink:

The difference between a fact and a value has a longer history than eve that, and Peterson, for all his faults, may have some idea of what Hume had to say.

If someone says they are gay or transgender we have to have a really good reason to frame them as suffering from some form of mental disorder > which is a separate item to transgenderism or sexual orientation as far as we currently understand these phenomena. — I like sushi

I'm not sure if this was a view you were attributing to someone else, or were advocating yourself.

Might be worth clarifying.

For my part, I see Amadeus as hiding his prejudices in medical language. — Banno

Schizophrenic people are also mentally ill. There is no prejudice in admitting to this. I cannot even begin to understand why you run to this instead of looking the statement in its face: If you have a direct break with reality that causes severe distress, that's a mental illness. It need not be intractable, or alienating, or anything worthy of anything but compassion and understanding. They are not exclusive to one another. I have nothing to hide. I could simply be wrong.

Its now a mental health condition like depression. — Philosophim

I'm happy to use this language, if its easier on the mind. I don't particularly see a difference between the two, personally. Although, I am fairly convinced depression is an amorphous diagnosis not pointing to any particularly brainstate.

"Transgender" is an umbrella term for people whose gender identity differs from the sex assigned at birth, while gender dysphoria is the distress or unease caused by that difference. — Banno

This, as best I can tell, is pure prevarication. Transgenderism is a behaviour designed to ameliorate the symptoms of a mental condition of dysphoria as we call it. If you want to tease those two apart, fine, let's do that. I'm happy as long as the language accurate represents what I'm saying. The point is that having a mental state which sets reality (your sex) apart from yourself (your identity) then there is something aberrant going on - as with people who believe they're Jesus - just different in kind.

So with that said:

Do you have an argument to support that assertion? — Janus

They have a direct break with the reality of their actual, objective body. If you have to quibble with the language to make this work, so be it. But semantics clearly aren't hte big issue here.

I don't see that I owe a reply to Amadeus, given his blatant hostility. — Banno

I've been overtly polite to you recently. If you've read my posts as 'blatant hostility' I think perhaps you need to take a long, calming break from talking to other humans lest your victim complex cause you to but heads with everyone. I'll continue to be polite.

I'm here. If you have substantive points to make, or if there is something I have not addressed, set it out. — Banno

You literally do not read posts with substantive points, and then call htem 'meandering'. It's impossible to get on with you in this mood.

Amadeus is like a magic eight ball. When he gets shook up he will just say shit. — I like sushi

You might say that. I couldn't possibly comment... — Banno

Am I'm the hostile one... right oh. Theres something woefully amiss in a couple of blokes talking to each other about someone else in terms that are objectively nonsense. Far be it from me i guess.. You cannot continually be a dick and pretend its someone else's fault. Perhaps you've not had children, but none of this behaviour is foreign to those who have.

Looks pretty clear. Most trans people have a mental illness.

You might consider what it is you are defending. — Banno

Reality. Mental illness exists. Believing you're in the wrong body is mental illness writ large. Defending that belief without recourse to the aberrant, irrational nature of it is beneath the type of discussion we're having.

It may be worth you not replying at this point. I can see there is no actual discussion possible here. There's a severe inability to divorce your feelings from what's said, and what's said from who has said it. I can't quite bring myself to get into that pool.

They have a direct break with the reality of their actual, objective body. If you have to quibble with the language to make this work, so be it. But semantics clearly aren't hte big issue here. — AmadeusD

The assumption that all transgender people experience gender dysphoria, i.e. profound unhappiness and psychic distress, is an unfounded generalization.

The assumption that all transgender people experience gender dysphoria, i.e. profound unhappiness and psychic distress, is an unfounded generalization. — Janus

I believe he's talking about transitioned individuals. The only way to be medically transitioned is to be diagnosed with gender dysphoria. There are people who transition who do it for cosmetic reasons, but from the context of his post he's not referring to them. So unless a transitioned person faked gender dysphoria or paid for it on their own dime, its a safe bet that they have gender dysphoria.

Well he said this,

The majority of trans people are not victims of anything but the unfortunate situation of having a mental illness. — AmadeusD

and my response was misworded and should have been referring to the "majority" rather than "all'. So, it should have read: " the assumption that the majority of transgender people experience gender dysphoria, i.e. profound unhappiness and psychic distress, is an unfounded generalization.

and my response was misworded and should have been referring to the "majority" rather than "all'. So, it should have read: " the assumption that the majority of transgender people experience gender dysphoria, i.e. profound unhappiness and psychic distress, is an unfounded generalization. — Janus

Not a worry at all. If you mean trans gender people, I agree. But if his intention was transitioned people, he's correct. The number of medically transitioned individuals far outweighs those who did it cosmetically.

The presumption, in , seems to be that transitioning does not treat gender dysphoria.

That is, from what I have seen, factually incorrect. Meta-studies are readily available to justify this position.

Note that we have moved to empirical studies, rather then considering conceptual issues. We are no longer doing philosophy.

Right, if we say that gender dysphoria is a mental illness, and we have a cure (transitioning) then problem solved. For the rest of the transgender folk who don't experience intense pain and suffering, but perhaps just some milder confusion and suffering attendant upon feeling "different" on account of their desire to identify as the gender opposite to their biological sex, there should be no major problem if they receive the counseling they may or may not need.

If I recall correctly, @Philosophim had strong reservations concerning regret after gender-affirmation surgery. Studies I found show that regret is a factor, however at low levels, but note methodological issues. It doesn't appear to be a strong enough factor to inform policy.

People may regret many different kinds of decisions in life which cannot, for practical reasons, be undone. That fact does not justify intervention by the state to "protect" people from themselves, unless perhaps if regret were found to be intense in the majority of cases.

Yep.

The presumption seems to be that transitioning does not treat gender dysmorphia. — Banno

Banno both Amadeus and I noted that transition was a treatment for gender dysphoria.

Right, if we say that gender dysphoria is a mental illness, and we have a cure (transitioning) then problem solved. — Janus

To my understanding it is not a cure. It is a treatment that lessens the impact of it, but gender dysphoria still persists in many transitioned individuals. Its like people who are chronically depressed. Depression medication doesn't necessarily cure depression, but it does lessen its symptoms and helps one cope to live life more normally. Take a person off of it, and they'll go right back to being depressed.

For the rest of the transgender folk who don't experience intense pain and suffering, but perhaps just some milder confusion and suffering attendant upon feeling "different" on account of their desire to identify as the gender opposite to their biological sex, there should seem to be no problem if they receive the counseling they may or may not need. — Janus

Correct. The ultimate goal is to regulate your desires and dissapointments in life like a normal person. You don't want to binge on alcohol and become a perpetual drunk that becomes homeless. You also don't want to wallow in agony because you're ugly and you'll never find anyone that loves you. Generally people learn to regulate these wants and needs or use healthy coping mechanisms to regulate them.

Therapy is approached first to see if the person can learn how to manage on their own. A depressed person might be told to fix their diet, start exercising, and go outside. An addict might be given a sponsor to help them out of their unhealthy desires. Sometimes though a person's brain chemistry is too off kilter and cannot be fixed by the individual or with common methods. As such, you escalate to medince. While all medicine is innately of some health risk and impact to the body, its worth it if it fixes the larger problem in their life which is causing them much more harm.

Transition is an obvious harm to the body and mind. In males the initial medicine eventually leads to chemical castration. If estrogen is introduced in more serious cases, there is increased risk of osteoperosis and deep vein thrombosis. Brain scans reveal that transitioned people on medication have parts of their brain altered over time. But it can lead to a person who was completely unresponsive or self-destructive in life to turn themselves around. If a person goes from being an absolute mess of a human being that can't take care of themselves or is one drug abuse away from an overdose, its an overall benefit.

If I recall correctly, Philosophim had strong reservations concerning regret after gender-affirmation surgery. — Banno

I'm not sure if I mentioned that here, but maybe in another thread. Its not that regret should be a factor in transition, its that it should be irrelevant compared to health outcomes for any treatment. The point of treatment is to make the patient is objectively, not subjectively better. If a person has improved physical and mental health markers, as well as living a better and healthier life than prior, their regret is irrelevant. Plenty of people didn't regret getting opioids during the opioid crisis, despite the fact many were becoming addicts with all the shriveling of mind, morals and lifespan that comes with it. You also might get a nice boost for something for five years, then later suffer poor health due to the treatment. Those five years may have given you such a high that you don't regret it, but its still an objectively long term poor health outcome.

That fact does not justify intervention by the state to "protect" people from themselves, unless perhaps if regret were found to be intense in the majority of cases. — Janus

Agreed. No one of any authority has any business enforcing subjective opinions or outcomes. It should always be objective outcomes that should be considered. Regret is purely subjective.

The assumption that all transgender people experience gender dysphoria, i.e. profound unhappiness and psychic distress, is an unfounded generalization. — Janus

This could be a problem of words, again: I have never heard of a single 'trans gender' person who doesn't experience dysphoria. In fact, that is the basic fundamental boilerplate on which it rests. Else, there is literally no reason to do anything but go on about your life. Is the contention that there are people claiming to be 'transgender' who have no emotional or psychological problem with their body or 'gender' (taking this to be an internal feeling... obviously, I don't buy that, but onward..).

I believe he's talking about transitioned individuals — Philosophim

Hmm. Definitely people who have, are or plan to transition yes. In Janus' take there's an equation like this "0+1=2" which I don't understand. We don't go through processes like this, particularly if we believe we're bound to experience social pressure and 'bigotry', unless its ameliorating a worse situation, no? I've been pretty uncomfortable with my gender (as a general comment) since childhood. Not once have I ever even remotely entertaining the idea of mutilating or otherwise permanently changing my body on account of that. I have some relatively severe dysphoria over a couple of specific aspects of my body. Still hasn't occurred to me. So, if we're not going to go the 'mental illness' route (understanding this is not a pejorative) what's giving us the other '1'? Personal choice? In that case, I don't care. There shouldn't be any policies regarding this and people should put up with existing policies. I take it this is untenable to most sides of hte question, so I reject it.

Regret doesn't seem to be a huge factor yet. The advent of surgeries and puberty blockers for minors around this issue has more than likely thrown a spanner in that work - and we are likely to see a trickle, growing to a flood, of regret in that demographic. It's started, but in very small numbers so regret shouldn't be used as a policy-driver. Agreed.

the assumption that the majority of transgender people experience gender dysphoria, i.e. profound unhappiness and psychic distress, is an unfounded generalization. — Janus

False.

See here, here and here. The biggest problem with this question (and we may simply have to set it aside) is that clear indicators of dysphoria (depression, anxiety, self-hatred, body image issues, insecurity around social standing etc..) are post-hoc put in the category of "social consequence". This seems contrary to how we deal with most psychological states. In particular, states that are clearly and unambiguously abnormal. There is a clear, and unambiguous difference between non-trans individuals and trans individuals in terms of, lets call them co-morbidities. The directionality of these, imo, has been intentionally skewed. This is why it may need to be set aside. There is no way to decide that point, unless the future turns out as I expect (or not, obviously). But hte prevalence of symptoms in people who identify as trans says to me, and many others, that there's a direct link between the two. A basic sense check seems to support this: If you thought you were in the wrong body, it would be distressing.

If trans gender individuals (or some number) don't feel they're in the wrong body, what are they transitioning between? Gender isn't something that requires surgery and HRT unless conflated with sex. And if conflated with sex, we have a direct break with reality causing distress. I have a feeling a few balls are being hidden here.

Right, if we say that gender dysphoria is a mental illness, and we have a cure (transitioning) then problem solved. — Janus

Roughly speaking, I agree with this. The problem for me is that the public behaviour of many transitioned individuals still reads like someone experiencing mild psychosis. This is not a fair thing to say, because the overall nature of the condition is such that you will be set apart from most people around you - which is awkward, and leads to some silly behaviours. But I am also a 'if you're male don't go into the female loos' thinker so there's that issue too.

As Banno notes, we're skewing the line between conceptual analysis and empirical data. I just think the data is shit. I think that's reasonable too. Its mostly fresh, relies on self-report and for the most part is unreplicated and hasn't been followed up. I'm willing to take it on it's face with caveats only. We are also looking at an area of medicine which is almost wholly populated by activists. That's an issue.

I didn't see figures in those links identifying the percentage of trasngender people who experience gender dysphoria. I skimmed them, so may have missed that information, if it was there.

Anyway, I asked Claude:

Hi Claude, I wonder if you would be able tell me if there are studies which have detremined statsitics concerning how many transgender people suffer from gender dysphoria

I'd be happy to help you find information on this topic. Let me search for recent studies and statistics on the prevalence of gender dysphoria among transgender people.

Based on the research, there's an important distinction to understand: not all transgender people necessarily experience gender dysphoria, and the statistics vary significantly depending on how these terms are defined.

Here's what the studies show:

Gender Dysphoria Diagnosis vs. Transgender Identity:

Gender dysphoria (GD) as a clinical diagnosis according to the DSM-5 is relatively uncommon, with prevalence estimates ranging from 0.005% to 0.014% for people assigned male at birth and 0.002% to 0.003% for people assigned female at birth.

. However, the DSM-5 acknowledges these figures are likely underestimates since they're based on clinic referrals.

In contrast, studies find that about 0.8% of U.S. adults (over 2.1 million people) identify as transgender, and 3.3% of youth aged 13-17 (about 724,000 young people) identify as transgender
Williams Institute
.

The Key Difference:

Gender dysphoria specifically requires clinically significant distress related to gender incongruence. There is a higher prevalence of people who self-report as transgender than there are patients being treated for gender dysphoria
PubMed Central
. This means many transgender individuals may not experience the level of distress that meets diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria, or their distress may resolve with social transition and support.

So to directly answer your question: studies show that while a significant number of transgender people do experience gender dysphoria (enough to seek clinical treatment), the actual percentage who experience dysphoria varies and is difficult to pinpoint precisely. The relationship isn't one-to-one—being transgender doesn't automatically mean someone has gender dysphoria as a clinical condition."

It appears, if Claude is correct, that there may be people who experience gender dysphoria but have not being clinically diagnosed as such. The other problem is that the term 'gender dsyphoria' itself is not a precise one and feelings of dysphoria could be on a spectrum form very mild to very intense. I would only class it as a mental illness if it causes sufficient distress to make life extremely unpleasant and/ or render people socially dysfunctional. So, we can only guess.

I do know one person (a fifteen year old female who is the daughter of a good friend) who identifies as a man, and shows no signs of being very distressed about it at all. That said, I don't live with her. Her father does not seem much concerned when I have talked about it with him.

I tried the same game.

This doesn't tell us anything about the question we're asking unfortunately - I had to just dig. It's simply telling us small numbers of people are in each group. We already knew that. The papers I've cited give some fairly good reason to connect symptoms with the diagnosis (as if that's not clear anyway?). If that is reasonable then there's a good reason to think that the transition is post-symptoms. Again, I can't see that this owuld be controversial except for the bullets it might present ot the activist class.

The other problem is that the term 'gender dsyphoria' itself is not a precise one and feelings of dysphoria could be on a spectrum form very mild to very intense. I would only class it as a mental illness if it causes sufficient distress to make life extremely unpleasant and/ or render people socially dysfunctional. So, we can only guess. — Janus

Yes, that's all quite fair. No issues.

I do know one person (a fifteen year old female who is the daughter of a good friend) who identifies as a man, and shows no signs of being very distressed about it at all. That said, I don't live with her. Her father does not seem much concerned when I have talked about it with him. — Janus

I know several who appear that way. The ones I know well enough make it quite clear to me that this is a mask.

I think we've reached a measure of agreement.

I know several who appear that way. The ones I know well enough make it quite clear to me that this is a mask. — AmadeusD

That is of course quite possible. None of us are perfectly psychologically healthy though (whatever that might mean) so I cannot think of any more apt measure of illness than the inability to function adequately, or even at all.

I wonder what principally causes the suffering associated with gender dysphoria and the transgender state generally, if it is not entrenched social attitudes around gender, which make transgender people feel as though they don't fit in. Some might not suffer much or even at all because they simply just don't give a shit what others think. We are all different.

For sure - there's also the different interpretations of when that level of disorder kicks in.

:up:

But what people tend to do is either believe that somehow it's possible or that possibly something is going on that goes beyond bad logic and actually touches on something about the brain that is yet unknown. And that we should have empathy for whatever this something is. Because if we are wrong and deny their claims, that's a moral horror. Whereas if we are right and their claims about being x in a not x body are wrong. Then it also feels bad for them.
— Jack2848

I suppose this is an issue for me. Someone feeling bad about other people's perception of reality just doesn't seem to be a viable argument of obligation. I want to be clear, I don't mean bullying abuse, or intentional disrespect. Its about feeling bad about reality. That's just life. Reality has its ups and downs, and there are many realities that are uncomfortable that we have to learn to deal with.

To show this is not an armchair claim, I have bad facial scars from years of acne. I have rolling scars not only over my cheeks, but my forehead. I take people's breath away.......

Sorry for the late reply. Your response was very thoughtful and effortfull and I'd love to reply.

We seem to agree technically. But I think you might have missed the case I was making in the quotes section. (Re-reading it, it was probably my lack of clarity)

What I meant was. Suppose that one day we find some configuration of a human brain (cocktail of chemicals and electrical signal tendencies or whatever) that correlate strongly with women. And a different configuration in the brain with men. And that some are born with a brain that usually correlates with women but is in a male body. As a result they would detect this.

If that were so, then our current non empathy while missing that knowledge would be horrible to say the least. That wouldn't be like people look at your scars and having various unpleasant reactions. That would be you being Brad Pitt and half the people gaslighting you into thinking that your scarred and burned and what not. And half the people saying "Don't mind those other people, you are clearly Brad Pitt. You're good as you are. We accept you"

Whereas if there isn't such a thing. Then it's one not being Brad Pitt and claiming one is. And half of the people agree to make you feel better and the other half doesn't. The question we could ask after laying out an analysis is. If we don't fully know what's what and if the goal is to produce more wellbeing for people alive and Future generations. How do we want to treat Brad Pitt and how do we want to treat Ugly Betty. Or anyone who is right or wrong about themselves?

Probably we want to not become delusional but we also want to be supportive. If a demented person truly believes they are in the 70's. And they won't reject that claim. That let them live in the 70's. While we obviously will recognize our modern day status.

But I get that ideally we would toughen up if we are the ones on the receiving end of difficult remarks. Because we have to survive. But I -wouldn't- say that you -can't- expect people to manage their emotions such that they could have this conversation in front of you without treating you like a monster. And it's relative to that prior ethical metric that we can expect that. To some degree it's reasonable to have some anger arise about the failure on their end. But an automatic response to a first sight of you is indeed unavoidable.

We seem to agree technically. But I think you might have missed the case I was making in the quotes section. (Re-reading it, it was probably my lack of clarity) — Jack2848

Not a worry! I will try to understand better.

Suppose that one day we find some configuration of a human brain (cocktail of chemicals and electrical signal tendencies or whatever) that correlate strongly with women. And a different configuration in the brain with men. And that some are born with a brain that usually correlates with women but is in a male body. As a result they would detect this. — Jack2848

Ah. Interestingly enough, it may not be a hypothetical. The brain science is still out on a final conclusion of this of course, but it seems that homosexual men have brain structures that resemble both male and female brain structures.

If that were so, then our current non empathy while missing that knowledge would be horrible to say the least. — Jack2848

There's an old saying. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." While I definitely understand your view, what the science above shows is that having feminine parts of your brain doesn't actually make you a woman. In our attempt to be sympathetic to an unproven claim, we accidently gloss over a proven claim and unintentionally label homosexual men as "Women in male bodies who should transition."

Empathy without responsibility and rationality can result in mistakes as well. Ever been asked by a homeless man for money on the street while he holds a gas can in in his hand? Empathy would inspire you to give it to him. Responsibility would do one better and offer to bring the gas to him. Rationality is realizing he was scamming you as he gets angry and waves you off to go look for another victim.

We should not have empathy for irresponsible and unproven claims. There is no regret if later we do find that the claim was both responsible and proven. There is no shame or wrong in denying that empathy until the full story is known.

Probably we want to not become delusional but we also want to be supportive. If a demented person truly believes they are in the 70's. And they won't reject that claim. That let them live in the 70's. While we obviously will recognize our modern day status. — Jack2848

Exactly. I think you and I are on once again, technically in agreement. The point in your examples is we know all of the information. One person is ugly, one person is not. We assume that both of them have socially positive demeaners. Should we let our instinct to gravitate to be nicer to Brad Pitt and meaner to Crad Shit lead our actions? Probably not.

But I get that ideally we would toughen up if we are the ones on the receiving end of difficult remarks. Because we have to survive. But I -wouldn't- say that you -can't- expect people to manage their emotions such that they could have this conversation in front of you without treating you like a monster. — Jack2848

I've thought about it for a good long while, and this is what I've come up with. Feel free to disagree, its always good to get another viewpoint. I believe we cannot expect people to hold our own viewpoints. That people's life experience, thoughts, and education are too varied to expect complex and rationally complete behavior. It is not that people are unthinking, unfeeling, or mean by nature. It is that people are often spending most of their energy taking care of their own immediate needs and wants. Healthy and well off people generally have time and resources to spend considering things outside of their immediate survival. But even then, the amount of time they spend is charity from their part, not obligation. Many spend that 'extra time' to further better themselves through riches, entertainment, or other things they desire to pursue in life.

Which means we are often left with basic culture. A common low denominator viewpoint that allows us to have a template for easy, polite, and productive interactions in public. These are things like, "Accept a person's individual expression. Don't insult people in public just because you don't like them. Don't go out of your way to shame or harm."

When people start demanding things of culture that are more complex, problems start to happen. Generally we are taught not to stare or point out things that stick out in society with people who have deficiencies or mental problems. But imagine if we started to say, "When you meet a person with a missing leg, you must call them 'long legs'" The problem here is we've gone beyond, "Be polite by not bringing up a person's deficiency," to 'Bring it up and pretend they don't have it!'" This runs counter to normal polite interactions and also now places a burden upon someone who interacts with someone who has a deficiency. Instead of, "Be passively polite" which takes little effort, its now an extra social rule combined with a phrase you need to know. In addition, you must not pretend that what is real is not. Its an unconscionable demand in to put on individuals in a free culture.

You're demanding of the person in public that they give time, energy and effort to learning a special interaction, and putting them in a state of distress where they must acknowledge something they shouldn't have to. It would be the same as if culture required that in an interaction with me, I must be referred to as handsome at least once. That would be demeaning from my point of view to be coddled as if I have the mind of a child, and again, uncomfortable to demand from other people.

Narcissistic or mentally delusional behavior entitles burden on other people when you interact with them culturally. It is an innately selfish or ignorant view that you think you as an individual should be elevated to any special ritualistic or linguistic importance in society. What should be owed is polite acceptance where one's deficiency is not overtly pointed out or lied about. The idea that a person should see a man or a woman and be told that they should be polite by using pronouns that reference the other sex is out of line. It is a violation of normal polite cultural interaction. It should be insulting to the individual being lied to. Which indicates again, either narcissism, ignorance, or mental delusion.

It is not that I don't have empathy for transitioned individuals. It is that I also hold that they have the same responsibilities in culture as everyone else. Be polite, don't demand special interactions of others, and you can expect that most people will gloss over your deficiencis and difference. I feel it is perfectly fine to call out that a transitioned individual is not special in anyway, a human like everyone else, and should not expect anything more in society besides polite acceptance.

I think this is innately understood at some level, which is why gender was invented and used as it is. In matters of sex, its quite obvious. When you throw a confusing idea like like gender in the mix, and try to elevate it over sex, its an attempt to get society to treat you in a way that you personally desire, not accepting that the norms of society are not obligated to give you that. Again, this is either narcissism or mental delusion. And I do not think it is kind, responsible, or rational to support or allow that kind of behavior in society and culture.

To my observations, the gender experiment has largely failed. People are angry. They know the norms of society have been overriden, and feel its a burden that they're not allowed to talk about. They can't quite put their finger on it, but slowly it is expanding over the culture as more incidents of transitioned people expecting language and culture to break its norms for them continue to occur. As such trans people are not being observed as integrated into the culture, but demanding individuals that want to stand out and fight the culture. That usually ends in faliture.

The trans community in my mind should cease any demands of society immediately. Let people call your sex as they observe you. Do not demand cross sex access. Dress as you like, transition, etc. but don't require special interactions. Just 'be chill'. Go about your day, live your life, and if people are rude to you simply because you are different, the culture will protect you like it would any one else who is outside of the norm. Because you aren't really different. Still human, still a person just trying to do things in public, a nobody that no one should make a big deal over.

but it seems that homosexual men have brain structures that resemble both male and female brain structures. — Philosophim

Right here we go with the fallen world logic. The "average man" is, historically, for all intent and purpose, a monster. A horrific abomination that failed to evolve. An existential threat to not only the world but life itself. This is evidenced by his petty wars, his illogically unappreciative nature, his petulant jealousies, his psychotic and hypocritical delight in all that he would find detestable if done to himself (violent and destructive forms of entertainment he sacrifices valuable resources crucial to his own life to even view) and above all, his unwarranted existential conflict with seemingly everything, including (if not mostly) himself.

How do we know how mankind was truly meant to have evolved? What would have brought us into a golden age of peace and enlightened society, that wasn't cut short by unfortunate packets of those who value brawn over brain. Packets that should have died out long ago that have now become the majority of the population, overtaking the world. This... excuse of a being we call the average man. We don't. Not really. We just assume because "it happened it's what was supposed to happen." A form of deterministic slavery.

Maybe we've reached a new term in science called "existential exodus" where due to the technology and innovation (likely introduced by the atypical ie. more evolved mind) and it's that these mindless brutes are controlling women with edginess, shortsightedness, fear, and above all violence, so that they themselves don't die out (which how can you blame them for trying) and so the real and proper future of advanced men, who are yes intelligent (which inherently applies an enhanced ability to connect with emotion ie. being more emotional) are left without mates (because being "smart" is "uncool") so they have little choice but to think that they're gay. When in reality, the so-called "normal" man is the "odd one out" who should be the one not reproducing, who has equal tendencies, if not greater, but has been able to convince the reproductive pool otherwise. This is why they hate educated women. Because educated women will only produce with men who advance the virtue and value of humanity.

That I'd believe. In fact I can prove it on paper, as far as who makes what inventions and who clings to them versus their own devices. So that's just science at this point. No big deal. So the question, do we look forward to an enlightened future of humanity and ensure the enlightened and intelligent surpass the outdated, self-destructive so-called "alpha" male? Or do we just let the world go to Hell? There's two options. And if you're not on the side that invented nuclear weapons and mathematics, over the side that has nothing but violence, fear, and weapons featuring a rock attached to a stick. You've made your own grave.

The biggest thing is also the greatest challenge. Educating women. Historically, women are victims of abuse. Rape, slavery, etc. The smartest stock (unless simultaneously blessed with beauty) didn't live very long, and if so wasn't matched with equal intelligence, simply brute force, so that basically counted out any intelligence in any conceivable offspring. That's just a fact provable on paper. So there's work to do, if one wants to undo the insidious death spiral that is the current course of human reproduction.

What should be owed is polite acceptance where one's deficiency is not overtly pointed out or lied about.

That's a personal definition of politeness.
Most would agree that calling them how they want to be called is more in line with politeness. I don't mind calling you Scarface if you ask me. Nor do I mind calling you Brad Pitt if you ask me. I'd love to.

Can you expect it of me? Expect in a sense that it must happen. No because 1. We can't prove anything must happen. I can't even prove you mustn't kill people. 2. As you say there's complex potentially deterministic I add network of stuff going on as we navigate the world.
But relative to the main metric I use to create wellbeing and happy people. I'd say yes you can expect in an idealistic sense. Not in a sense that denies the former. But more in a desire sense. Like I can't expect you not to kill me in one realistic sense. But in idealistic ethical sense I can. And for me this goes all the way down. I'd want you to not kick me for example. It's a social contract expecting.

When people start demanding things of culture that are more complex, problems start to happen.

I don't find it hard to call you Brad Pitt if you ask me to. As long as we all know who you are and how the world works. Then even thought I don't have to do anything. I love to give you that good feeling.

its an attempt to get society to treat you in a way that you personally desire, not accepting that the norms of society are not obligated to give you that. Again, this is either narcissism or mental delusion.

We have a very big amount of social contracts. Most abide by sat least some rules that in essence are ways that we try to get people to act in a way desireable to us. Not kill. Be emphatic. Not steal. Say true things. In that case we are all narcissistic.
So then one must show why a person is a narcissist if they do it with gender.


"To my observations, the gender experiment has largely failed. People are angry."

That must be an internet echo chamber thing or a national thing. Most people I know are fine with it. They move on

I feel it is perfectly fine to call out that a transitioned individual is not special in anyway, a human like everyone else, and should not expect anything more in society besides polite acceptance.

I think this is innately understood at some level, which is why gender was invented and used as it is.

This implies gender was invented because transitioned people needed to be seen as special .
But whether or not that is what you meant.

Gender in some form has always existed.
In the movie the godfather the Don says to johnny Fontane "you can act like a man" . But he is a man so he is acting like a man. People might have said to lesbian women "she isn't a woman" .
So since they were women. They must have been referring to something else. Like cultural expectations and behavior that deviated from other people with vaginas.

So one can more reasonably argue that those people took the concept that ordinary people used to point out the specialness. And owned it. So then if the creator is narcissistic for pointing out specialness. It's ordinary people.

I have thought about this recently. There's nothing we can say that we have to do ethically. Agrippa's Trilemma shows that we will fail to prove it.

So I ask myself what's a good ethical metric. For me that's "everyone maximum wellbeing".
Which doesn't mean just happiness. It means potential for education, healthcare, truth and so on.

So when I catch myself saying I don't have to do something just because it's better relative to my own metric. As best I can definitely if the effort is small. I try to ask. "Given I don't have to do anything. What can help me create more people with maximum wellbeing. What helps me get closer to that"

And that's simple. It's like with the demented person. You try make the transitioned person feel as best you can. And you don't lie when asked. You thoughtfully share your view. You make sure that gender as a concept is about how one personally feels rather than biology. And you move on.

Right here we go with the fallen world logic. — Outlander

While I believe this is an interesting topic you could make a thread on, I'm not seeing how this applies to the topic of this thread Outlander.

That's a personal definition of politeness.
Most would agree that calling them how they want to be called is more in line with politeness. I don't mind calling you Scarface if you ask me. Nor do I mind calling you Brad Pitt if you ask me. I'd love to. — Jack2848

No, that's an observed reality of polite interaction. Most people do not request to be treated in a special manner, either verbally or non-verbally, than other people in polite culture. They just want the same services and opportunities afforded others. People should be able to share the same water fountain. People should be able to receive the same services. When I get checked out by a cashier I don't tell them to address me in a special way. "No, that's DR. don't you see this lab coat that I'm wearing?" is out of line.

Now there may be individuals who do not mind this or are comfortable with this. But it is the point that it demands a behavior of a person beyond what is normal. That is something we should be gracious about when given by other people, but not something we should demand of culture and society. We do not expect the denominator of society to rise to the highest and most available of us. We expect culture to arise to the point of reducing conflict and unnecessary demands of others.

I don't find it hard to call you Brad Pitt if you ask me to. As long as we all know who you are and how the world works. Then even thought I don't have to do anything. I love to give you that good feeling. — Jack2848

Again, wonderful. I'm glad you have the energy, mentality, and enjoyment to do so. That is not most people. And it is not a demand that we should make of most people.

its an attempt to get society to treat you in a way that you personally desire, not accepting that the norms of society are not obligated to give you that. Again, this is either narcissism or mental delusion.

We have a very big amount of social contracts. Most abide by sat least some rules that in essence are ways that we try to get people to act in a way desireable to us. Not kill. Be emphatic. Not steal. Say true things. In that case we are all narcissistic. — Jack2848

No. These constructs are about letting people carry about their day without undue harassment or expectations from others. That is not narcissistic. Narcissism is the idea that oneself has the right to ask others special treatment for themselves, as an elevation of their own importance over someone else's time and energy. To demand another person give their time and energy is to assume one is superior to that other person. In some cases this is so, but it should not be asserted without strong reason.

"To my observations, the gender experiment has largely failed. People are angry."

That must be an internet echo chamber thing or a national thing. Most people I know are fine with it. They move on — Jack2848

"Most people you know" is not a metric of judging people. People's close circles are often similar in political and cultural outlooks. I use the internet to explore different cultures, including people with your perspective. I do not search out people who tell me what to think or 'head nod' while claiming their viewpoint is 'just right'. Turns out everyone does that to an extent. In addition, though not as much anymore, I have often stepped out and associated of people with different cultural backgrounds. It helps to give a sense of commonality across the differences, though this is still my own personal viewpoint.

This implies gender was invented because transitioned people needed to be seen as special .
But whether or not that is what you meant. — Jack2848

No. The invention and study of gender goes far before any trans gender issue. I'll recant the sentence and agree it was wrong. I am trying to communicate the idea that we should not be making special demands of society for individuals or pockets of cultures. I do not need gender to do that, and it was poorly put.

Gender in some form has always existed.
In the movie the godfather the Don says to johnny Fontane "you can act like a man" . But he is a man so he is acting like a man. People might have said to lesbian women "she isn't a woman" . — Jack2848

Correct. But it has always been in reference to the fact one is a man by sex. "You are not acting to the standards that I or this group personally expect a person of your sex to act." And what is that? Prejudice and sexism. Not exactly a viewpoint of people we should encourage, much less an idea that you should be treated any differently because as your sex you act counter to the prejudices and sexism that other people have of you.

Nice points and a good discussion. I have to step away for the day but I'll try to answer tonight if you have more.