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

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

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

Lol, I do wonder who is standing on ideology

I am non-partisan and ProTrans.

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

I am non-partisan and ProTrans.

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

Please share your research with us.

Please share your research with us. — Questioner

https://theonepercentdetrans.substack.com/

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

I mean, you know he is a go-to in the field, obviously, with your expertise.

Certainly a better source than pop psych.

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

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

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

As the article makes clear:

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

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

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

And the treatment required focuses again on social support -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

right. I support trans people, and I agree with those statements.

and in that data you found the evidence about the much higher number of detransitioners than you imply?

because supporting trans people includes noticing flaws in the rhetoric and language of their own tribe. I believe I am steel-manning you, as a fellow trans-advocate, into assuming that you would want to know if you are missing something

also please note the language of your own quotes, may reflect, possibly, etc.

this is the language of social science. note the difference in degree of certainty from your moralistic language.

can you concede that you have significantly underestimated detransitioners?

So for you, trans identities are real and grounded aspects of personhood, not merely self-chosen labels or socially scripted performances. So on this view, gender names something like a unified affective-perceptual-behavioral style that arises from early brain development and is later shaped, though not created, by culture? A trans person is not inventing a story out of a set of disconnected traits, but is recognising a deep pattern in how they experience themselves and the world. Does this come close to a form of essentialism? Any other tweaks to this account? — Tom Storm

I would say trans identities CAN be real and grounded aspects of personhood, but that doesn’t rule out someone inventing a theatrical role for themselves or others and calling it ‘trans’. But that person is not likely to claim that they have felt that way about themselves as long as they can remember, nor would they likely be able to articulate their gender in terms of a unified constellation of features. Their self-depiction would sound more like the fragmented, socially conditioned description of gendered-based behavior that Amadeus and Philosophim have put forth.

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

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

So, is it just that other people don't accept your self-image? That's true of most people. It is rare to find a group lacking resilience such that the world not conforming to their self-image is considered a 'potentially fatal' aspect of their situation. — AmadeusD

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

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

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

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

An invalid "whataboutism"

Schizophrenics are not upset because the world wont conform to their delusion - it is the delusion which supports the upset. I am not running together being trans and being schizophrenic, though they share aspects. I am merely trying to make it clear that taking the afflicted at their world is a problem. A big problem. — AmadeusD

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

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

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

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

Of those who do seek detransitioning -

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

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

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

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

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

An invalid "whataboutism" — Questioner

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

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

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

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

Schizophrenics are not upset because the world wont conform to their delusion - it is the delusion which supports the upset. I am not running together being trans and being schizophrenic, though they share aspects. I am merely trying to make it clear that taking the afflicted at their world is a problem. A big problem.
— AmadeusD

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

It is a fact that some people are deluded. It is also a fact that some people are afflicted by delusion. There is absolutely nothing prejudiced about observing these facts — AmadeusD

Delusion as false belief doesn’t necessarily describe the schizophrenic experience either. Thus the need for the ‘hearing voices’ movement.

The Hearing Voices Movement (HVM) takes a deliberately revisionary and, in some respects, deflationary position on the concept of delusion. Rather than treating delusions as inherently pathological false beliefs that arise from a diseased mind, the movement largely reframes them as meaningful interpretations of experience that emerge in particular social, emotional, and biographical contexts. This does not mean that the HVM denies the reality of distress, suffering, or impairment, but it does challenge the epistemic authority traditionally granted to psychiatric judgments about truth, falsity, and rationality.

In mainstream psychiatry, a delusion is typically defined by three features: it is a belief that is false, held with strong conviction, and resistant to counterevidence, and it is taken to be a direct symptom of mental illness. The Hearing Voices Movement explicitly resists this framing. From its perspective, the key problem with the concept of delusion is not merely clinical but philosophical and political: it collapses questions of meaning into questions of error, and questions of difference into questions of defect.

Of those who do seek detransitioning - — Questioner

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks. :up:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(f) “Gender ideology” replaces the biological category of sex with an ever-shifting concept of self-assessed gender identity, permitting the false claim that males can identify as and thus become women and vice versa, and requiring all institutions of society to regard this false claim as true. Gender ideology includes the idea that there is a vast spectrum of genders that are disconnected from one’s sex. Gender ideology is internally inconsistent, in that it diminishes sex as an identifiable or useful category but nevertheless maintains that it is possible for a person to be born in the wrong sexed body.

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

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

hen I think you'll find the vast, vast majority of people you claim this about are actually not going through this as-stated and self-perception has coloured their take. — AmadeusD

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

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

Why? What did they tell you?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.

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

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

3.

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

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

4.

Why? What did they tell you? — Questioner

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

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

5.

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

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

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

6.

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing to be sorry about. I appreciate your attention, and your sharing your point-of-view.

Suffice to say I disagree with your approach to transgender identity, but I feel that we have reached the point in the conversation where I would fall to repeating myself, or arguing, so I'll leave the last word on this to you.

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

Would it then follow on your view that the woman who uses a woman's bathroom because she looks like a woman rather than because she is a woman, is engaged in sexism? Or it this incorrect because she is not acting "over and against" sex? — Leontiskos

Back from vacation. Seems like some good conversations happened while I was away.

To be clear we mean woman by sex, not gender. And I will not use "woman" by itself to mean gender as it leads to unclear communication. If a man wears some makeup and a dress because that's the way women are supposed to act, that's gender. If they think this makes them a woman this would be sexism.

We haven't really addressed trans sexualism. That is where one alters their body to match or resemble the sex expectations of the other sex. I do not see that as sexism. Sex expectations are biologically expected statistics and are not gender. Admiring and wanting the body of the opposite sex for yourself is an entirely different subject.

The question of whether a man of any type is allowed as a normal visitor in any cross sex space should consider why that cross sex space was created and the purpose it serves. There may be good reasons and arguments for allowing cross sex access, but sexism is not one of them. If gender is claiming the actions or inner feelings of a person make a sex, that's sexism. So if someone cross gender is not cross sex, I see no justified reason to allow cross sex space access from this alone.

To speak quickly, I think one difficulty with the position is that sex and gender actually are interrelated in a social sense, especially if we consider everything pertaining to appearance as pertaining to gender. — Leontiskos

To be clear, sex expectations of the body are not gender. Adornment of the body is. We are as of yet not talking about transsexuals, or those whose body may be on the extreme statistical end of those expectations. In an informal setting like a bathroom, culture will keep most trans gender people out, as sex expectations as markers for correct sex identification are usually extremely accurate and easy to identify. In the case where there is uncertainty, this will be incredibly low. Once trans gender people are out, it will go back to a low priority and likely be flexible like it was before all of this attempt to make bathrooms about identity instead of places you go where you blend in best.

Second, it's not clear what the error actually consists in, namely, "Elevating gender over and against sex." It seems to me that if we enforce that consistently, then we can never talk about gender in a way that does not presuppose sex. — Leontiskos

Gender is always about sex. It is the expectation for how a sex should act. I think that's the proper way to speak about it.

If not, what does it mean to elevate gender over and against sex? And instead of mere examples I would need an actual explanation of what this means. (Does it mean something like believing that one's gender is more important than one's sex, and is contrary to one's sex, and acting on that belief while at the same time requiring others to do the same? I.e. creating public policies that are gender-based rather than sex-based?) — Leontiskos

Correct. Anytime you think gender should shape anything sex related, you've elevated it over sex. Gender is a belief about how a sex should act. But its a subjective opinion. It does not shape sex, justify one as a sex, or shape sex in any way. Its just a prejudice or stereotype. Identifying as a 'gender' is really just saying, "I act like I or others expect that sex to act in society." Which again, is completely worthless in any sex identification itself.

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

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

Many people are uncomfortable with the idea that innate brain schemes organize the processing of incoming stimuli such as to form a gender affective-perceptual ‘style’. Of course such a style, whether we label it with terms such as masculine, feminine or something other, is inseparably intertwined with cultural influences, but this doesnt negate the fact that we arrive into the world armed already with gender-based stylistic proclivities prior to our exposure to social influence. — Joshs

To be clear, anything biological that fits a sex expectation is not gender. Gender is ONLY sociological, and I think this is where the confusion comes in. As of yet, there is no brain evidence of gender. Gender is just an opinion or sociological construct in how a sex should act. It is a prejudice, and if it becomes more important than sex itself, sexism.

As a non-Kantian on the matter of gender. Philosophim would say that my awareness of my gayness as a gender was either concocted in my head by piecing together arbitrary fragments of behavior to force a narrative out of them , or forced on my via my unconscious exposure to some outside arbitrary narrative. — Joshs

No, I would say 'gay' is not a gender. Act however you want. There are prejudices in how a gay person should act, but that doesn't mean you actually are that way. That's like saying, "You don't like Lady Gaga, you can't be gay." or, "You're not gay enough." Its just prejudice. As for being gay, that's a sexual orientation, not a gender. Further, we actually have brain evidence that indicates a difference between male gay men and straight men. While nothing is conclusive, its been noted that some areas of the brain that are normally associated with women are more like women in gay male brains. Does that mean you're a female in a man's body? I would never insult or imply such homophobic tripe.

I'm glad you found people with your same sexual orientation you can relate with. I have nothing against that. But that's not gender. Someone saying, "I think men shouldn't be gay," is gender. Its just prejudice.

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

I actually don't. I think there are trans sexuals who desire the biological average sex expectations of the opposite sex, and I think desiring that and/or obtaining that does not fit the definition of sexism itself.

prejudice or discrimination based on sex OR
behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex — Philosophim

I'm not saying one couldn't be sexist and desire the body of the other sex, but I don't think desiring or shaping their body to the objectively normal biological expectations of the other sex is itself sexist.

Also fantastic discussion by you and Questioner while I was gone.

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

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

No, there is a way of feeling like a man. Its sexual. I can grow a beard. I pee a certain way. I have more strength naturally. Its entirely 100% biological. I do have sociological pressures to act, dress, and behave a particular way because of my sex. But I don't have to follow them generally. True strength is realizing I can give the proverbial middle finger to everyone else in society and do what I want. But men or women can realize that.

How else would I 'feel like a man'?

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

Most people face prejudice and ignorance in life. I have in spades. It does not make his position special or his ideas have any more merit or value, nor my own. Ideas have merit and value not in how we suffer with them, but if they rationally make sense.

Delusion as false belief doesn’t necessarily describe the schizophrenic experience either. Thus the need for the ‘hearing voices’ movement. — Joshs

First, my apologies for all these separate posts on your topics, I'm catching up from vacation.

I have a major issue with this need to never say anything is 'wrong'. There are lots of things wrong with all of us, and maturity is admitting that. I have a very scarred face that often scares people. Its bad. Its a handicap in social settings. I am flawed because of it. Saying, "Oh but really you're not mangled, its an expression of blah blah blah" is both a diminishment of the reality of my situation, and an insult to myself as if I'm not mature enough to handle that I have things wrong with me. There are schizophrenics who fight daily to be normal despite their handicap. Saying their condition is normal is beyond insulting.

If you are hearing voices, there is something wrong with your brain, period. Its important to realize it, get help, and work to function normally in society despite one's delusion and handicap. The idea of transition is a coping mechanism for severe gender dysphoria. Its not a normal, healthy way of life. And that's ok. But it doesn't mean you latch onto sexism to make yourself feel better. I have something fundamentally wrong with me and cannot live a normal and healthy life without extra effort and work on my part. And that's ok. But it doesn't mean I get run around pretending I don't look like what I do.

If I went around pretending that I had a normal face and asked people to call me 'good looking' because otherwise my feelings would be hurt, I would have an infantile mind and be a pathetic individual. I do not encourage or endorse other people being infantile or pathetic. I encourage others to admit reality because that is the only way you really handle the arrows of life. I do not say this as some healthy normal individual safely behind a screen. I say this as an individual who has been through great physical and emotional difficulties. The truth is the only way to triumph. Lies and pretend only work temporarily, will always be shattered by uncaring reality and keep you weak. This is from personal experience.

You see, I have a great sympathy for fellow sufferers in life. And the last thing they need is pity, excuses, or lies to get over it. I believe in their strength of mind, constitution, and morals. I do not treat them like inferiors. I do not give them false sympathy or pretend their pain is not real and does not exist to make myself feel better. I do not treat you like an inferior because you went through the struggles of being gay. You're just a person like me. And I'll hold you to the same intellectual and moral standards I would hold anyone else despite those difficulties.

As of yet, there is no brain evidence of gender… we actually have brain evidence that indicates a difference between male gay men and straight men. While nothing is conclusive, it’s been noted that some areas of the brain that are normally associated with women are more like women in gay male brains. Does that mean you're a female in a man’s body? I would never insult or imply such homophobic tripe. — Philosophim

What DOES the possibility of a brain similarity between gay men and women mean to you? Do you think the region of the brain which differs between straight men and women is responsible for behavioral differences between the sexes? And if not, what do you suppose is the function of that sex-related brain region?

As of yet, there is no brain evidence of gender. — Philosophim

During the intrauterine period a testosterone surge masculinizes the fetal brain, whereas the absence of such a surge results in a feminine brain. As sexual differentiation of the brain takes place at a much later stage in development than sexual differentiation of the genitals, these two processes can be influenced independently of each other.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0091302211000252?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Most of the anatomical, physiological and neurochemical gender-related differences in the brain occur prenatally. The sexual differences in the brain are affected by sex steroid hormones, which play important roles in the differentiation of neuroendocrine system and behavior.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24592097/

… our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed into our brain structures when we are still in the womb … There is no proof that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19403051/

On average, males and females showed greater volume in different areas of the cortex, the outer brain layer that controls thinking and voluntary movements. Females had greater volume in the prefrontal cortex, orbitofrontal cortex, superior temporal cortex, lateral parietal cortex, and insula. Males, on average, had greater volume in the ventral temporal and occipital regions. Each of these regions is responsible for processing different types of information.

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/sex-differences-brain-anatomy

In all supratentorial regions, males had greater within-hemispheric connectivity, as well as enhanced modularity and transitivity, whereas between-hemispheric connectivity and cross-module participation predominated in females.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1316909110

In sum, these results demonstrate that stDNN together with IG procedures, which capture dynamic brain characteristics and their importance to sex differences classification, identifies sex-specific brain features that are differentially predictive of cognitive profiles in females and males.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2310012121

What DOES the possibility of a brain similarity between gay men and women mean to you? — Joshs

I don't know. What it does seem to imply is that sexual orientation is not a processing issue, its an innate brain function. The problem of course is that we don't yet quite have the brain issues for sexual orientation down in heterosexual brains. So at this point its a lot of guess work. The only thing we can say for certain is that gay men are not females in male bodies. They are males with a sexual orientation towards the same sex.

Do you think the region of the brain which differs between straight men and women is responsible for behavioral differences between the sexes? — Joshs

Behavioral differences in regards to sexual orientation. There are certain methods of flirting that are repeatable across cultures, implying biological origin. I would say you would be able to assess much better than I do, but 'flightiness' for example can be seen as an attractive trait in women to men, while it it often not seen as an attractive trait in men for women. To be clear, flirting which is socially learned would be gender. We're talking about innate attraction and flirting which is natural and unlearned.

Still, its a topic mostly outside of my wheelhouse so I don't have too much educated to say about it. What I do know from my research so far (and again, brain science is still very early and not yet conclusive) is that when trans individuals are examined based on sexual orientation, there is no difference. So homosexuals who are trans have the same brains as homosexuals who are not trans. Same with heterosexuals. There is one minor barely statistical difference in the corpus collosum in both, and that may be important as we continue to learn more. But this largely indicates gender is a processing issue, not an innate brain function.

And if not, what do you suppose is the function of that sex-related brain region? — Joshs

Unsure. But it could explain behavior that is associated more with women. Of course it doesn't mean you have a female brain. It means you have a brain that has aspects of it that would normally be associated with females. You're still a maie.

Why are we trying to ignore the fact that the average ("straight") male brain simply has poorer self control over lust and primal impulse and tends to be more violent. Why are we trying to spin that as a positive thing? It's not. Sure, it's the unfortunate majority, it's "normal".

Males whose brains tend to have more in common with females than the average male sounds superior in just about every way. How does that have anything to do with sexual preference?

Understand the real and actual underlying dynamic. Society on average is a reflection of the minds of average people. Average people are not very smart. So, most women will end up not very smart since we are largely and in part products of the society in which we grow up in, compounded by the fact it's common knowledge women "don't have to be smart". If you're attractive, or you have something a man wants (you know what), you never really have to become educated or develop your character much beyond that of a child's. Men will literally open doors for you for no real reason other than the fact you exist. That's common sense.

Just because I don't like the way the average woman (or man) is, thus resulting in me not being sexually attracted to someone I feel isn't their best self (who failed to develop morally)—because I value the essence, character, or soul of a human being over their inanimate flesh—doesn't mean I'm homosexual. Sure, I'll probably be called that by the low IQ masses (who are the real ones who should be given a title to discourage reproduction). But that actually means nothing. This attempt to give it actual value is rather unfortunate and quite unbecoming of people who claim to be intellectual.

Here's another thing. Imagine a male with little to no muscle tone, completely shaved, and perhaps even from a genetic background that generally retains youthful (female) characteristics. Now imagine a female with much of the same. You can't tell much difference between, provided the characteristic "private parts" (bosom, genitalia) are obscured or otherwise not very prominent.

There's another argument about pheromones. Yet you can't tell me as a man you couldn't become sexually aroused by viewing a picture or video of a woman, or perhaps even a crude, primal cave painting? This means men are attracted to curves (perhaps soft, youthful ["feminine"] features and long, flowing hair). Women are attracted to straight lines (muscles, and perhaps body hair). But are these really ingrained inner biological or neurological workings or simply the result of our upbringing, the media i.e. social cues/programming (the buff action hero, and the busty damsel in distress)? Could it be a combination of the two?

Again, it's possible humanity is just evolving and men are becoming more intelligent and less violent, and the dull majority is simply doing what all animals do: ostracizing those who are different. The average man is a primal, low-brow being who cares primarily about one thing: His self. Which roughly works out to: pleasure, specifically sexual pleasure. This defines enslaves him. The higher intellect cares about much more than these things for he actually has self control and can talk to or be around a woman without a derelict (so-called "straight") monkey brain making him want to basically impale her because "it feels good."

In short, I question the usefulness of the terms as far as people who society deems "straight" versus who it deems "gay", even if the individual momentarily or perhaps has embraced such social pressure as reality or their own identity.

Basically, as an adult, no matter who you are, or who you think you are, if you can't control yourself and look at another person, whoever they are, without having an overwhelming urge to fornicate, you have a mental disorder. Period. That or you didn't really grow up. Adults have self control, children and the unwell do not. It's just that simple. And no I don't mean it in the sense that seems to punish natural attraction as a disorder (i.e. a man looking at his wife).

Simply that out of the thousands of aspects one can associate with being human, if you choose to elevate primal lust (who you want to have sex with) as anything but a random quality, similar to a favorite color, and embrace that as some sort of "identity", that's robbing yourself of the true human experience. You're a person. Not a "straight" person or a "gay" person. But a person. It's just such a low brow quality that should only restrict/define a lesser being such as an animal. A human being, the human experience, is so much greater than simplistic physical pleasures. It should be at least. Don't you agree?

compounded by the fact it's common knowledge women "don't have to be smart". — Outlander

I'm not sure where you're from, but this is not true in my neck of the woods.

If you're attractive, or you have something a man wants (you know what), you never really have to become educated or develop your character much beyond that of a child's. Men will literally open doors for you for no real reason other than the fact you exist. That's common sense. — Outlander

No, sorry, that's 1950s

and perhaps even from a genetic background that generally retains youthful (female) characteristics. — Outlander

I can't imagine what "genetic background" this is

Women are attracted to straight lines — Outlander

Or to a man's kindness

The average man is a primal, low-brow being who cares primarily about one thing: His self. — Outlander

This does not describe the many men I know.

if you can't control yourself and look at another person, whoever they are, without having an overwhelming urge to fornicate, you have a mental disorder. — Outlander

I just don't think this accurately describes the average person. (Maybe Trump)

the human experience, is so much greater than simplistic physical pleasures. It should be at least. Don't you agree? — Outlander

For sure!