Transgender ideology claims that biological reality does not determine one's sex — Terran Imperium

No, it claims that biology does not determine one's gender. Sex and gender are not the same thing. Whereas sex is concerned with one's chromosomes and sexual organs (where, for the most part, there are two sets), gender is concerned with something else.

Take for example having long hair and wearing make-up, a dress, and high heels. We tend to think of this as being the traits of a woman despite the fact having long hair and wearing make-up, a dress, and high heels has nothing to do with having XX chromosomes or a vagina. We have this idea of what it means to be a woman that transcends biology.

So let's say someone with XY chromosomes and a penis decides to have long hair and to wear make-up, a dress, and high heels. You might look at their biology and say that they are of the male sex (and they will agree), but they look at the social aspects of their lifestyle and say that they are of the female gender.

As soon as you start to talk about women's and men's clothing or the like you've lost any ground you have in trying to reduce it all to biology (for the most part; something like bras being used to support breasts can be an exception, although given that flat-chested women often still wear bras and large men with "breasts" don't, even that's debatable).

They cannot impose on me to use the pronun 'he', 'she' or 'they' when it doesn't just fit. — Terran Imperium

What's the connection between pronouns and biology? Although someone's biology has historically been the measure we used to determine which pronoun to use, language is always changing, and it is becoming more and more common for these pronouns to defer to someone's cultural gender rather than their biological sex. What compelling reasons are there for resisting this change?

I am a woman, with XX chromosomes, I am capable of being pregnant and birth. — Terran Imperium

My first wife couldn't be pregnant because of complications breaking her hip in a car accident. She never felt like a 'real woman' and eventually killed herself. My current wife cannot get pregnant either, because she is post-menopausal. I think if you want to be a doctor, you need to get used to the varieties of real humans that you will have to try and help, and not try and force them into your own categories of what they ought to be. You will do much harm otherwise. Chromosomes, hormones, brain-type, orientation of desire, and fertility are not always aligned as you seem to imagine.

While "gender" may refer only to roles (and thus are open to interpretation); while "sex" may refer to biological characteristics (XX, XY, vagina, penis, ovary, testes, egg, sperm...) is open to only the slightest interpretation, activists and their supporters have made a hash of the distinctions.

Since at least the mid-1970s I accepted the idea that "transsexualism" was real, that some persons were born in the wrong body. "Transgenderism" is the view that regardless of whether one has XX or XY chromosomes, one can "perform" whatever gender role one wishes, and that other people (can, should, must, will, had better) jolly well accept it. For a time I was willing to tolerate this view.

I've come to the conclusion that transsexuals are delusional, and transgenderists are at least slightly crazy.

Now, I am well aware that men and women (but mostly men) have been bending gender for quite a long time, and it isn't just a recent phenomena never seen before. In the early 20th century, "drag acts" were a very popular (but always outré and risqué) entertainment for heterosexuals, and a somewhat common practice among gay men. Drag was a way of asserting one's gayness, rather than asserting that one was actually a female, though the cross-gender performance could be extremely convincing (up to the point of copping a feel or undressing).

Some gay men have always presented themselves as effeminate, and some gay women have always presented themselves as masculine. There were aesthetic and emotional pleasures in the performance but it was also a way of signalling that one was interested in same-sex activity with one's own sex.

The multiplication of "genders" is part of the "at least slightly crazy" aspect of transgenderism. How many are there these days? 19? 33? 62? Who the hell knows. Mostly it's just staking out imagined differences that one can then impose upon other people.

My opposition to the "trans" business stems from a firm belief that "people are more alike than they are different". We are not all unique snowflakes, one of a kind never seen before. Most people have some willingness and ability to experiment with sexual roles, and some do--without basing their entire self-definition on what they tried.

I wouldn't expect anything rational from these debates, the tail that's wagging the dog here is simply power-grabbing by insane ideologues. As an Alinskyite student once said, the issue is never the issue, it's just a pretext for undermining traditional social relations and ushering in a Communist revolution that will inevitably result in some sort of bloodbath, just as past attempts have always done. Any philosophy that comes from that process is bound to be (almost) complete word salad.

IOW, last year it's women, this year it's transgenders and now women are being thrown under the bus; last year it's Blacks, this year it's Mexicans and now Blacks are being thrown under the bus. It's all complete twaddle, and the movers and shakers don't believe a word of it. Only the useful idiot footsoldiers take it seriously - and they'll be first up against the wall come the revolution.

The most you can say is that there are two sexes and two genders, but since gender relates to manifest behaviour (behaviour that's like the typical or average or normal behaviour of either sex) it's possible to have any mixture of the two behaviour types that falls on a continuum anywhere between the two genders; but a given random position on the continuum is not its own gender, that would undermine the very concept of polar genders on which the idea of a continuum is based.

And of course there can be biological anomalies producing brains that don't sit happily with the sex they're born with. That's a difficult situation for which one obviously has sympathy, but it's just being used as the "Motte" pretext for the standard "Mottte & Bailey" tactic of the hard Left.

I am sorry for the late answer.

My condoleances.
I said that exceptions don't really count, they are true women. There is a reason, they are called exceptions and that they aren't used as standards.

That is true, I agree and I can't say much against that.
About the pronouns, I was referring to the 'non-binary' people which I mentioned earlier in my post. Whereby forcing people to call them 'they' or 'she' or 'he' when it doesn't fit them is like forcing me to agree with their view on how the world works. Yes, language evolves and change through the centuries but it still had a basis on reality. The pronouns 'he' and 'she' rely on your biological sex, on a fact everyone can rely on. If a person who thinks she is 'non-binary' and I called her 'she' or 'he' does that make me bad? As I said those people are more subjective than objective and don't really look at reality.

Please bear in mind that before somewhere in the 80's, Sex and Gender were perfectly interchangeable. They meant the same thing. It was not until the mid-1990s that use of the term gender began to exceed use of the term sex in American Physiological Society titles. That's where the difference really started to show and Transgenderism used it.
Although I have nothing against Gay people, someone can be Gay and keep the gender identity he or she was born with. Homosexuality is proven to be natural anyway, there is observed homosexual behavior between chimpanzees and lions or birds.

Yes, it is an unfortunate trend this time. Feminists and now Transgenderisms.

As an interesting fact, scientists are making progress on how homosexuality work biologically. I can't find the article on it, unfortunately. If I recall correctly it was a hormone that spikes at a specific time when the baby is in the womb which determines their sexuality through their whole life.

Thank you all for your answers, it was enlightening and offered me much insight on how to interact with those people.

Although there is still something I am confused about when I was talking with that trans-gender woman, I did my research about Transgenderism so I can ask my questions here but I was caught off guard by his words when I said that Gender and Sex are different things. I think he said I was a feminist of some genre?
To quote:
"Which is basically biological essentialism, a wonderful set of beliefs possessed off by many groups, of which one of note is the Trans-exclusionary radical feminists.

You don't want to be confused for a Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist."

From my understanding, second-wave "radical feminists", specifically "TERFS" (or trans-exclusionary radical feminists), oppose the transgender movement (not transgender people, though their rhetoric makes it difficult to believe this) primarily on the grounds that it supports an institution - gender - that, according to radfems, ought to be abolished.

From what I can tell, radfems believe gender is a patriarchal institution that oppresses women (and also men, to a degree) by forcing them into artificial categories that suit the needs of those in power. When a transgender person "switches" genders, then, they are implicitly affirming the gender institution. They feel the need to call themselves a different gender, thus reinforcing the notion that gender is a legitimate category. Instead of a man wearing "feminine" clothing, he may call himself transgender and/or a woman. But the whole point of radical feminism is to liberate women from this oppressive schemata. Transwomen, to a radical feminist, are "invading" (so to speak) the biological class of women, and are bringing along the baggage of patriarchy. From a radfem perspective, this can obviously be seen as threatening: men can now be women (and vice-versa), there is no distinction between the two now, and so the oppression of women becomes evanescent. Now anyone can be a woman!

To a degree I think these radfems are correct. But it's also clear they do tend to harbor a deep suspicion of men, which is not entirely undeserved.

About the pronouns, I was referring to the 'non-binary' people which I mentioned earlier in my post. Whereby forcing people to call them 'they' or 'she' or 'he' when it doesn't fit them is like forcing me to agree with their view on how the world works. Yes, language evolves and change through the centuries but it still had a basis on reality. The pronouns 'he' and 'she' rely on your biological sex, on a fact everyone can rely on. If a person who thinks she is 'non-binary' and I called her 'she' or 'he' does that make me bad? As I said those people are more subjective than objective and don't really look at reality. — Terran Imperium

No one is "forcing" you to refer to people by the pronouns that they ask to be referred to as. Language, like gender, is socially constructed, and regardless of the etymology of words they are, as you yourself admit, are malleable over time. A fitting analogy, let's say someone I meet someone who kindly asks me to refer to him as Jake, despite his birth certificate explicitly stating that his official name is Jacob. Or perhaps he'd prefer to go by his middle name, Max, because he dislikes the name Jacob or Jake. Or perhaps he decided, at some point, to change his name entirely because he loathed his given name for whatever personal reasons. His nickname, or new name lacks a "basis in reality", but that's not a justifiable reason to stay with the name Jacob. In fact, it makes very little sense to say that words have a "basis in reality" external to their socially constructed use.

Would I ignore his request and refer to him as Jacob regardless? Of course not. It's unnecessarily rude, doesn't inconvenience me in anyway, and is disrespectful of his innocuous request. Same is true when a transgender person asks to me refer to them as something other than their biological sex. Does it make you a "bad person" when you ignore their request? I would say yes, insofar as it's a clear demonstration that you doesn't view them as a person who should be respected or treated in a dignified manner. It is vital to note that studies have shown that there is a high suicide attempt rate of transgendered persons relative to the general population, the major factors being, "gender-based victimization, discrimination, bullying, violence, being rejected by the family, friends, and community; harassment by intimate partner, family members, police and public; discrimination and ill treatment at health-care system are the major risk factors that influence the suicidal behavior among transgender persons," and so I think that it should be understood that while maybe you had a negative experience with a transgendered person via the internet, you should A) not extrapolate her presumed "incivility" onto her entire group, while B) understand (and sympathize) that her frustration may stem from the fact that her group faces overwhelming social and personal hardships on a day-to-day basis that I personally can't even begin to wrap my head around.

Thank you for your answer.

Again, thank you for answering my questions.
I can argue the fact that none of those names don't refer or are in anyway related to any ideological view unlike someone especially asking me to call 'they' when they are obviously a 'she' or a 'he'. That's being needlessly stubborn and rude however and I concur.
I can use the pronoun 'they' without agreeing to any of their ideological ideas. It's not the first time for not only this subject and its called being polite to other people.
That's better than being rude like I was before.

I can argue the fact that none of those names don't refer or are in anyway related to any ideological view unlike someone especially asking me to call 'they' when they are obviously a 'she' or a 'he'. — Terran Imperium

Transgender isn't an "ideology" anymore than Cis-gender is, or being heterosexual, or homosexual. No one would claim that being heterosexual is "ideological".

Gender is a fascinating topic for the Weird writer because it holds such a challenge or affront to preconceived order. As societal acceptance changes, so too does our inquiry into the foundation of identity. I identify most potently as being an author and an intellectual; gender is not such a paramount consideration. In the exploration of myself, I have found that I am most satisfied when I am immersed within the most nefarious of vistas and wolds. My identity is centered around my need for the Weird. To be respectful of another person’s identity is to acknowledge their autonomous goals and ego. Bodies are not always whole or ideal, but the mind knows itself. It is imperative to construct one’s own incorporation of identity into one’s schematics, and to be deprived of this sovereignity is to be tortured.

I am quite prideful of my eccentricity, and I seek to analyze whatever traditions are offered carefully. When applicable, I seek and create my own modality of conduct. I am cautious never to bow to shame or to widespread stigma; I am secured my own goals and expressions.

My identity as an author is concentric about rituals of writing; in this way, I express my ego and self-actualization. Receiving bodily alterations to align with the ego is equally critical, and is another form of sovereignity. I refuse to be enthralled to another’s image of myself; those whom I befriend must acknowledge my identity in its various components.

From what I can tell, radfems believe gender is a patriarchal institution that oppresses women (and also men, to a degree) by forcing them into artificial categories that suit the needs of those in power. When a transgender person "switches" genders, then, they are implicitly affirming the gender institution — darthbarracuda

Perhaps it turns on what is meant by 'switch genders' - specifically, whether the person in question declares that they are now of the gender that is the opposite to their sex, and requests others to change how they refer to that person, via gendered pronouns etc.

My understanding of the de Beauvoirian (dB) position (I prefer to use that rather than 'radfem', which sounds pejorative) is that they are supportive of somebody changing their dress and other behaviour to that which society deems as being 'gendered' in a way that mismatches their sex, precisely because the dBs want to subvert and remove the notion of gender altogether, and a great way to do that is to undermine people's expectations (or worse, requirements) of the relationship between behaviour and sex. I imagine the dB would congratulate the person on having liberated themself from oppressive societal expectations of how their behaviour should be constrained by their sex. Further, I think dBs would be supportive of requests to use neutral pronouns, but not of using gendered pronouns that mismatch the person's sex.

But if the person makes claims to a specific gender (as distinct from a denial of having a gender, or just not mentioning it at all), and requests agreement with that from others, the dBs may see that as regrettable because it supports rather than deconstructs the notion of gender.

So my understanding is that a dB would be supportive of a 'gender switch' that involves change of behaviour, but would regard it as unfortunate if the person self-labels that change of behaviour as a gender switch.

This refers to those cases where there is no ambiguity as to the person's sex, whether from how they were born (eg unusual chromosomal variation) or from medical interventions. As far as I know, there is no representative dB position on such cases.

Feminists being uneasy with gay men, drag queens, and mtf transpeople goes way back. Gay men asserted that gay rights were more important than women's rights. Drag queens are seen as nothing but another kind of blackface.

And mtf persons are seen as men who
a) try to tell biological women how it feels to be a woman, and that this feeling is somehow accompanied by or worse even just the desire to wear lipstick and skirts (last I checked women were still female without those props)
b) insist on pushing their way into female conversations (abortion is simply not their issue) and spaces.(bathrooms and locker rooms) with all the self-rightousness patriarchy has imbued them with
And c) want cis women to recognize privilege but adamantly refuse to admit that their male birth gave them any privilege whatsoever.

I personally think all trans people do these things, but I see why feminists are annoyed.

What's the connection between pronouns and biology? Although someone's biology has historically been the measure we used to determine which pronoun to use, language is always changing, and it is becoming more and more common for these pronouns to defer to someone's cultural gender rather than their biological sex. What compelling reasons are there for resisting this change? — Michael

Picture a small child pretending to be a bird. They do not have bird DNA, but still they like to play bird. They wear a cape and flap their arms running around the house pretending to fly. This imaginative play is natural for a child, with the parents often playing along, since it does no real harm, and the child is happy and content. It is assumed to be stage of child development.

If this bird behavior continued into their teen years and then as an adult, it is no longer treated the same way by culture. The neighbors and the doctors will not say this is natural for that age. The mom may still go along, since it still appears to make her little boy happy. Say the bird man doubles down and decides they want to add permanent wings and feathers through surgical procedures, so their fantasy is more real, and not just limited to dress up.

Personally, I would not care, since to each their own. But say this bird man wants me; insurance, to pay for his bird surgery. And say I am publicly pressured to say this is normal. If I don't I am called a hater. I am being sucked into their fantasy, even if I do not wish to go there. I am not his mom so I have a right to choose, like him.

As far as men and women dressing up in certain ways, this is based on biology. Men are more visually oriented than women. Women will cater to this difference, by creating pretty visual displays that cater to this male orientation. Animals do the same thing, with usually the male animals more decorated. The human biology of dress is connected to the male side of the women, and the female side of the men. This firmware reversal is what causes confusion and the bird man affect.

Women are more verbal orientated. This is why men tend to lie to women. The sweet little lies is type of verbal makeup; you look wonderful today. This is the male bird singing his song to the female birds. In the bird world the male has the sweet song and colorful dress. I human world, the female has the dress and the male the song. A male with a good line of bull, does not have to be handsome to attract females.

Exactly. Now I did a little more research to satisfy my curiosity and set my final personal judgement on these people if they are crazy or not.


So let's go back to the start so that there is no confusion. An argument about transgender identities will be much more convincing if it concerns who someone is, not merely how someone identifies. And so the rhetoric of the transgender moment drips with ontological assertions: People are the gender they prefer to be. That’s the ideology. That's what Transgenderism is all about and what it preach.

So as I said earlier. Transgender activists don’t admit that this is a metaphysical claim. They don’t want to have the debate on the level of philosophy, so they dress it up as a scientific and medical claim. And they’ve co-opted many professional associations for their cause. Which I mentioned one of them earlier, I believe.

The phrase “sex assigned at birth” is now favored because it makes room for “gender identity” as the real basis of a person’s sex. So here comes the next part, more like its the main part.

In a federal district court in North Carolina concerning H.B. Dr. Deanna Adkins who works in Duke University School of Medicine said this: “From a medical perspective, the appropriate determinant of sex is gender identity.” she claims: “It is counter to medical science to use chromosomes, hormones, internal reproductive organs, external genitalia, or secondary sex characteristics to override gender identity for purposes of classifying someone as male or female.”

Its funny because the argument recently was that gender is only a social construct, while sex is a biological reality. Now, activists claim that gender identity is destiny, while biological sex is the social construct.

Adkins doesn’t say if she would apply this rule to all mammalian species. But why should sex be determined differently in humans than in other mammals? This is really confusing.

This is really ridiculous at this point. I feel like my head is spinning. The more I look up information about Transgenderism the more my opinion about them only get lower and lower. These people have no basis on reality and contradict themselves a lot.

So far, I was convinced that I might have been unecessarly rude to them by using the 'wrong' pronun but that's not much. Althought it was still an interesting discussion with you and the different opinions were insightful.

I think it comes down largely to how you view the world. Many people these days are polarized between materialism and spirituality. The materialist argues that we are, to a large extent, biological entities and that is what determines our sexuality. If we were as rigidly determined as the materialists believe I doubt that gender issues would arise.

If the spiritual component makes a difference then our biological disposition may only be secondary. The mind can chemically change the body and have all kinds of physical effects on it.

The real question here is whether sex is a biological or spiritual reality, or both. If it is both, as I believe it is, it is enormously difficult to analyse. With some people it may be just a mistaken way of thinking and with others there may be a real longing to escape our biological identity. You cannot put all of them under the same label because the may have very different reasons for feeling the way they do.

I don't think that it's accurate to call transgenderism a delusion. It's not like transgendered people are unaware of their biological sex, rather, it's not incorporated into the self-concept because it wasn't something that they willed- it was decided by external factors and so it isn't really representative of them as personal agents. It's relegated to a facet of or an imposition of the environment instead. There's an internal dissociation between the authentic self or potential self of the mind and the externalized body, the body that you, as an external observer, instead associate with the mind and see as whole. Modifying the body attempts to rectify this dissociation by making the image of both the body and the mind congruent. A transwoman will be adamant that she is female because she is female "at heart", and it is the psyche that you communicate with when you communicate, so it comes as no surprise that there's a miscommunication when you believe you are communicating with an entity that is not fractured between mind and body (the two are seemingly united, you view them as one entity) but, from their perspective, very much is. The phrase "you are male/female" or referring to them by their biological pronoun is interpreted as an attempt to define the psyche, and is met with resistance. The "you" that you refer to is different from the "you" that they interpret you as referring to.

The question is whether it is more ethical to modify the psychological essence of someone to fit the body, or to modify the body to fit the psychological essence of someone if bringing congruency to the self-image is a goal. Another question is whether a person's ability to modify their circumstances is to be respected, or if their circumstances should instead modify them. If a transman were technologically able to alter his genetic code, would you accept him as male once he did? Knowing that the only thing that bars that transman from altering his genetic code is an inability to do so, is his identity less valid because circumstances do not allow for it to be actualized, despite having the clearest image of what that identity would be if it could be? It's a case of "I have no mouth and I must scream". The mouthless entity screams internally, but nobody believes it because on the outside, there is no indication of it. Graft a mouth on and suddenly it becomes clear that it's not that it was never screaming, only that it couldn't manifest its screams. To the integrated person this doesn't even occur as a possibility because their bodies have been beneficial to them rather than constrictive.

It comes down to how you see people, I think. It can be extremely hard to understand the psychological essence of someone when their external presentation so greatly defies it. All that being said, I don't think that a person has the explicit right to force others to see them the way that they see themselves- transgendered militancy is an unfortunate side effect of miscommunication and a desperate need to self-actualize. But I also don't think that someone has the right to force others to see themselves the way that they are seen by that someone. I see our ability to define ourselves as one of the hallmarks of what separates us from animals, and I think that attempts at actualizing our identities, however imperfect those attempts may be, are progress in respect to normalizing a freer mode of existence. Obviously transitioning is on the whole a work in progress technologically, but the attempt is to be respected, rather than giving into the will-less existence that is choosing not to define oneself.

are you simple?

I can't let the feelings of others affect my view on reality or science facts. The world and society won't bend to accommodate them. They cannot impose on me to use the pronoun 'he', 'she' or 'they' when it doesn't just fit. — Terran Imperium

In this matter, I wonder if your view on reality might be blinkered by your reliance on "scientific facts" in an area where there is (I think) more than just science going on. Here, we are very firmly in the realm of human culture, where the thoughts and feelings of individuals are the primary determining factors. Science places humans into the role of impartial observers, and that just won't do in a matter like this. Here, humans are active participants, and must be treated as such.

The first thing I remember when I call trans-gender issues to mind, is that a man would not consider doing to themselves what gender correction surgery does unless they felt they had a really good and strong reason. You might consider them delusional, but they just feel they are bringing their emotional and physical sides into alignment with one another. I see no way to disprove one side of the argument or the other, and I see no profit in even pursuing that argument. No harm is done to the individual or society. There is no case to answer, IMO.

Perhaps the most important point is this: is anyone harmed by someone asking to be addressed as "she", even though you feel that form of address to be inappropriate? No. Is anyone mislead? No. Does it matter at all what form of address I prefer? [Let's assume I remain consistent, and don't alternate between "he" and "she".] No. Is there any negative consequence at all? No, there isn't. So let's allow anyone and everyone to nominate their preferred form of address. And when they have done that, let's show them the simple respect of using it. The world and society will bend to accommodate them. Why wouldn't it? :chin:

No harm; no problem. :smile:

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

You raised interesting questions, some answers and examples. And yes I do view the mind and body to be one single entity. They are one part of another.

If they could alter their genetic code then my argument has no value. They are completely female or male regardless of what was their previous gender. I am not against that. I am not against change. But currently, we can't do that. And biologically, they are still female or male.

I think I determined my view on them. I don't specifically despise them but I was more than confused about their way of thinking. It was enlightening. Thank you.

I understand your argument but I think you might have missed the part where I acknowledged that and I was obviously the mistaken one. I won't call them by what they think is the wrong pronoun because that would be rude, I only considered the biological reality and that may have been my mistake.

As for whenever or not it harms society, it does not. Transgenderism itself cannot harm society. However, a few months ago, I had a neutral opinion about them but the few that I talked about, they were infuriating and irrational and more than a few time they took an aggressive stance when I tried to return back to the original subject. The original subject had no relation what so ever about genders, I barely mentioned it in a 500 words long post. Yet, they only picked up that part and started arguing with me, I couldn't understand.

I spoke with a few more transgender people in real life and they were just as aggressive. I can't say I can project the few that I talked with into their whole community. That would be stupid and narrow-minded but it didn't really paint a good image on them nor the ones in social media do. Is it harmful? No, but it just fills my everyday life with a subject I don't care about, that I don't want to hear about and I kept dragged in it because they feel that I was offending them in some way or another or that I should agree with them.

More than a few people said I was cold because I was considering science and rationality to be above all else. But its just who I am, I can't really change who I grew up to be as a woman. I came here to discuss the subject and to get a few more opinions. I came to an interesting conclusion. And I was wrong about more than a few things. I hope this will help me understand them more and avoid aggressive talk next time, I encounter one.

Again thank you.

More than a few people said I was cold because I was considering science and rationality to be above all else. — Terran Imperium

Well I can't argue with that, as I'm putting the human-centric view, and "cold" is a very human reaction to what you say. :smile: But I do not criticise you for your view; I just think it is incomplete and unbalanced. Science and rationality are powerful tools, whose utility and usefulness is proven. But that doesn't make them universally applicable. In the current discussion, for example, science and rationality have nothing useful to offer. It is a human issue, a socio-cultural issue. Different tools are appropriate. :up:

I can't help but feel that controversies of this kind arise from our regrettable tendency to disturb ourselves over matters which are not in our control. Sometimes, that tendency expresses itself in a desire to control or efforts to control that which properly speaking is not in our control, or condemn those who are not in our control for doing things which are not in our control. We should stop doing this sort of thing, I think, and as the saying goes mind our own goddamn business. Yes, I invoke the wisdom of the Stoics here, though I doubt they characterized that wisdom in quite this way. Perhaps they should have.

If it causes no harm to others, it shouldn't matter that X is biologically male or female but identifies otherwise. We may think it odd or strange or even wrong, but we must resign ourselves to the fact that we can't make others do or think as we please, and shouldn't try to, unless harm will result, and not merely harm to our sense of what's proper. If there are circumstances where it may cause harm, deal with those situations as they may arise to prevent harm. There are ways to address such things intelligently. We shouldn't make decisions, however, based on such concerns as--"what will happen if some bird-man wants us to pay his medical bills?"

I agree with the comment generally. We definitely should focus on what is in our control. However, what I personally see as an issue is the ideological part, or, to put it more gently, the fact that certain communities want to be loud about their activities and shove it into other people's faces. If we just mind our own business, why should an LGBT flag hand next to a national flag on a university campus? Who actually needs that? Sure, I could mind my own business and not be concerned about it, but then again, why? I would question the necessity of such behaviour. The said communities and groups demand to be accepted. They want to dictate the rules of behaviour and discourse in academia and news. That surely is ideological.

To the extent that others seek to control their conduct in various ways on the ground that they're transgender, lesbian, gay, whatever, I think they're justified in objecting to that and doing what they can to prevent it. It's not unreasonable to demand to be treated like any other human being should be treated. If laws discriminate against them because of what they are, I think they're justified in doing what they can to change them. But I don't think they should seek to control the conduct or thoughts of others, except as needed to prevent themselves from being restricted or harmed by others because of what they are.

Likewise, the primary purpose of human sexuality is procreation. — Terran Imperium

Kant observed - questioned - that if this were true, then why did human beings have such feelings after child-bearing age, indeed after the ability to have children?

My own understanding - fwiw - is that sex is like a 12 cylinder, 600 horsepower car constrained to operation on the narrow and genteel streets of culture, society, and social convention. Adapting the one to the other, leads, has lead, to no end of problems - maybe unavidably.

Sex is the way of procreation. To say procreation is the "primary purpose" of sexuality begs the question. Make your case.

No one would claim that being heterosexual is "ideological". — Maw

No one is. Are you quite sure no one can?

To say procreation is the "primary purpose" of sexuality begs the question. Make your case. — tim wood

To say it's the "primary purpose" is just to say that's what the sexual organs, sexual dimorphism, etc. are for.

They're not suitable for playing golf, reading the daily newspaper or calculating the distance to the moon, for example. But reproduction? Yeah, the sexual organs, the bodies built around them, the social structures built around those - these things do that very well.

Ah, Mr. George, I think you tried to one-hand this and have dropped the ball, a most uncharacteristic error. Granted reproduction takes place through the action and interaction of "the sexual organs" - if we have already decided that's what they do and how it works, if, in other words, we have already decided that is their primary purpose.

Do you suppose sexual pleasure to be something real? Where is that centered? What does that have to do with procreation? I'm told the clitoris has no function but to create pleasure - not having one I cannot say for sure.

I "buy" an evolutionary view of these things. Nothing says we had to reproduce, but clearly if we didn't we wouldn't be here. Nor am I familiar with any text that says that pleasure is a necessary part of the procreative process. Yet wouldn't you say that pleasure has something to do with it? Procreation is what they do. I argue that what they're for, beyond or if you will in addition to their procreative function, is to provide the powerful stimulus to engage in reproductive activity. That is, what they're for, is to be a source of pleasure. That's approximately Kant's conclusion. Or maybe exactly his, but the words differ.

In short, the claim of "primary purpose" if not a throwaway idea, is (usually) a Trojan horse for a different and darker idea - a politics of naming.

Sexual pleasure is real, but it's obviously subordinate to reproduction (if we didn't enjoy the thing we wouldn't do it - without that instantaneous reward, our animal ancestors would hardly have been moved by abstract appeals to "reproduce, goddamit!!!" :) ).

Now that being said, as with other functions established by nature, once they exist, they can be gerrymandered to other uses, that's true. (e.g. once we have a capacity for suffering that evolved so we would avoid injury, we can be tortured to extract information; once we have big brains that can automatically compute the ballistic trajectories of rocks and spears, we can design aeroplanes, etc., etc.)

The situation with sexual pleasure is a bit analogous to sugar craving: we have the inbulit preference for sweet things, inculcated into us by nature because sweet things were relatively rare but high value; because of that, we get into trouble when sweets and cakes are cheap and abundant. Similarly, nature has made sex one of the most pleasurable experiences possible to us, but we get into a psychological tizzy when, instead of having to like or lump the array of average-looking potential partners on offer in our local tribe, we have visually displayed before us constantly the pick of the planet's sexual magnets, men and women who most of us will never have a hope in hell of cajoling into bed.

Or again, sex is an intense craving partly because of the attrition rate in the state of nature - of babies, of infants, children and adults. So even if people fucked like rabbits, only a very few of the products of that activity would have survived through to functional adulthood to contribute to the security and prosperity of the tribe (and therefore, with the tiresome circularity characteristic of natural patterns, to the tribe's reproduction). But as civilization progresses, even if it progresses to, say, the stage of early agriculture, that "natural" degree of constant casual fucking is no longer needed, in fact it's a liability (it would return us to the Malthusian constraints that the intensity of sexual desire was born in - too many mouths, not enough food, not enough provision or space for the mouths, no place for them).

As I'm fond of saying: sex is not a toy, it's a nuclear bomb. The "accidental" product of a sexual liaison isn't just something you can throw away, there has to be some place prepared for it (otherwise you're being cruel to something for the sake of your own pleasure). Formerly this was understood, that's why sex was hedged about with taboos - and even that didn't work all that well. But it worked somewhat. The great mistake was the 1960s and the "sexual revolution." Now everyone thinks that sex is a toy, and that sexual pleasure is a value in itself.

Anyway, you can't say a thing is "for" a thing that's just ancillary to the thing it's for. If it's for anything, it's for the original thing, and the other thing is also for the original thing, even if it can take on a life of its own.

Sexual pleasure ancillary to procreation?! You Puritan you. Or rather, you not-quite-accurate Freudian/Victorian image of a Puritan. You've created a very plausible, no doubt in some aspects useful, model for imposing on sexuality what you want to impose. But do you suppose, when these things evolved, that your model is accurate with respect to how they evolved? Procreation is a not-quite-so-simple problem that nature found a solution to: parts that do the job of procreating, and parts that do the job of getting together the parts of the first part. But I doubt there's a priority involved; likely they just came along together. It's possible that in some now-extinct species that it almost worked that way, but didn't, quite.

The question becomes, what does "primary" in "primary purpose" mean? Obviously for you it means that what you think is primary, is primary, but that's not really an argument, is it? We might equally argue that pleasure was "primary" because "intended" to keep parents together. More accurately, probably, that un-parented children tended not to survive to reproduce, and that pleasure was one (of likely a number of) things that kept them together. More broadly, purpose, intent, telos all work their way in. But I do not for a moment think it worked that way. I think they're part of a story made up after the fact.

My wife chimes in. "Sexual organs," she says, "are to be used and enjoyed." Can you argue that "and" away?

I can't help but feel that controversies of this kind arise from our regrettable tendency to disturb ourselves over matters which are not in our control. Sometimes, that tendency expresses itself in a desire to control or efforts to control that which properly speaking is not in our control, or condemn those who are not in our control for doing things which are not in our control. We should stop doing this sort of thing, I think, and as the saying goes mind our own goddamn business. Yes, I invoke the wisdom of the Stoics here, though I doubt they characterized that wisdom in quite this way. Perhaps they should have.

If it causes no harm to others, it shouldn't matter that X is biologically male or female but identifies otherwise. We may think it odd or strange or even wrong, but we must resign ourselves to the fact that we can't make others do or think as we please, and shouldn't try to, unless harm will result, and not merely harm to our sense of what's proper. If there are circumstances where it may cause harm, deal with those situations as they may arise to prevent harm. There are ways to address such things intelligently. We shouldn't make decisions, however, based on such concerns as--"what will happen if some bird-man wants us to pay his medical bills?" — Ciceronianus the White

If you read my previous posts more carefully, you'll notice that I didn't particularly care nor put much attention to the transgender people or the feminists until the later comes knocking on my door spouting stupidities and the former insulting me on the internet. No one would dedicate time to talk about a subject they aren't concerned about or doesn't affect them in any way. I'll be pretty stupid and hateful if I despised those people for no reason what so ever.


Most of your speech is confusing, to be honest. I understand this is a philosophical forum but speaking like that doesn't help much on selling your point and argument. For the few parts that I suppose I understood, I'll answer.

When you reach an orgasm, it produces dopamine. Dopamine is in a way the motivator of the body, its what makes you wake up to go to work, to go eat something or to accomplish a particular goal. Dopamine. When you reach an orgasm, it produces over 200% over the average dopamine your body contains on a daily basis. Drugs do the same by stimulating your brain and producing over 300%, although the difference between those two is that the body's dopamine level get gradually lower over time so that 200% stay there for a few hours at least while with drugs the 300% levels of dopamine stay there for only a few minutes at best. That's why it's so addictive.

That's where the thirst for pleasure comes from. And the brain always wants some more of it.

Pleasure doesn't keep parents together as you say, if they so wished to, they can have sexual pleasure with another person. What's really keeping them together, that's some other chemicals entering into play that I'm not going to go into details on but basically those chemicals aren't produced as much after they birthed a child or more, its because the body deemed its initial purpose of perpetuating the human species as done. That means divorce rates go up after having children, yes.