I bet a lot of people initially feel it's somehow icky to for example physically interact with a clearly transgendered person (or at least in certain combinations), but that doesn't mean they secretly think there's something unacceptable about that person or their choices — zookeeper

Really? I think by definition if someone feels icky to physically interact with a clearly transgendered person then it means they think there is something unacceptable about that person or their choices. Otherwise they wouldn't feel icky.

Actually there are all sorts of ways in which transgender people can benefit the species. First of all, it's important to consider that human beings don't need to be baby machines in order to contribute to society which is itself a fundamental bedrock of modern child-rearing. Individuals whose normal sexual functioning is compromised for whatever reason, be it atypical psychology or a physically damaged/incomplete set of reproductive organs, are not actually hindering the human race or it's future by failing to pass on their genes. In fact, it would be best if the very healthiest among us were the only ones to reproduce to ensure that the next generation has as healthy a gene pool as possible. — VagabondSpectre

Ok, that is a good point I have to concede that reproduction is not the be all and end all in our CURRENT society. But I also belief we should all be multiplying at the faster rate possible so that we can create more geniuses per 100,000 stupid people. Geniuses advanced our society and make life better. Thanks edison, einstein etc.

Strictly speaking it doesn't really matter how many MTF trannies there are because a couple virile men could pitch in and shoulder their share of the reproductive burden; only FTM transsexuals would actually be a throttling or limiting factor on the maximum number of babies that we ought to churn out — VagabondSpectre

Yes but it says nothing about the principle that is occurring here. It is delusional thinking to claim you are something you are not and we all saw what christianity amounted to over the last couple thousand years.

Genetically speaking, the ability for variation to occur is a necessity for evolution to occur. What some call aberration can eventually turn out to be indispensable innovation. Having a high variance in sex and gender identity inherent in a gene pool may be a reflection of a healthy ability for individuals and groups to adapt to the pressures of changing cultures and environments. See the following paragraph for examples.

For someone who cannot otherwise be "happy" (in the long run for static psychological reasons, not a child's whim as some parents seem to think is the same thing), that's the only purpose that it needs to serve. If by being happy they can become a more productive member of society, then it will have been worth it to let them live out life as the gender of their choosing, presuming that we have moral or ethical purchase on their personal decisions in the first place.

Beyond that though, there are all kinds of social situations where "gender bending" fits right in; stress relief. When groups of men are on their own for extended periods of time, such as in prison, while on long hunting trips, and during extended war, transsexuals or individuals who can easily transition into a typically feminine role, would eventually become quite popular indeed... In our tree-dwelling evolutionary history we were most likely some kind of pan-sexual gender bending nymphomaniacs at some point who took every opportunity possible to have sex just for the stress relief that it can provide. Bonobos (a great ape) notably are up to this behavior all day long and in the reality of their social structures it serves a useful purpose.

Whether instances of transgenderism are just accidental but necessary evolutionary spandrels which appear as anomalies in population groups (due to how gender and genetics (or the psychology of gender) works), or is an actually load bearing part of our evolutionary history of genetic adaptation and resulting adaptability, I cannot say, but what I can say is that since nobody has a moral obligation to birth or sire 2.6 children and a dog, it doesn't really matter what gender people choose live as. If that's required for their happiness, then I would argue we're morally obligated not to interfere with them unless they are causing some kind of actual harm. — VagabondSpectre

I did read that and found now evidence to conclude that transgenderism is somehow beneficial in terms of genetic variation.

Do you have any examples of how what some call aberration can eventually turn out to be indispensable innovation in the past in humans or other animals?

Also, I would like to say I agree with you that when a transgender has already made their decision then it would cause them suffering to force them not to live their life out as a transgender but... that is because the issue should be resolved before it starts. Prevention is better than cure. It is like a fungal growth of which the treatment is painful, to let it grow isn't the solution.

For real though: the baby train is not under threat; we will not all be transgender one day; developmental variance is a function of the way evolution allows us to adapt as individuals and as groups over the long run; living in confusion or depression is less mentally healthy than being happy and transgender. — VagabondSpectre

The concern wasn't so much that our survival is under thread as it was the societal acceptance over disordered thinking.

And beyond that? Or, (if one thinks of going deeper) "below" that? Is there anything below/beyond that in terms of the foundation of our identity? Perhaps. And thankfully, it may not be all that uncommon. To go deeper than one's human identity is to identity with other mammals, and with all living beings. I dare say that someone who has deeply bonded with a pet has possibly transcended a strictly human identity. And this is disregarding the strange, otherworldly hypnotic powers of pet cats. — 0 thru 9

Yes, I agree but there is a difference between identifying your place in nature and outright claiming you are lord zapikof from planet ubiquitos or that you are a female when you are a male. It is lying and/or delusional thinking. Although, I am not saying it is anyone's "fault" just like schizophrenia or cancer isn't anyone's fault.

Transgenders have what is called a somatic delusion - where one believes that there is something wrong with their body.
http://www.minddisorders.com/Br-Del/Delusions.html

Why is it that we seem to allow some people to continue to hold their delusions, or even promote their delusional state, while others we try to "help" them overcome their delusions and see things as they truly are (that they are actually the gender they were born as). It comes down to "Is it moral to allow someone to continue believing in a lie, or to make them face the facts?" Would it be immoral to help reinforce their lie to themselves?

I would like to know how consistent people are in this. Why do we find it okay to tell the religious that they believe in a delusion, but not okay to tell this to a transgender?

Why do we find it okay to allow doctors to make money off mentally ill people to perform a sex change when that essentially counts as mutilating their body as a result of their delusion? — Harry Hindu

Wow, I didn't expect to hear a very concise and accurate description of this considering your post in my other thread:

"Your pathetic attempts at insulting me just show me that I'm wasting my time with a loser. The list of reasonable people on these forums is shrinking. Yep, Im wasting my time"

Jesus man, dealing with you is like going from the north pole to the equator in 2 seconds.

But I also belief we should all be multiplying at the faster rate possible so that we can create more geniuses per 100,000 stupid people. — intrapersona

The Normal Distribution will not be mocked.



As you can see, most people cluster in the middle of any distribution of traits where millions / billions of subjects are included. The people in the middle are not "stupid" -- they are normal -- that is they have the usual range of traits characteristic of very large numbers of people.

The "stupid people" are on the left tail of the distribution. The dumber, the fewer. The geniuses are on the right tail. For them too, the smarter the fewer. So when counting traits and people, you should find about as many extremely stupid people as extremely geniusy people.

(Normal distributions are sometimes skewed. Practical experience will inform any moderately observant statistician that the normal distribution isn't actually normal; it's skewed in favor of somewhat-to-very-stupid-people. Secret research has shown conclusively that no matter how fast geniusy parents breed, they can not outbreed stupid parents.)

Aside from the normal distribution, there is always a question of whether society can educate and use a lot more geniuses. I tend to doubt it. A million Einsteins will almost certainly NOT solve a million different and unique problems. Out of 7 billion people, we already have quite a few geniuses and they are not stepping forward with solutions to our problems. The large number of problems not solved by geniuses is due to:

1. Many geniuses are too lazy to get anything done (just as some ordinary people are)
2. Some geniuses are too crazy to get anything done (just as some ordinary people are)
3. Some geniuses are lazy, crazy, and not very imaginative to boot (just as some ordinary people are)
4. Many geniuses are interested in the same few problems. The other 950,000 problems go begging.
5. Some geniuses prefer to do manual labor or engage in meditation. Some are crooks or politicians.
6. Many geniuses have plumbed the universe and have found that we're totally fucked no matter what.

Therefore, forget about it.

I can see why you would say that, but I am just talking about practicality here. I am not saying what is natural is best but what is most practical is best. It just so happens that what is our fundamental biological nature (reproduction) IS most practical and therefor to say it is the opposite is false. — intrapersona

This is just redirecting the naturalistic fallacy. Something being practical is is beneficial toward some purpose, which you have already defined as reproduction, so it is circular logic. Nature doesn't necessarily insist on universal reproduction. Many species only mate during certain seasons which seems to promote the species by not exhausting all the available resources or avoiding predators. Humans have similar evolved tendencies, so that we spend a lot of our time doing other things. It seems to be a male sexual fantasy that nature is only concerned about reproduction, which is probably another byproduct of keeping the species moving forward. Evolution works by trial and error over long periods of time. Unless you have run many controlled experiments and have an extensive model of human behavior, you can't conclusively say that some desire for a few humans to disagree with their assigned gender isn't a healthy experiment.

By definition, a female baby is always born as a female. A woman is a mature female and therefor de beauvoir is right in that you grow in to one. BUT to be a woman necessitates you be a female in the first place, by definition that is. To say you are a woman when you are a man is frankly absurd, I might as well say I am a peanut and not a human. — intrapersona

There is no scientifically strict definition of "female". Is it just genitalia? There are cases of babies being born with ambiguous genitalia. In some cultures, there are communities built around children with this ambiguity. In the west, doctors usually look at DNA and then perform a kind of "sex change" to align them closer to what is socially accepted. There are many degrees of "intersexed" individuals. While developing in the womb, we are all "female" according to genitalia, it is only hormones that push us to develop one direction or the other. So is a "female" XX on the last chromosome? There are individuals born with androgen insensitivity syndrome, or AIS, who have XY chromosomes, but develop fully female bodies because their bodies don't respond to male hormones. The Olympic committee thought this is enough of an issue to require DNA tests for athletes so they can eliminate individuals with this syndrome. Simone de Beauvoir's point was that men are not defined by sexual characteristics, but women are defined by how they are different than men. It means that gender is ultimately a social construct, a way of putting people into general categories. If it were not a social construct, we wouldn't be talking about "men dressing like women", because there is no genitalia or DNA definitively associated with clothing. (In fact, there is a long list of fashion choices that were reversed -- high heel shoes, for example, were considered masculine until the 18th century).

It hasn't worked? Like it hasn't worked in making 7 billion people over the last 50,000 years? — intrapersona

It hasn't worked in the sense that humans are still not binary. Nature seems to have settled on a certain percentage of hermaphrodites and people who are unwilling or unable to reproduce, and the proportion seems to be globally universal. There is still nowhere in the world where every family can reproduce as much as they want without some negative social consequences. Having that many people is only possible because humans took time out to work on technology and managing their environment to make that number possible, besides just having non-stop sex.

You agree that society takes on the role of deciding what individuals are required to believe is ethical and that social conventions currently force people to accept gays, transgender etc. and that such a thing is oppression. — intrapersona

No, I don't think society should dictate ethics. A society is a collection of individuals who agree to respect each others rights and not cause harm to each other. Doesn't matter if you are talking about homsexuality, someone being transgendered, or heterosexual rape and abuse. That's not oppression because it doesn't prevent you from living your life as you wish. The only negative feelings seem to come from your own feelings of discomfort in having to accommodate people with different viewpoints. I'm just saying, logically, you need to accommodate others if you want your own freedom accommodated. I'm sure there are a dozen things you currently tolerate which would have made your ancestors feel really uncomfortable that we accept without thinking.

You disagree with me in that transgender is a disorder. You seem to view it as "an adaption towards novel conditions". But what is novel about pretending to be a peanut? Or saying that you are God? It is all deranged thinking and is in no way any more practical, reasonable are novel in any way shape or form. — intrapersona

Evolution works by trial and error over a long time. All humans share the same DNA. It is only a poorly understood mechanism which chooses between XX and XY chromosomes, from which we develop into a bimodal distribution. It isn't a disorder for a female to identify as female or a male to identify as male. It would be inevitable that, just like there are genetic outliers, there would be a few psychological outliers, just from chance. The only way you could get clean binary genders is by somehow developing men and women as separate species, (which would throw out the whole practicality of reproduction thing).

Logically, too, I think most people would resist having our motives biologically determined. We like to think of ourselves as free agents. Without it, we are nothing but animals set aside for breeding purposes and condemn anyone who dares step outside. Maybe, in some way, evolution is helping us find our way beyond our biological constraints.

I just want to investigate how I might be wrong in my thinking — intrapersona

How might you be wrong? Let me count the ways... (The count will take quite some time; I'll get back to you when the processing is complete. This may take many months of computational time.)

the square cube — intrapersona

the circular hole — intrapersona

God, in His infinite wisdom and gracious, loving mercy solved this problem before the beginning of time. No matter how large the peg and how tight the hole, they will always fit together. Because the square peg is somewhat flexible and the circular hole is quite commodious, being gay is not a problem.

What do you think about what I said about gays having a disorder of the mind? Isn't it counter-evolution and therefor going AGAINST your own fundamental nature? — intrapersona

An individual human is to evolution what an individual ant is to evolution. My fundamental nature crosses a lot of categories, of which sex is only one.

It might be considered a "disorder of the mind" IF 1 or 2% of the population were homosexual and 98% - 99% were 100% heterosexual. But that is not the case. Freud said that humans are prone to 'polymorphous perversity' - meaning we are quite capable of being erotically aroused by all sorts of stimuli that have nothing to do with reproduction from birth to about the age of 5 (in psychoanalytic terms).

Kinsey found that heterosexuality and homosexuality are two poles of sexual orientation and rather than being all or nothing, there is a shading of interest in behavior between exclusive homosexuals (2.5% of the population) and exclusively heterosexual (maybe 70% of the population). A fairly large share of the adult male population have a little, some, or quite a bit of attraction to the same sex at various times during their lives. This attraction may be entertained only in the imagination, but when acted upon the behavior is very episodic, brief, and limited in terms of the actual acts performed. In a fairly large percentage of cases, it will be acted upon once or twice in a lifetime, or more often for a short period of time. "Acted upon" may be nothing more than mutual masturbation or getting a blow job

The "slightly interested in other men" guy would probably not look forward to getting fucked by some guy hung like the aroused horse shown below. I'm posting a picture, knowing that it might excite some philosophers to an elevated state of arousal. If you do get aroused, just be aware that you are evidently oriented towards homosexual bestiality. Well, we are polymorphously perverse, after all. The least you can do to demonstrate it.



Go horse go.

Gender like race are social constructions...not somatic delusions....fool!

Buckle up buckeroos...

Ok, that is a good point I have to concede that reproduction is not the be all and end all in our CURRENT society. But I also belief we should all be multiplying at the faster rate possible so that we can create more geniuses per 100,000 stupid people. Geniuses advanced our society and make life better. Thanks edison, einstein etc. — intrapersona

More people more problems. You're presuming that as our maximum number of geniuses grows out ability to take care of all the extra idiot by-products will not proportionally scale together, or unfavorably for Einstein's odds. There might be a limit to how many morons an army of Einsteins can actually manage.

Yes but it says nothing about the principle that is occurring here. It is delusional thinking to claim you are something you are not and we all saw what christianity amounted to over the last couple thousand years. — intrapersona

I don't exactly see the necessary delusion anywhere. The trannies that I know have no delusions about their genitals or their chromosomes. What they do have is a strong desire to live out life as the opposite of their biological gender, for whatever actual or perceived reasons. They don't actually delude themselves...

I did read that and found now evidence to conclude that transgenderism is somehow beneficial in terms of genetic variation.

Do you have any examples of how what some call aberration can eventually turn out to be indispensable innovation in the past in humans or other animals? — intrapersona

Strictly speaking we don't have a full grasp of genetics and psychology yet so we more or less only have bits and pieces of the full story, and with that said, here are some of those bits:

Epigenetics is the study of how genes express themselves differently in different environments, presumably in an adaptive capacity, which helps us understand variance in the same organism across different environments (It is the way in which environmental factors affect how genes react and causes changes to individual organisms). When a fetus is first created it's genetic code will forever (we think) be static, but the possible ways that these genes can "express themselves" can be better understood by considering what they do in all possible environments and how the results can differ. Endocrinology is the study of "the endocrine system", (our internal (and sometimes external) hormone network and how it works) which in the pre-natal environment (the womb) happens to play an integral role in the "masculinization" of male fetuses. The amount of testosterone present in a prenatal environment can vary depending on a host of factors such as the pre-existing level of testosterone present (naturally per the mother or due to previous pregnancies) and so provides a mechanism by which "masculinity" can vary in intensity, which by a very easy stretch has a great deal to do with an individuals resulting sexual preferences. A history of pregnancy with males for instance predisposes individual mothers toward an ability to produce more testosterone during pregnancy (making each subsequent male fetus more "masculine") which acts as a kind of genetic dice roll that contributes to the distribution curve describing "average masculinity of offspring" across large breeding groups.

Whatever the mechanisms, we know that variance in phenotypes exists inherently in human populations. It's easy to surmise that variance in masculinity plays a role in how successful a given population of humans will be. Given possible environmental factors such as constant warfare, having large men is going to be a good trait, but on an island with limited space and nobody but your own tribe to fight, being very masculine or large might actually be detrimental. In the war-inducing landscape the big masculine men would survive more often and gain more social status for their contributions, and in turn get to mate more often and pass on their extra masculine genes, thereby raising the average masculinity of future generations (sliding the distribution curve more toward "masculine offspring"). In the converse landscape large men will have a harder time surviving in times of hardship due to greater nourishment requirements, and if "aggression" does after-all have something to do with masculinity, this could have a deleterious effect on the masculinity of the group through loss of the masculine genes in unnecessary conflict, being out-reproduced by lovers instead of fighters (fighting might not actually earn you anything beneficial to your reproductive success if the risk is too high and people can just as easily (or more successfully) reproduce without fighting).

This phenomenon can very starkly be seen in what are known as "tournament species" and "pair-bonding species", which are two terms used to describe animals with completely opposing mating strategies. Tournament species have males that compete (hence "tournament") for female mates. Deer and lions are two good examples of tournament species which very blatantly compete for control over mating rights (albeit one more violently than the other). Meanwhile pair-bonding species are generally monogamous and often mate for life (hence "pair" and "bonding"). One of the most notable consistent differences between pair bonding species and tournament species is that tournament species have very high degrees of "sexual dimorphism" (the degree to which males and females of a particular species have different characteristics) and pair bonding species have very low degrees of sexual dimorphism (males and females being basically identical apart from genitalia). Crows are a notable example; you can't sex a crow at a distance. Gibbons are a kind of ape which has a pair-bonding social structure, mates for life, and has almost no sexual dimorphic traits, if any.

Bringing this all back to relevancy, humans do have sexually dimorphic traits, but they exist in varying degrees of intensity and across a very broad spectrum which evidently spreads so far that it sometimes crosses the actual "gender norm" line of typically male and female characteristics. That is to say, some males are very "tournament" oriented in that they are much bigger and much stronger (along with other "masculine" characteristics), and other males are no bigger or stronger or "masculine" (aside from genitalia and chromosomes) than an average female, and yet still some (an even less number) males are so non-"masculine" that they by all other metrics possess more typically female traits than male ones (including hormonally). Women too exist across a scale from extremely petite and feminine to very very masculine indeed. We're not hard pressed at all to find examples of manly women and unmanly men.

In tournament species like deer all males have antlers, and in lions all males have manes. This is genetically rigid because their social structures and the selective forces acting on reproduction are rigid. Without antlers the male deer will be killed or maimed by another male if they try to acquire a mate. Male lions will have their necks punctured or broken if they don't have a massive tuft of incredibly thick fur to protect it from other lions. These are the selective forces that ensure each new generation will be selected for these specific (and other) traits. Pair-bonding species on the other hand select for something perhaps describable as "proximity to the ideal parent". Tournament specie fathers generally do no child rearing at all (they are concerned with getting it in and leaving the mother to take care of the rest), but pair-bonding males essentially need to earn their reproductive success by being good child-rearers, which generally means being the same as the mother and working as a team. Sexual dimorphism serves less of a purpose when both parents need to be ideally equipped for mostly the same tasks (child rearing) while the males of tournament species are selected for being equipped to environmental forces which act uniquely upon males ("the tournament").

Now, tying this all together into a relevant and tidy package, humans categorically defy being placed toward either end of the spectrum of "tournament species" and "pair-bonding species" in every way. Sexual dimorphism exists in many individual humans, but in many it is absent; genetically speaking humans have the capacity to have a great deal of sexually dimorphic traits, and almost none at all. Our social structures are likewise highly variable; we have had monogamous cultures, tournament style cultures, and everything in-between. Unlike deer and lions our environment is constantly changing or at least highly varied (often changed by humans themselves) and so it is fortuitous that our social structures can be highly variable in order to better adapt to a wider variety of possible future environments (thanks evolution!).

Overtime, the degrees of "sexually dimorphic genes" inherently present within a local gene-pool could go up or down depending on what selective forces happen to be acting upon the individuals and social structures of that group (which can favor greater and lesser degrees of dimorphism). Largely via the endocrine system (such as the epigenetic process of pre-natal testosterone changing the level of masculinity of developing fetuses), natural degrees of deviation from average levels of masculinity occur within certain margins in human populations, and when a certain deviation occurs enough times, and happens to be a reproductively successful deviation (even potentially at the expense of one's own reproduction but to the benefit of the reproduction of one's group with whom one shares genes), then that specific degree or average level of masculinity will become more prevalent or "the norm" in that gene-pool.

From an evolutionary perspective people who are outliers in terms of the "average male" and the "average female" (being a completely non-masculine male or a completely masculine female) are the results of unlikely genetic and epigenetic dice-rolls but who no less by virtue of being born have been given evolution's consent to see if what they've got is something that works as a part of mankind's ongoing need to adapt to changing circumstances and evolution's constant search for useful innovation. I've left it mostly unsaid up until now but obviously someone's level of "masculinity" can obviously have dramatic effects on their psychology in terms of their sexual and "identity" preferences. Someone is not "born transgender" per se, but instead they are born with a predisposition toward a phenotype which is more rare than others (the masculine woman and the feminine man) which in and of itself can go on to influence their behavior in ways which we rarely encounter and find so flabbergastingly confusing and counter-intuitive. We can sit on the high ground of the distribution curve and say things like "that extreme outlier (in behavior or appearance) over there is deluded/unhealthy/not-normal/disordered/freakish/diseased/horrific/aberrant/comedic/psychotic/absurd/(you get the idea), but in reality all that statement necessarily amounts to is "they are different". "Different" is not the same as "un-healthy". "Different" is a necessary feature of evolutionary progress.

Deer antlers are not the product of deities metaphorically banging their heads together in order come up with the design for "a normal healthy deer", they're the product of deer ancestors actually banging their heads together, over and over again, inter-generationally, until the deer ancestors with weak heads survived and mated less often, or the deer ancestors with strong heads survived and mated more often. At some point "head strength" as a function of gene expression likely crossed a threshold thanks to lucky mutation (an accident, for lack of a better word) and actual small and rudimentary bone protrusions emerged on some skulls which turned out to be wildly successful in a world where headbutting is an important skill, for obvious reasons. From there on a new selection process takes over which favors larger antlers with more pointy bits over smaller ones until you have something not unlike the deer antler of today in all it's once aberrant but enduringly absurd glory. The lions mane has a similar story. So does the eyeball. So does everything else that has evolved. At one point it was all something new; something inherently different and inherently risky, but also fundamentally necessary for "evolutionary progress" to occur.

Maybe transgender and some other sexual and identity based deviances won't turn out to be evolutionarily advantageous adaptations, but positing a strong argument toward that end is made quite difficult by the fact that the extraordinary dynamism of human culture makes predicting future selective forces too difficult to do even if we could predict the complex ramifications that they may eventually have. Furthermore the mere consistent presence of deviant individuals in society and the extant genetic/epigenetic/horomonal mechanisms which facilitate their existence suggests that there are some possible environments or circumstances where these deviancies are beneficial from an evolutionary perspective. The fact that the human (and male human) anus is capable (yes I'm being serious) of producing pleasure from being penetrated (uhh... it's not what you think!) suggests to an extremely high degree that homosexuality is so substantially beneficial of an adaptation to have in one's arsenal (honestly!) that the good god Darwin has seen fit to outfit us all with a fully functioning standard issue multi-purpose rectum for reasons relating inexorably to our reproductive success as a species.

So you see, trannies are indeed an extreme deviation from the norm but still can represent a normal expression of what makes apes so great: adaptability; versatility; variance. Maybe they drew the short developmental straw and are relegated to be a kind of cultural/genetic astronaut in search of new habitable space in as yet unsettled niches. I don't pity them so long as they are happy.

Also, I would like to say I agree with you that when a transgender has already made their decision then it would cause them suffering to force them not to live their life out as a transgender but... that is because the issue should be resolved before it starts. Prevention is better than cure. It is like a fungal growth of which the treatment is painful, to let it grow isn't the solution. — intrapersona

How can we cure what we don't understand? We can socially engineer our new generations into having prejudice against trannies and thereby reduce the likelihood that any among them will turn out to be one, but I wonder if in doing so we would not be somehow arbitrarily limiting the possible happiness and freedom of individuals who for whatever reason do not conform to the prevailing norm and are otherwise doing no harm. If you propose that we should do something like regulate everyone's hormones as a preventative measure then you're taking evolution into your own hands and playing a dangerous game; one day we might need the gays! The dude who invented the computer was gay after all... What if Einstein was also gay?

Mind=Blown

[END CREDITS]

Really? I think by definition if someone feels icky to physically interact with a clearly transgendered person then it means they think there is something unacceptable about that person or their choices. Otherwise they wouldn't feel icky. — intrapersona

By what definition? I don't know any definition that says if one feels 'icky' (squeamish? uncomfortable?) about something that they consider it unacceptable.

How does that work with somebody trying to overcome a phobia, or a new medical student learning to get comfortable with giving injections and handling dead body parts?

Many people feel squeamish about handling insects, birds or even animals, and recognise that as a weakness in themself, of which they would like to be rid.

It is a downright disease of the human condition and it as preposterous that we accept it, it is like cancer — intrapersona

There's nothing inherently wrong with cancer, either. A fortiori because there's nothing inherently wrong with anything. It's just a matter of what people do or do not desire. Obviously most people do not desire to have cancer, so there are organized efforts to try to figure out how we can minimize its impact, if not outright eradicate it. If most people valued cancer instead, then there would be no organized effort against it, and there would be nothing wrong with that, although of course the minority of people who didn't like it would find that situation frustrating.

A lot of your comments seem to be based on ideas that (a) there is some "natural order" which we can violate in some ways, and (b) for some reason, we have an obligation to that natural order, an obligation to not violate it.

It's my view that both (a) and (b) are complete bunk.

Well what's the latest science on that? Do transgender people have actual physiological differences in their brain or is it purely a psychological thing? What kind of treatment or therapy could "cure" them, and would that tend to be easier or harder than undergoing a sex change, or just living as transgender without a sex change?

Surely the answers to your questions depend on those. — zookeeper

I don't know. Are there any physiological differences in the brains of the religious who have delusions of grandeur (that they are important to a god, or that they continue to exist independent of their body)? Did you bother reading the link I provided that shows all the various kinds of delusions one can have? And after reading it did you think about asking what the physiological differences would be for all those different kinds of delusions? This is why I asked if people are going to be consistent. So far, people aren't. It seems like many people on these forums could be categorized as having some of these delusions. Just look at any political thread and you will find people scared of being persecuted by some other political party, or a nihilistic thread where the feeling the world is going to end, or other threads where insignificant remarks, events, or objects are given more importance than other remarks and events.

What kind of cure could there be for the religious?

Are you equating gender with biological sex? Because I don't know if many transgender men, for example, believe that they have a penis despite the fact that they have a vagina. — Michael

That sounds like a somatic delusion. What happens when you tell them that they have a vagina when they believe they have a penis? Don't they become offended?

Did you read the part in my link, "Delusions can be difficult to distinguish from overvalued ideas, which are unreasonable ideas that a person holds, but the affected person has at least some level of doubt as to its truthfulness. A person with a delusion is absolutely convinced that the delusion is real."

Wikipedia goes on to say that delusional people are incorrigible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion

That sounds like a somatic delusion. What happens when you tell them that they have a vagina when they believe they have a penis? Don't they become offended? — Harry Hindu

That's the thing; they don't believe that they have a penis. That's why they identify as a transgender man, not as a cisgender man.

If you do get aroused, just be aware that you are evidently oriented towards homosexual bestiality — Bitter Crank

And you are likely to enjoy getting a swift kick to the crown jewels first by him and then by me. >:O
Having said that, in the last 6 months, someone has been going at night, to different ranches, as far as two miles from our ranch (as per the Farrier who knows more than the mailman ;) ) haltering up mares, turning over their water buckets and leave plastic gloves behind. Now, the mares show no sign of penetration or lubrication so we aren't sure what the gloves are for other than leaving a sign that they were there. The Sherriff has been called out NUMEROUS times and all they say is, you are going to have to catch him yourself, because they have not been able to catch whomever it is, while on someone's property.
So that is what the ranchers are doing, preparing to catch the sick bastard themselves and whomever they catch are likely going to wish they had been caught by the Sheriff first. >:)

By definition, a female baby is always born as a female — intrapersona

And by definition, (legal definition in Germany), a baby of indeterminate gender (1 in 1500 births, over 80,000 per year) is always born as of indeterminate gender. How does your prejudice deal with them? The grave injustice done to these people by enforced gender assignment over the years is incalculable. Why would you want to continue and extend that kind of oppression?

haltering up mares, turning over their water buckets and leave plastic gloves behind — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Lesbians, obviously.

This discussion is bottom of the rung.

This discussion is bottom of the rung. — Heister Eggcart

No, it isn't the "bottom of the rung". Rungs do not have tops and bottoms; it's the ladder that has those. What you mean to say is that we have succeeded, at long last and with great effort, in reaching the bottom rung of the ladder.

So, what's below the bottom rung?

So, what's below the bottom rung? — Bitter Crank

Probably this conversation about rungs and ladders, I'd wager...

Probably this conversation about rungs and ladders, I'd wager... — Heister Eggcart

I'd agreed on that one.

Or maybe saying that we have no idea what a phrase like "the world" refers to.

What happens when you tell them that they have a vagina when they believe they have a penis? — Harry Hindu

What if they're post-op?

That's the thing; they don't believe that they have a penis. That's why they identify as a transgender man, not as a cisgender man. — Michael

What if they're post-op? — VagabondSpectre

You both didn't seem to get the gist of my post.

They believe that their body doesn't match their "inside". They believe that they were born in the "wrong" body. In other words, they believe something is wrong with their body when there isn't anything wrong. This is a somatic delusion. People with somatic delusions are incorrigible and absolutely convinced that the delusion is real. So when you question them about their delusion, as if they could be wrong, they get easily offended - you know, just like those religious types.

Just think about it for a second without getting caught up in the politics and ethics of it. These people believe that they have a soul or spirit that is somehow imbued with either masculinity or femininity that is opposite of their body's masculinity or femininity. Do souls or spirits have a quality of masculinity or femininity about them, and can souls be placed in the wrong body?

I think the actual distribution is skewed to the left ;)

Wow, I didn't expect to hear a very concise and accurate description of this considering your post in my other thread:

"Your pathetic attempts at insulting me just show me that I'm wasting my time with a loser. The list of reasonable people on these forums is shrinking. Yep, Im wasting my time"

Jesus man, dealing with you is like going from the north pole to the equator in 2 seconds. — intrapersona

Really? :-| Why don't you quote the rest of the post instead of cherry-picking in another pathetic attempt to insult me.

Maybe you should think about how you seem to think I'm providing a concise and accurate description when you agree with me, but I'm not being concise and accurate when you don't agree. Maybe you're letting your emotions dictate your search for truth.

Just think about it for a second without getting caught up in the politics and ethics of it. These people believe that they have a soul or spirit that is somehow imbued with either masculinity or femininity that is opposite of their body's masculinity or femininity. Do souls or spirits have a quality of masculinity or femininity about them, and can souls be placed in the wrong body? — Harry Hindu

Surely you realize that the phrase "born in the wrong body" (or the idea in general) isn't necessarily to be taken literally and doesn't need to include any beliefs about souls or spirits? It can just be a way of saying "a big incompatibility with sense of identity and physical body" in a way which, I suppose, might better describe what it feels like to oneself. No doubt there's a lot of silly people who believe in masculine and feminine souls and what have you, but it doesn't make sense to claim that that's a requirement.

If people get offended when you suggest that really they might simply be delusional and wrong about it, that probably has something to do with the fact that they know that regardless of what you call their condition, they can't just make it go away. Calling something a delusion can be useful if there's a realistic possibility of actually dispelling the delusion, but if everyone involved knows that it's a more or less permanent delusion, then insisting on a negative word like delusion is to be a bit of an ass about it.

Do you have any examples of how what some call aberration can eventually turn out to be indispensable innovation in the past in humans or other animals? — intrapersona

You might consider the sickle cell gene. One copy confers some resistance to malaria, two copies gets you anaemia and early onset death.