I've even said that reproduction doesn't even define the sexes — Gregory

No? What are those various reproductive parts for, then--whether they get used or not?.

I'm still having trouble seeing the importance of categorizing the soul as you describe. Why do you feel the need to call one type male and the other type female? In other words, what kind of problem arises if the gender of the soul is ignored or misdiagnosed?

I don't think genitals define the soul they are just body parts designed for pleasure, whether you use them or not

Because then everyone is androgynous

Why is that a problem? That the soul is genderless and we are stuck in a gendered body.

It's very strange to view the body as alone accounting for gender. Idn. I was raised traditional Catholic (Latin mass altar boy, choir singer, homeschooled) but left the Church when I was 18 and never went back. I was formed by religions and old movies growing up. I am aware that I see things differently than others because of my sheltered childhood, but I've been able to understand a lot of things without becoming a relativist. This topic makes sense to me as I've described it. If my ideas spread and cause harm, that is not my intent and I want to prevent it

I think the main reason that this topic became explosive is because of the mention of trans people. I still don't completely understand the connection you were trying to make when you mentioned trans people (If the body being "alone" or I assume you meant "being different", in attributes that the soul has and vice versa is weird to you, how can they be different? Are they born the same? Do they discover that their soul and body is mismatched? Does the body/soul change as time flow to become different?)

The transgender topic is one of those things you would call "rage baits." I think many people here, because you were also trying to explain something very abstract at the same time, thought you were mal-intentioned. I think why people find this topic so engaging in a bombastic way is worth a discussion on it's own but I'll leave it alone for this thread.

I asked if people having gender reassignment was an almost religious activity and drew on how I see souls in a Platonic way. I don't think asking why people get upset when transgender people are mentioned, or if abortion is brought up among people who it isn't affecting, will be fruitful at this point,.. but it might. My impression now is that *somehow* people think they are being told what to do with their genitals if someone crosses their opinion on these questions. Its dawned on me today that this is likely what it is, so I regret making this thread.

If someone doesn't have breasts but everyone calls them a girl, the situation is not unnatural. — Gregory

Every mammal at least has breasts, What you're on about is tits, but you lack the courage of even your own thinking to say it, or even clearly to think it..

I'm trying to let this thread die because my ideas were causing people distress, — Gregory

The only distressed person is you. And that because - horrors - someone asked you to clarify what you were saying.

I don't think genitals define the soul they are just body parts designed for pleasure — Gregory

Well, I don't think the genitals define the soul either, but they certainly define the body--the part that we actually know something about. Pleasure is the bait to get us to reproduce. Maybe orgasms are proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy, but probably not.

I think why people find this topic so engaging in a bombastic way is worth a discussion on it's own but I'll leave it alone for this thread. — FlaccidDoor

You can't get away with putting that interesting bait out there and then covering it up!

Sex / gender are bomb-making materials because they are such a basic part of our self-definitions. We are sexed one way or the other because we are embodied being, and how we are embodied matters to how we experience the world. Embodiment is THE fundamental fact of our existences. Start screwing around with that and you have trouble on your hands. (Not you; anybody)

so I regret making this thread. — Gregory

So fine: you regret it. But you did, and it's a perfectly fine, if somewhat hazardous topic.

I asked if people having gender reassignment was an almost religious activity — Gregory

In a sense, yes. Religious interpretations are not restricted by physical realities. One can believe that a little guardian angel perches on one shoulder, and a little winged devil perches on the other. One can believe in souls just as easily as not. One can think one's soul / or body will get brought back from the dead one day (actually it IS the body that gets resurrected). One can believe in heaven or not, because there are no local, state, federal, or international laws forbidding it. (Well, usually not, anyway.).

Thinking that one is actually a female trapped in a male body (or some such rendition of that song and dance) is like religion -- you can think whatever you wish. Of course, if wishes were horses the peasants would ride. As it happens, they are not.

I suspect that much of the gender stir is actually a proxy for the more traditional and harsher realities that people are being forced to deal with.

I did nothing of the sort. I'm pointing out you are enforcing everyone must have an identity of male or female to find physiologically.

It would only be true in cases of having a male or female identity to find. If someone had an identity to find physiologically, which was not male or female, your claim would not be true. There are souls other than male or female someone might have.

I asked if people having gender reassignment was an almost religious activity and drew on how I see souls in a Platonic way. — Gregory

I see now. I think it may not be far from one, because you need a certain set of beliefs to conduct it and it is ritualistic in many respects. A rite of passage in a way for the gender dysphoric.

You can't get away with putting that interesting bait out there and then covering it up! — Bitter Crank

Fair enough! I think the reason it's bombastic is because a significant portion of society do not believe trans people exist, as defined by pro-transgender groups. For example, to define a transgender person, as in a person who transferred genders, one must first agree that a process to "transfer" them is valid. The current means used are hormone therapy and gender surgeries. While these words might describe a path for gender correction to one side, these, to someone who does not consider them valid, might be synonymous with chemical misuse and genital mutilation, respectively. This fundamental difference in the definitions of the words that are used by the opposing sides are not only insulting, but acts as a catalyst for misunderstanding.

Additionally there are cases in which children, without the consent of their parents, was allowed to be given hormone therapy and such. The presence of children creates a heavier moral weight for both sides and adds to the powder keg that is this topic.

I haven't said the physiology matters like that. The soul comes from neurons so that's a separate issue. Everyone's psychology is different too and won't always accord with epistemic philosophy. I can't prove anything I've said because this is not an issue that can be demonstrated. I recognize that nobody is saying that people should change their bodies without due consideration, and I know different cultures have different ways of life. What my position was, and is, is about finding some meaning and ontology in a ocean of relativism that surrounds me and a lot of other people

Additionally there are cases in which children, without the consent of their parents, was allowed to be given hormone therapy and such. — FlaccidDoor

With or without parental consent, it seems extremely hazardous to give anyone younger than 21 sex hormones for purposes of treating 'gender dysphoria'. Giving sex hormones to children might border on criminal medical malpractice.

Even if I don't accept their premises, some people believe they will benefit from gender-reassignment therapy. I have known a number of transgender persons and they seemed happier after they completed the treatment they desired. My sample is small, however. All of these people were adults --some middle-aged. They had had enough time to mature and work through their various issues. a 10 year old or 16 year old has emphatically not had enough time. Besides which their brains are maybe a decade or two from maturation (which is around age 26).

One of the older men I knew who transitioned had been trained in college as a behaviorist. He had no patience for humanistic psychology. He was also a vet, a recovering alcoholic, and homeless when I met him (in the agency I worked for). He was about 42. As far as I know, he did not have anything removed, but did get hormones and developed a somewhat feminized body. So, he reported feeling like he had the wrong identity since being a child. The amount of harassment he went through on his way was too great to justify a moderate desire to become the opposite gender. He REALLY wanted it. So, it worked for him.

Will it work for him or anyone else in the long run? Who knows. Not my call.

I have no reason to accept the idea that there are souls to begin with, however if there were, why would the soul have a gender? Could it not be the case that at a higher level of consciousness gender is not germane? It reminds me of a question a student asked in religious education class some years ago - "Do souls have sex in heaven?" Answer (according to the Reverend Bryce) "No, now get out!"

I am interested Gregory what you are looking for in all this - some eternal essence of male and female? That's what is seems like from your second post. And I'm curious why it matters - are you trying to track this back to here and now?

My apologies, that was meant to be "psychologically".

The point I'm making is about souls/identity, not the body.

I was curious if others thought of gender in objective terms like I do. If others can talk face to face with someone without the assumption that they are either male or female, good for them. I can't do that

I personally do not agree with supporting the transgender agenda. I'm not an expert but it is my understanding that near 100% of gender dysphoria cases disappear when the gender dysphoria is not upheld by their surroundings. If they are, their suicide rates are significantly higher than the average population. I believe that going through therapy and surgery increases their suicide rates even higher but I'm not as confident in that statistic as compared to the previous ones.

Additionally many of the hormone therapy treatments, if not all of them, supposedly does not have the amount of research that it should have before it is used on humans. Lastly, gender dysphoria was regarded medically as a mental disorder (I'm not sure now). So in conclusion, being pro-transgender may be akin to pushing the mentally sick into having a terrible life (judging from the suicide rates) and with permanent consequences.

I have yet to hear positive data about it.

I think that the problem with your discussion is that you keep leaping from one area to another, transgender, souls and, reading through the thread it is a complete jumble. I am not saying that you should not have a discussion, but bearing in mind that gender is such a vast topic I think that you need to try to narrow it down in order for it to work. It is also a sensitive topic, so ideally it calls for some knowledge rather than just rambling opinion. Here, what I am talking about is the way in which there is inequality between men and women, and the experience of minorities.

So, I do think that you need to really think about is what you wish to ask. I probably won't engage further in the discussion because I don't wish to get into such a politically contentious debate on this forum. However, the one thing which I do also think that you should bear in mind is that you are talking about the whole topic in such an abstract manner, whereas, in fact, gender is a lived experience for every human being.

Ok, thanks

That's very well considered, Jack.