Ah - very fair. Thank you.

That works for me, in an extremely cursory way. I'm not doing technical reading right now lol. Seems reasonable to integration is what's interesting to explain, but emergence is going to be the actual breakthrough.

That said, serious people (as apokrosis notes) do consider that consciousness is not its 'own thing' to be explained. I guess that makes no sense to me and smacks of how I described it above. I just could be dead wrong.

Both of the above: :up:

Transitioning children seems... dubious at best. Abusive at worst.

It we understand the semiotic modelling relation that gives us life and mind, we can then start to analyse “consciousness” as the stack of modelling relations that an embodied and socially cocooned organism can weave around its being — apokrisis

This may come across antagonistic - but it is unintended: I think you're looking at leaves and missing the trees they sprout from.

I respect that you take there be a, more or less, full answer to the problem of consciousness but to me, none of what you've put forward (which I highly appreciate) even attempts to answer it. I actually thikn what you're talking about is highly important, and you're dealing with it well. It just seems utterly wrong to think it answers something like the Hard Problem. I don't take hand-waving very well..

This sounds like a straw man. It is a view, but not one that anyone I can think of holds. — bert1

It is an incredibly strawman, but its one people like Dennett tended to embrace, conceptually. I think its just a stand-in for "I dunno *shrug* lets look at something else".

Consciousness is a discreet sensation. We need it explained (well, no. We want it explained). We currently have no explanation for its emergence, or origin. All we have are postulates - none of which have held thus far.

Are you trans? If not, then are you saying that you know better than the trans person in this instance? And is it that they are just "wrong", or are they "delusional"? What if they aren't identifying as a gender, but as a sex? How would you know? How would they know? — Harry Hindu

I think probably most telling is the bold. Prefacing by saying it was "on my view". I know plenty of trans people, a couple quite intimately.
Yes, my position is they are wrong. You cannot change sex. They want to exemplify typical phenotypic traits of the opposite sex and there's nothing wrong with doing that, imo, for an adult (we both discuss this elsewhere, and itll come up further down here). But it is factually incorrect that they can change sex, as far as I know and think.

And why would it be hard to understand to ask this question when hormone replacement therapy is called "gender-affirming care"? :roll: — Harry Hindu

That's why its hard to understand. It affirms gender, not sex. Running sex and gender together as one thing doesn't seem a move open to any type of thinker on this topic. If they were the same, we would be saying humans can change sex. Is that what you're saying?

No. I'm saying that is what trans-people appear to be saying. I'm asking what it means for a man to claim to be a woman — Harry Hindu

Ah, well fair enough. I don't think many of them are claiming that, but yes, some do. That's definitely true. There is speak of womb transplants. (I have deliberately put this response here, after my question, because I think they run together - if you don't think trans people are 'born in the wrong body' I suggest you can't claim humans can change sex).

Which just means that our behaviors are rooted in biology. — Harry Hindu

To some degree, yeah definitely. I have no issue with that - i was speaking about this at some length recently. Females and males have average behavioural profiles, and the introduction of cross-sex hormones is to (ostensibly - it doesn't seem to work) engender a change of behaviour in the individual to be closer to the sex they want to be. They cannot be that sex, so the care affirms a "gender", rather than a sex. Does this make sense?

Then sex and gender are intertwined. — Harry Hindu

Conceptually, yes (as described above). But one can, apparently, claim a gender without any notable or visible change in phenotype, behaviour or anything else. I presume based on your responses you do not think that person can be considered trans? I'm unsure, and not trying to corner you - I just see some trip-ups in these sets of claims. For me, too. I don't see that sex and gender need be practically intertwined. But that said, I think "gender" can only go three ways. They are all quite well-defined and I presume you're about to respond to them :P

...or that you have misinterpreted trans-gendered people, or that trans-people and their supporters have no idea what they are talking about and aren't really disagreeing with the idea that sex and gender are the same. — Harry Hindu

yes, that could be true, but I 100% reject that sex and gender are the same, and I stand behind this claim entirely based on my pretty thorough understanding of the concepts and discussions thereof. There is nothing to suggest that a person can change sex, but there is plenty to suggest one can change gender. They are patently, observably, not the same. The majority of trans people acknowledge this (as best I can tell.. don't shoot me for going on that haha). Perhaps five or six years ago there was more of that, but not only is identification as trans nosediving, the overblown claims about it are also dropping away - we have plenty of visible, public trans people agreeing with me (no, that doesn't make me right, but as I see it, the logic does).

Is gender a social construct or a self-identification that runs counter to the social expectation? It can't be both because one is the anti-thesis of the other. — Harry Hindu

Yes, that's what I'm trying to illustrate. It could only be one of the three possibilities:

1. Sex
2. Social construct
3. Personal choice (maybe that's a disrespectful work, but it seems true if we're taking self-ID seriously as a concept.

If gender were a social construct then why is most of society surprised to see a man in a dress? — Harry Hindu

This is exactly what one would expect from a social construct. Society expects X due to its construction, but sees Y and is perturbed (or whatever word.. for me, its more amused or excited (in the general "Hey, that's interesting" sense)).

But there is and it is because the man is not following the rules - that women wear dresses, not that wearing a dress makes you woman. — Harry Hindu

This is getting dangerously close to the point: Wearing a dress doesn't make you a woman. I mean, my position is that a woman is an adult human female and gender is a different use of the word woman, which is never adequately parsed, so perhaps we're both barking at the wrong tree here? But, Ill address for the sake of clarity: If Gender is a social construct, then society tells you your gender. If most people treat you as 'a woman', that's what you are. Doesn't matter what you think or feel. Same for being 'a man'. This accords with (2.) above. For my part, I find this one a good argument to get beyond claims that gender is fully variant and choosable. If its a social construct, you, personally, don't get a say. This means that if you're a man, and society treats you as a man, and you turn up in a dress, you'll turn heads. That fits perfectly with gender-as-social-construct.

If gender is merely a social construct then wouldn't that mean that transgenderism is a social construct? — Harry Hindu

Yes, that would be the case. I think it's the case even with (3.). With that, you are making a personal choice derived from social expectation still. That seems to me a social construct, the same way something like lawyering is considered a 'male' job. There's nothing particularly male about it (as opposed to oil drilling, let's say). The difference between (2.) and (3.) is that you tell society your gender in (3.) but the opposite in (2.).

The only way for a person to determine their gender is to choose one’s gender based on gender stereotypes present throughout a culture. — Harry Hindu

It should be clear that to me, this is (3.) and not a social construct, per se.

If gender is a social construct, then it describes the expectations and stereotypes historically linked to biological sex — expectations that feminism worked hard to overcome. — Harry Hindu

For both (2.) and (3.) this is one of the realizations that prevented me from continuing down the gender theory pathway. It is senseless and counter to progress. It is misogynistic and sexist in ways that somewhat explain why it seems more prevalent among males and children (its something like four times more likely in someone under 18 - but data between sexes it not available, I am speculating with decent data sets).

To say one can “identify” as another gender is to say that those outdated expectations still define what it means to be male or female. In other words, self-identifying as another gender merely re-affirms the very stereotypes that we're supposed to have been rendered obsolete. — Harry Hindu

Hmm, I don't think so - but that's because for me sex and gender come entirely apart at this stage of discussion. I thnk I've adequately defended that position, though. So seems reasonable to say on this that I entirely agree, but those stereotypes are (while derived from biological expectations) no longer reasonable, and so bled into 'gender' expectation like being quieter as a woman, or less defensive.

I've both studied the relevant science (to the degree a non-scientist) and (more importantly, for this discussion) the metaphysical philosophy. There is no mechanism identified for the emergence of consciousness by either crew (well, i say identified - I should be saying pinned-down. Several have been posited). To the degree this is an opinion, sure. But it is derived from quite a bit of uncomfortable reading. My position has had to change, for instance, upon that reading. I was initially an 'it must be entirely physical and contained within the structures of hte brain, even if hidden' person.

If there were such a mechanism pinned down, I'm sure it would be quite easy to explain (and honestly, I'd love to know. It's quite annoying feeling logically obligated to entertain divine command lmao). Please do (there is absolutely no sarcasm here, whatsoever. I am under the impression I'm under, and if it's wrong please set me right).

I am really not trying to be antagonistic. I felt you were being that way..

One is too many, when it could be prevented. So, that isn't all that needs to be said.

There also vanishingly small numbers of people kidnapping Nepalese babies for racial reasons, for torture and murder. But we wouldn't say this about that issue.

You are being histrionic. — apokrisis

I am being exactly the opposite. I've explicitly said everything you're pointing out can be true, and consciousness can still arise from an external signal.

There's nothing ... at all.. histrionic about this. In any way, whatsoever.

Humans have not explained the mind.

can you recommend places to access these without a student / educator membership? — Jeremy Murray

Usually, you can find pdfs of good papers. I've got a couple of Stocks (and many others). Shoot me your email and I'll send through whatever I have on the topic.

Nope. I was making the point that a hallmark of “consciousness” is that it is embodied and agential. — apokrisis

You didn't make it well.

It feels like an alien hand is now in control. Sensations are thrusting at us. Thoughts and ideas are being imposed. — apokrisis

Which is specifically not what the receiver theory entails, or imagines. It jettisons this entirely to even get moving. Given this context, I understand what you've said and why. But then it's simply ignorance of what's posited in this theory (and again, I've already acknowledged its weak and we have no good reason to take it on).

And then we have this other nonsense about the brain being an antenna tuned into a cosmic psychic frequency. — apokrisis

This is a strawman like no other. Turns out, I was right in my charge.

Being embodied and agential seems so effortless that yes, maybe it could be just a broadcast picked up off the airwaves.

But then nope. The neurobiology to get the job done is what we should reserve our amazement for. — apokrisis

This says nothing. It says that maybe the receiver theory is correct (in some way). And then just says no, lets be in awe of something else.

Everything you said can be true, and the basis of consciousness can still be a signal from without. I don't care to go further.

I wouldn't expect empirical support for a theoretical philosophical conjecture, that postulates a Cosmic Mind of which our little limited logic-parsers are fragments. But what do you think of his Mind as "foundation of Reality" and Idealism as "ultimate Realism" theory? — Gnomon

I've watched about 14 hours of Kastrup. He strikes me as someone I would consistently love to talk to, and would consistently laugh at through the course of our conversations. He has a great mind, imo, and some good ideas. But there are some extremely fundamentally concerning issues with his theories.

If 'mind' is the foundation of reality, he still has a massive job getting the sensation of the physical in. And he's never adequately done that, in my watching. I think the bold is interesting, and exactly hte reason responses like akroposis' up there is unwarranted. We couldn't seek empirical evidence, and we can't rest on incomplete descriptions via biology. Its is/ought all over again and I prefer to just entertain all comers while resisting magical thinking.

I have justification for my claim, admittedly, weak, but something. You have nothing. — T Clark

No. We are on equal footing. Which I pointed out (I appreciate you at least meeting 1/3 of the way there). We, neither, could access good enough information to defend our positions strongly, but we both have good reason to think the way we think. There is no need to interrogate that further, given no basis for comparison could be made out in a way that would be helpful. No?

We’re not going to get any closer to agreement — T Clark

Yeah, for sure. If you'd like, we can try to re-structure how we're talking to restrict it to Western countries/social structures/expectations.
I think my description is accurate. It may simply be that the number is still alarming for you. That's also fine. But there is clearly no large group feeling the way you say. Although, and this is definitely a bit weak, I would posit that plenty of religious people will make claims of this kind, but not actually believe it. Again, weak. Just a thought.. Most people aren't predisposed to be bigoted (in the West).

I didn’t say that and you know that’s not what I’m talking about. We’ve had the same kind of discussion in the past with you claiming that there is no longer significant discrimination against Black people here. This is just more of the same. Again, we’re not going to do any better than this, so let’s leave it. — T Clark

Huh. It strikes me that (for both of those issues) that would be a good reason to sit down and talk? It can't be that both of us are right. I am interested in that, personally. Either way ,i appreciate a fully civil resolution to those exchanges. I just like to talk..

Assuming I’m doing my math correctly, which is by no means certain, this comes to fewer than 800 incarcerations a year in the US out of a total of about 60,000. — T Clark

To discuss both issues: No, i'm not being cute, and I would appreciate you resiling from the propensity to assume motivation. I said exactly what I meant to say, and it looks, based on your reply, that I was probably right. Looking at numbers in the USA as raw numbers is disingenuous. The correct metric would not be "how many". It would be two other things:

How many vs how many not (i.e how many of the group 'trans' tend to be arrested or convicted of a crime. The other, would be a control group: Non-trans males (I want to be explicitly clear: all of hte issues I could argue about when it comes to trans being in any way 'dangerous' or whatever, have to do with being male. Not trans. It is the same discussion we have to have about non-trans males. Being 'a man' doesn't give us anything to discuss in these terms).

The numbers i've looked at, for reasons that should probably be obvious, are in the UK. So, with that, i'll continue responding, but note that I may have to come back with different numbers as I'm not fully across the US situation with this exact issue.

For the purposes of my calculations above, I assumed this was correct, although I’m skeptical. That information is not available for the US. Can you provide the documentation for the UK? — T Clark

I appreciate that. I crunched the numbers directly from a Government prison population survey from, I think, 2022. This is all on a sticky note on my computer at home - apologies I can't simply be direct with that information. I've just done a shallow dive and re-found another doc - this (which was not my initial source, ftr), from which I can glean some pretty relevant passages:

"MOJ stats show 76 of the 129 male-born prisoners identifying as transgender (not counting
any with GRCs) have at least 1 conviction of sexual offence. This includes 36 convictions for
rape and 10 for attempted rape. These are clearly male type crimes (rape is defined as
penetration with a penis)."

"76 sex offenders out of 129 transwomen = 58.9%
125 sex offenders out of 3812 women in prison = 3.3%
13234 sex offenders out of 78781 men in prison = 16.8%"

The piece (by quote)also points out that the statistics do not count those with a GRC as trans. Which is.. legally, and socially bizarre (that's not a moral complaint. Administrative) given that several will also be part of those numbers, and given how low they are each single case is significant.

There is also addressed the problem of deceit (although, this isn't a main limb for me):

"The converse is the ever-increasing tide of referrals of patients in prison serving long
or indeterminate sentences for serious sexual offences. These vastly outnumber the
number of prisoners incarcerated for more ordinary, non-sexual, offences. It has been
rather naïvely suggested that nobody would seek to pretend transsexual status in
prison if this were not actually the case. " - British Association of Gender Identity Specialists to the Transgender Equality Inquiry’ (2015)

Putting aside some of the more nuanced stuff there, we can see quite clearly that I am either close to the mark, or bang on with my analysis in general(although, I clearly and unsure whether this is hte data set I used at the time so .. pinch of salt..). I really wish I had just emailed my work-self the other stuff months ago when I presented it to someone else in another thread. I apologise for that.

I acknowledge, understand and do not argue with the fact that we're talking about an extremely small population. We're talking about negligible numbers of offenders. But if those offenders, as a class, are more likely to commit these crimes we want to know and take that into account. We would for any other group which presented this way. And in fact, it's getting, socially, to the point where people are swinging back around to bigotry because of the suppression of discussion on the topic (i here think immediately of the current 'black fatigue' trend - although, I most often see that from black people, not whites). I am not saying you're doing this, I'm just taking the opportunity in conversation with someone pretty much fully civil, to say thse things.

This is literally, obviously, and unarguably true. — T Clark

While I acknowledge what you're saying, and I definitely could have been clearer about where I believe you're massaging things, it is pretty damn clear that being male is the problem. Not being cisgender. Given that trans women are more likely (it seems) to commit a crime against a female, we're looking at (in some views) male + mental aberration (and potential one tied to sexuality, i guess). That all stands to reason, and there's no point mentioning 'cis gender' as it does nothing to change the categories we need.

I appreciate you.

Am I correct in thinking that philosophers are generally 'sitting trans out' due to the fraught nature of the conversation in universities and other institutions? — Jeremy Murray

I know you didn't ask me, but this is true of conservative or middling philosophers. Only a couple, like Stock and Lawford-Smith publish on the subject. On the other hand, there is plenty of writing about trans issues painted as entirely positive, or somehow a foregone conclusion conceptually, and then discussing things like social implications of hte 'fact of trans' or whatever. No comment on merits, but illustrating that its hard to find one side - but not hard to find the other.

Now comment on merits: Stock's papers are probably the best on the subject, imo.

I can't conceive of it being anything more than personal satisfaction of understanding difficult concepts across a lifetime.

27% of Russians support hte war.

This seems to be paranoid nonsense to me.

You think that a quote that says that there are hundreds of observed genotypes for the SRY gene, supports your claim that it's strictly binary? WTF level of gaslighting is this?

Anyway, I asked you directly for which biologist has stated your position of SRY being the singular and binary determinator of sex. Say a name or admit that none do. — Mijin

They literally do not. They discuss translocation and mutation. They do not discuss several allele variations. I presume you can quote the passages you are referring to, as I was able to do?

You can read the names of the authors. I assume. But am getting less certain of your capabilities in this regard. Luckily, you've simply whittered. So no worries mate.

Carl Sagan speculated about our universe being eternal. When does eternity begin? — ucarr

This has nothing to do with what I've said.

The fact that it is a standard symptom of schizophrenia ought give pause for thought. — apokrisis

That is perhaps the worst poisoning of the well i've seen in a long time. Well done. It's also a complete and fundamental misunderstanding of two separate concepts:

Schizophrenics are under the impression their thoughts and feelings are imported from an external consciousness.

The brain-as-receiver model says nothing about any of that, and instead, posits that thearising of consciousness at all is akin to a television receiving signals for any image whatever. Its reasonable, albeit totally fringe and unsupported.

But your response was childish and dumb.

You might ask yourself why his supporters saw him in that position. — praxis

The majority did not, but to the extend that they did it's because the saw themselves constantly attacked for having reasonable opinions and he spoke to that. Respectfully, and without insult. In fact, a democrat did a dive into his videos and found that his only examples of personal name-calling were about himself.

Again, DM me if you care to understand what you're talking about a bit better. If not, let's leave it.

There are 8 billion people in the world. If 10% of them hold the kind of antipathy to transgender people I claim, that makes almost a billion right there. And that does not take into account the fact that North American and European attitudes are likely to be more tolerant than elsewhere. There are many more conservative and traditional cultures where non-standard sexuality is punished harshly. Ugandan law, for example, along with that in some other countries, calls for the death penalty. — T Clark

Sexuality is not identity. We're just going to disagree. You have no actual basis to make your claim, and realistically neither do I - but it stands to reason that most people in the world have no concept of transness and don't have an opinion on it. Most people are simply trying to get food and shelter (or avoid terroristic threats of their general environment). Your point is taken on sexuality, and that's obviously true.

If we reduce this to the West, though (which seems reasonable in this context) my statement seems pretty much assured. That doesn't make it good, it just means pretending there's some coterie of armed militias around the US and UK looking for trans people to harass is abusive to trans people (though, again, thoughts on that type of claim anyway... Another time). It causes children to fear the world they live in for no good reason (or, no reason beyond the fears we all share).

I'll let others decide if they agree with me that your understanding is fundamentally wrong. — T Clark

LOL. Okay. It cannot be 'fundamentally' wrong. We're discussing facts, not concepts.

I wasn't trying to say this difference undermines your argument. It's just something I've been wondering about. — T Clark

As I say, fair. But I also then responded? Odd reply.

Please provide this "overwhelming evidence." As I understand it, transgender people make up about 0.3% of the population. Explain how this many people can have the catastrophic results you seem to predict. It is undeniable that the primary threat of crime and violence to women comes from straight, cisgender men. — T Clark

1. I didn't claim I had any?? Perhaps read a little closer my man;
2. I didn't make that claim, or predict anything at all;
3. Not quite. It's males. But let's run your argument anyway: because they are roughly 50% of the population, and as you note (i agree) trans women are something on the order of .3%. That isn't not an argument.

In the UK Trans identified males are fully four times more likely to incarcerated for a sex crime. Let's, for no good reason, calibrate this for 'sex work' crimes and remove 50% of the cases we're looking at. Well, that's still a 100% higher chance that a trans-identified male commits a sex crime than a non-trans male. This stands to reason due to mental aberration involved.

So it's males. Not 'cis men'. It's males. The sex predisposed to enforce their sexual desires on the opposite sex, and always, for its entire existence, has been. Wearing dresses, having long hair and pretending you're less aggressive than you really are doesn't change that. Ignoring that the fundamental determinant of these sex abuse statistics is sex is absurd, anti-reason and manipulative.

Then why bring it up? — T Clark

Because whether or not your opinion matters to me, the facts matter to the discussion. I am telling you my view and responding to a (semi-reasonable) objection based on a misunderstanding of what I've said. Ultimately, though, on that issue (emotionally abusing children) the opinion of someone convinced that men can be women is of no moment. That doens't reduce the importance of the point.

Well, that's a good position. Makes it hard to understand why you're vying to keep him in that position then throughout hte exchange

The fact that the first two posts were ridicule sucks. There's no defense for that on a forum like this.

I like the brain-as-receiver model. I can't find myself going for it but it certainly feels much more reasonable that just "it comes from thinking" which tells me nothing. Thinking itself seems a conscious act, so its tautological in some sense too.

That said, I can't find a good reason to think its true.

From this, it can be concluded that most Germans derived sadistic pleasure from carrying out the Holocaust, and this sadism became a need for them. — Linkey

No. No it can't. Most Germans were just trying to stay alive and were so fatigued by the war so far they just didn't care. The idea that 'most germans' derived sadistic pleasure is utterly insane.

a universe that has no opening — ucarr

Does not exist. So something's super-wrong in your thinking.

He thinks this is, or rather, is used to, social media. DM stands for Direct Message, so the kids today say "DM me" which means "send me a private message."

This offer is likely so as to avoid claims or accusations of being "off topic" or "spamming."

He feels you are wrong and also feels he can easily prove it. — Outlander

Correct. @praxis Outlander is right. You are wrong. There is no version of this where you can present non-chopped-up, manipulated excerpts to support some point you're making. You also seem to be stuck on a single word (which has been explained to you as not illustrating Charlie's emotional/moral position personally). That is disingenuous. So come to the DMs if you want a discussion. If not, we can drop it.

Pretty much everyone else on the planet — praxis

Your view of hte world seems to be derived from your personal wishes and not reality. The majority of the world agrees with Kirk. The majority of the world is both religious, and not predisposed to hate people based on their opinions.

The irony of this kind of statement, when the whole tangent about transgender is recreational outrage. A tiny number of people are transgender, and are disproportionately victims of crime rather than perpetrators. As I say, it's a drummed up boogieman, the moral panic of our time. — Mijin

Well yes, that is the argument. I reject it. Respectfully. I think that's okay, too.

Which one of the experts here has said that SRY is the singular, and strictly binary, determinator of sex? — Mijin

You can read the quote you quoted. But you are literally incapable of taking in information which is counter to your emotional position. Fortunately for my attitude, I have demonstrated that you are wrong. Several times. With absolutely no retort other than repeating a claim which is incorrect.

So once again your response is "nuh-uh!". — Mijin

This is so abysmally disingenuous. I have repeatedly specifically addressed this in detail. You are now lying, directly, about what has occurred in this exchange.

Good bye.

If sex and gender were not the same then why do trans seek hormone replacement therapy to exemplify the sex they are trying to identify as? — Harry Hindu

Because they are wrong (on my view, obviously but its a pretty widely-held one). It is hard to understand how you could ask this question. It requires a metaphysical leap that is simply not open to us, I think.
Either Gender and Sex are the same - in which case trans people literally do not exist, they are just deluded - or they are not the same - and trans people in fact, exist, and attempt to artificially appear as though they exemplify typical features of the opposite sex. I contend the latter is correct. Given the balance of logical considerations, it seems relatively unassailible that if "trans people" exist as some 'true' category, then it relates to gender (and explicitly, not sex). Are you wanting to say that trans people are born the wrong sex? That seems totally incoherent. In either case, the reason a male who wants to be female takes what's called 'cross-sex hormones' is to make it easier to behave the way they expect women to behave. Its all quite sexist.

This is what makes sense of the fact that trans women tend to be as aggressive as non-trans males(and represent similarly in crime stats (although, trans women are more likely to commit a sex crime than non-trans males). Because its typical of the sex (including the paratheses). They do, though, routinely repress that aggression to appear more feminine. This is pretty clearly an example of behaving in a way typical of the other sex. This is why I have always maintained that gender does not vary independent of sex (i.e genders themselves are obviously derived from clusters of typical behaviours attributed to the two sexes into clusters of "expected" behaviours rather than observed ones - though, as will be clear these rarely come very far apart) but is not sex and only requires sex as a reference point. The fact is sex is an extremely robust metric in humans, so the variance is quite low - despite it being theoretically possible to say "I'm trans" and present/behave 100% typical for your sex it is not possible to take that seriously, unless Gender is meaningless entirely.

What is upsetting is to equate these differences to differences in gender and not sex. — Harry Hindu

It is possible you have either entirely misinterpreted me.

The differences between males and females have to be exemplified in the behaviours of trans individuals to even get on the ladder of being trans. A trans person who literally does nothing to alter their sex-typical behaviour is not trans. Plain and simple. They are not 'on the other side' of anything. Their sex is still their sex, and their presentation is still their presentation. This leads to the problem that there are only really two ways "gender" can go: Either gender refers to sex. In which case , you do not have a choice. You cannot self-identify as a sex, and therefore you cannot identify into a gender either.
The other way it could go is that gender is a social construct. In this case, society tells you your gender. You also do not have a choice here.

The argument which is made to circumvent this is that gender is self-identification. Ok. If that's so, then it is literally invented and not a description of anything but a desire, or thought. That's also fine. In this case, no one is required to participate in your self-image. At all. At any time. You can request, and polite people will acquiesce but no one is required to accept your self image. You can say you're trans all you want, but if every single person who interacts with you clocks a male who is also a man, you have failed and are not trans.

o at least we agree on something. And I’ll stand behind the statistics I provided. I think they tell the story. — T Clark

They don't tell anything even remotely close to the story you're telling. Reality sits squarely with the fact that there are not billions of people who even care about this matter. Far less that care to do anything about it, and even less who care to harm trans people. The ridiculousness is patent on that side of things.

Except, of course, when the world is out to get them. — T Clark

Besides females, this is never the case. There have been small pockets of historical time and place where groups were targeted. Currently, in the West, there are none other than females who have been targeted forever. Males do not suffer opinions. And almost no one in existence has an issue with trans men (bearing in mind, barely anyone has an issue tout court - its the expectation other's have to participate).

I’ve wondered how much of that has to do with the fact you’re from New Zealand and I am from the USA — T Clark

Fair, but almost nothing hinges on this. I am capable of understanding geography and how to transcend it (i am also highly interested (in the proper sense, not just 'its interesting) in UK politics as I am a citizen and hope to return at some stage with my wife who is also British).

You might be surprised at what my substantive opinions about gender rights are, but as I noted, that is not what I’ve addressed in my posts on this thread. — T Clark

Based on this, I probably would. But based on what you've said in these comments, it doesn't seem any 'view' could fix being alarmist about the facts of what trans people 'face'.

You’re playing of the “protect the children” card is unconvincing. — T Clark

You wouldn't be convinced by overwhelming evidence that being trans is an aberration likely to lead to criminal behaviour. So, it's hard to know why you'd say this? Protecting females is more important than children, but protecting children from being convinced they're in 'the wrong body' on some cultist crap is pretty important too. They kill themselves because of this cruel joke of a metaphysical lie. They are encouraged to cut off family and other support groups and rpelace them with ideological circles of seniors who can cut them off at any time. And Sorry to say, I really do not care what you position on this specific part of hte issue is: I have seen this first had in eight separate cases in my life. Luckily, only two have ended themslves. But that's far more than enough.

Its normal discernment of an honest individual. — Philosophim

Yes, absolutely. I am coming to hte conclusion that people who think "with us or against us" just refuse to grow up. I can at least respect people like Banno who do their drive bys, don't bother to doing anything substantive, but stay out of it.

If you want to say sex and gender are different- fine, but then stop conflating sex and gender. — Harry Hindu

I do not respond well to children with fingers in their ears saying "I know you are, but what am i?". So I'll just not.

This strikes me as complete baloney. Where did you get your numbers from? I speculate the true number is in the hundreds of millions or billions worldwide. — T Clark

This is just utterly ridiculous. There are not this many people who care to have an opinion on the matter.

I contend that this ridiculous type of assumption is exactly hte cruel, unfortunate nonsense that gets pushed on impressionable young people struggling wth identity to create groups of affinity that are life-and-death. Its bollocks and its directly psychologically harming children, teens and indeed adults. When you are convinced the world is out to get you (its not - you're not that important) you will suffer. When you convince people the world is out to get them, you're cruel.

Pew surveys indicate about 35% of the people in the US consider homosexuality a sin with a similar number for transgender people. — T Clark

The best surveys I can find (which are not religious, given the stark contrast between social and religion views of plenty of believers) show that roughly the same number of people think that "Trans acceptance" (not trans people) has 'gone too far', the same say 'hasn't gone far enough' and a smaller group say its all good. PLenty of others simply run counter to your claim.

Williams Institute 2019 - 73% believe Trans people need more protection.
PRRI 2019 - 62% said they had increased support for trans rights over the past five years.

PLenty of surveys will run in weird directions when you break down an issue. Plenty of otherwise supportive allies of the trans community will get off the train at sports or prison or what have you. That is the key point to take from recent survey aggregates: general support continues to rise - but support over specific, controversial policies is finally getting authentic responses so we're seeing divides. That's to be expected, and non-controversial and has extremely little to do with trans people, but considerations after understanding the wants and needs of trans people. Given that trans identification is nose-diving this is also probably predictable and not problematic, in any case.

As I noted in the previous post, DSM in the not too distant past classified homosexuality as a mental illness — T Clark

And doctors said smoking was good for the lungs. Fuck doctors right?

As I noted, protection of rights identified in the ACLU summary strike me as reasonable for people in general, including transgender people. — T Clark

Do you mean this:

" The ACLU champions transgender people’s right to be themselves. We’re fighting discrimination in employment, housing, and public places, including restrooms. We’re working to make sure trans people get the health care they need and we're challenging obstacles to changing the gender marker on identification documents and obtaining legal name changes. We’re fighting to protect the rights and safety of transgender people in prison, jail, and detention facilities as well as the right of trans and gender nonconforming students to be treated with respect at school. Finally, we’re working to secure the rights of transgender parents."??

If so, there is nothing here that has anything specific to do with trans people. There has been nothing raised in this thread that makes anything here 'trans rights'. There is also nothing raised in this thread which can make sense of defending 'trans' as a civil rights category (but this, i understand, will never be accepted by those who wish to frame transness as somehow some natural, unaberrated and entirely healthy form of human existence). That said, all of these rights are protected in law already

The whittering hoarse-voiced lies told by TRAs (read as clear as you possible can: not trans people; only hte thing just described) to get others to pretend trans people are missing out in rights is the cruel, harmful narrative that those of us who can see the forest for the trees want to prevent reaching our vulnerable children.

I understand there is essentially no civil conversation to be had about that last part. Just wanted my cards on the table.

So if you do not believe in human rights, the OP is probably moot for you. — Philosophim

I believe they exist, but in the context I gave. There is no basis otherwise. The fact that some large group agrees (and, patently, we often dont) doesn't give me a 'right'. It comes from no where and is enforced by nothing until an authority does those things.

The inclusion of transgender rights in the list is based on a court case in 2020, so it might be considered vulnerable — T Clark

We can hope - but that's not because I don't want trans people protected from whatever boogey man is in the headlines currently - but because has been (and will continue) to be abused to decry and harm those with differing views of hte subject. Which is legitimate, as opposed to "blacks need to go" or whatever.

Kirk, and other culture warriors, profit from catering to such people. — praxis

Hmm. While I do not think Kirk ever did this - yes, that's right. So does Kamala, Seder, Maddow, Tiedrich, Reich etc.. etc.. If you want to take that line, I'll bite. But I still conclude you're absolutely wrong and simply projecting your disbelief that someone could in fact, be Charlie Kirk in good faith. That's a shame.

Oh right, Kirk and his followers think trans should exist. What reality are you living in? — praxis

Yes. They do. And he said so plenty of times. You genuinely do not know what hte fuck you're talking about. If you want to be an adult, make a claim in my DMs and I'll take you through why you're wrong about Charlie Kirk. Otherwise, this is pointless. You just make shitty claims and don't back them up.

He used the word in a strictly biblical sense. He did not use it in a moral sense. When you actually listen to what he says, it's pretty fucking hard to misinterpret him as badly as Praxis has (though, i presume he's actually never looked past chopped up clips designed by lefties to make him look as bad as their emotional state requires to avoid embarrassment).

I don’t believe one can be appropriately loving to someone whose identity one denies and considers perversion. — Tom Storm

Really? This seems to me one of hte most potent and obvious oddities of humanity. There are plenty of people whos lifestyles I think are damaging (to themselves/those around them or society at large) and I think it s perverse that they defend their life style (funnily enough, plenty of gender theory types run along these lines - I don't suggest that being interested in gender causes one to be immoral, but I do think immoral people tend to be drawn to the more liberal communities abouts). That says absolutely nothing, whatsoever, about how i feel about them as a human.

If someone comes to me, and is visibly on drugs, obviously unable to calm themselves and has a bad time - and this happens three days in a row, I lose no love but i lose patience.

For these reasons, among others, I very much (morally) hope that some weird frankenstein of those thinker's ethical positions never makes it way into the mainstream.

The issue of "condemnation" is interesting though. Leaving aside homosexuality for a moment, there is the whole idea that any notion of gluttony is "fat shaming" or perhaps "consumption shaming." To speak of licentiousness is "slut shaming," etc. There are all "personal choices," and all personal choices are relative to the individual, so long as they do not transgress the limits of liberal autonomy and infringe on others, or so the reasoning seems to go. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Hmm, i definitely agree with this and it seems to illustrate an unwillingness to be morally mature in a person who makes those claims (again, funnily, plenty of gender theory types take that exact bent to anything and everything they can possibly shoehorn a complaint into). However, it seems to me we are free to criticise other's personal choices. I am not homophobic, but if i had some deep-seated issue wit homosexuality (assuming it's not a closeted issue) I don't see why I am somehow morally suppressed from explanation or sharing of my ideas there.

they are being denied the "right to be themselves." I suppose that's a start, but the putative human "right to be oneself" is going to require a great deal of elucidation. It certainly isn't something that we find in historical enumerations of human rights. — Leontiskos

I would go further - that claim is bare nonsense. There is an extremely small, unhinged group that exist on Earth and probably number below 10m who want Trans people to stop being trans (or, alternately, existing). Even "anti-trans" activists tend not to take either of these bents. It has to do with other people and not the trans people themselves. Same thing as keeping males from female spaces. Doesn't have a lot to do with Males or their rights or anything, but protecting females.

I don’t think you’re qualified to say that. — T Clark

It is in the DSM. And, I think any reasonable adult can recognize a break with reality when they see one. You do not strike me as someone who would defend 'trans rights' on any ground such as ones coming up here. I am somewhat taken aback. Nice!

You're missing the point that I made quite clear. If a female can exhibit male-level aggression then why is it called male-level? The level of aggression between a male protecting its territory and a female protecting its young seems about the same level. So what exactly do you mean by "male-level"? Let the mental gymnastics begin! — Harry Hindu

Given your final line, do you expect a good-faith response? Or would it be more reasonable to simply not be a dickhead, and then expect to not have a dickhead respond? Consider that.

it is the level of aggression typical of males on average. This is not rocket science. This is uncontroversial, and well-known in the psychological literature.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031938496800308
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6318556/
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/711705
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12144-024-06859-9

I cannot conceive of how its upsetting to hear about hte typical differences in aggression between males and females. Where females exhibit heightened levels of aggressive, this is a 'more masculine' trait as compared to being less aggressive which is a seen as feminine, given the difference is typical between the two sexes on average. Conceding, as one must, that this is simply hte result of the research that's been done and not a knock-down, all-time answer to the issue - Its beyond me why this is getting your panties twisted.

This is like saying that someone saying "god does not exist" jettisons the purpose and fundamental ground of a discussion about the relationship between god and nature - a discussion that assumes a premise and you not liking any type of statement that jettisons that assumption. — Harry Hindu

You're going to need to figure out how to work language into making the connection between "God" and "nature" and "sex" and "gender" on the other, workable. This response just tells me you're happy to conflate separate concepts and just keep going as if anyone adequately discussing the issues must be wrong somehow. That seems, sorry to say, childish. Sex and gender are not hte same thing and that is the entire basis for the discussion. IGnoring this explains why you're not making much sense.

I informed you about how, for example, Kirk publicly claimed that trans people are an “abomination.”
And you wonder why some people disliked him and thought he was a bigot. It’s not a mystery if you’re willing to see the truth. — praxis

No, I don't wonder why. People are really stupid and (as it seems you are quite disposed to do) actually look for things to get upset about because it scores them social justice points. This isn't controversial or profound. This is what people have done since time immemorial and social media has simply made this the social currency of the generations below mine. That's why, in the main, the people who have a problem with Kirk 1. Don't know what the fuck he actually said or meant (your abomination example is perfect. I've already addressed it even). 2. Are genuinely wanting to find dragons to slay where there generally are none and 3. are fucking stupid. They are inexperienced, undereducated, generally socially compromised and unable to handle criticism.

Forgive me for not taking too seriously what young, inexperienced and unable-to-articulate-anything-meaningful-about-their-positions students think of Charlie Kirk.

A bigot like Kirk didn’t merely think trans are wrong or misguided as you mistakenly suggest; he consider them abominations. It's not just 'you are wrong,' but 'you should not exist.' — praxis

You genuinely seem unable to stick to reality. So I shall pass on further engagement here.

There's only so many times I can point out to you that your own cites allude to multiple genotypes of SRY (as there are multiple genotypes for any non-fatal gene), so let's just cut to the chase. — Mijin

I have now addressed that exact thing four times. You repeating your patently, demonstrable and obviously false position doesn't change it. I have provided ample evidence, with highlights ,providing that you are flat-out, dead wrong and I have provided direct, ample evidence for such. You can pretend this isn't the case if it makes you feel better, but reality will be waiting for you when you are mature enough. You asked me for certain things. I gave them to you. Your now have your fingers in your ears.

Which human biologists have claimed that human sex is a function of the SRY gene and is binary? — Mijin

All of the ones I posted, including providing quotes and explaining hte slightly nuanced technical language in a way that is easily understood by those who cannot read a biological paper except to cherry pick buzz words they think, but are wrong about, supporting their erroneous view.

my friend, you are wrong and all of the evidence is in front of you. There is no third genotype for SRY. Nothing I've posted suggests this and I['ve given you the opportunity to challenge your erroneous belief and you have absolutely and purposefully failed to even clearly read my comments let alone follow references. At this point, you are lying. That's on you. Unless you're trolling (which seems the most logical conclusion). In which case that's on me. Touche.

that fundamental purpose is hte source of the "ought"? — Banno

Yessir.

This looks to me like four (including myself) people roughly agreeing that all people, unless they give us reason otherwise, deserve respect and acquiescing to request that take no skin off our backs is polite.

But that requiring rather than requesting removes all semblance of politeness from one end of the agreement, resulting in a rescinding of politeness in the other. Usually in the form of simply not participating.

There seems nothing wrong with this.

Sorry, @Philosophim I just saw your other comment to me in the the other thread.

To expand a bit more, then, I do not htink "trans rights are human rights" makes any practical sense. Its makes semantic sense insofar as trans people are people (i.e humans). However, "trans right", if there were/are any, cannot be said to be synonymous. If a trans people has a right specific to them, it has nothing to do with other groups of humans by definition. In this way, the phrase itself is senseless. It tells us, gives us, explains or illustrates nothing whatsoever.

This might sound as if I think that's the end of it. It isn't. There are no 'trans rights'. No one can enumerate any, and no one can adequately decide to whom they would be owed. Human rights are cool, though. I am just of the camp that 'rights' are non-existent without the authority which grants them (in a backward way...restrict first, then permit). I believe 'man' and 'woman' should more than likely refer to unimportant clusters of sex-derived behaviours. Male and female should be the only categories in public policy (although, intersex would be needed for public health).

It sounds to me that this is an example of there being no general, overarching expectation of the sexes in our society as a whole and that it is only among smaller groups — Harry Hindu

I think that's right. There are local expectations which are essentially one of the organizing traits of a society. I don't personally see a problem with that, except that people tend be indoctrinated where those expectations are particularly strong. That can be a serious problem.

Aren't you a daisy! The foundation of American culture isn't some profound humanist insight that "all men are created equal" or some such. It's just pragmatism: declare all the various factions to be equal under the law, so that they won't have legal grounds to fight for supremacy to the point of destruction (and so there will be no collateral damage from those fights that someone else would need to clean up). — baker

I'm not quite sure what's going on here. Yes. That is a fundamental 'American' objective. All humans being created equal isn't profound, but its extremely important to enshrine for a wide-reaching society. I can't quite tell - this sounds like an objection? Is it?

Then read again. — baker

I have. I don't see an issue. It seems that you have a problem with those aspects of a society. I do not see why (that's not to say applications, and ways of going about it for <400m people is probably not going well...)

So you didn't up the ante and you don't have an effective policy. Hm. — baker

I can't understand how you could say this. I literally explained how to up the ante (with examples of such) and this is an effective policy. It is hte strongest, most effective social policy ever used by any group ever - and it is ubiquitous. This goes to my reply to Harry - those local expectations are enforced by this social "ante-upping" until you get public beheadings. It seems like you might genuinely be trolling here?

So what? It obviously works, even if it's done in bad faith. — baker

This doesn't butter any bread. I still can't understand what you were asking. Doing things in bad faith doesn't work.

Mindy Kaling is a source of utter drivel. That quote is patently false and I have no reason to take it seriously. I live with women. I hear their experienced. I watch media. I watch (in an observer type of way) social media. Women are encouraged at every stage of life to the detriment of men and boys. This has been fairly well established in the last 10 years. Women (females) are predisposed to anxiety.

To be honest, I'm not going to debate that issue with someone posting memes to support it. I will stick with the experiences of women I know, conveniently reflected in the statistics relevant to the questions.

Calling me a daisy just makes it seem like you have nothing..

People discussing Marx as adults is always funny to me. It's never making much sense.

I just feel there's more to this story. And your seemingly inhuman desire to ensure there isn't any, only makes it all the more intriguing. Can you not realize that? — Outlander

This strikes me as 'nu-uh'. Always funny.

That is hte exact opposite of reality and I cannot respect such a delusional take on something that is there for all to see with their eyes.

You are hateful towards Charlie, evidenced by your inability to engage with the reality of his character. You're stuck on some conclusionary belief about his character which is evidenced by nothing. You cannot present anything that could support your position. So it is dismissed.

I wasn't a fan. I am not right-wing, I am not religious and I'm not particularly concerned with constitutional issues beyond free expression (as makes sense here). I mainly watched his clips to find ways to understand how the in fuck people found it worthy their time to be so dishonest, hateful and frankly stupid as to call him things like ;'bigot', 'Nazi' etc... when he literally said absolutely nothing that they claim he said. Given there are droves of leftists having to eat their words on this, I'm pretty comfortable saying I made a good decision to step away from the hateful, death-celebrating (not you, praxis) ideology behind beliefs like yours.