It entails that you cannot experience without hte mediation of the senses. Probably, at all. This just doens't cause "indirectness" for some. But denying the mediation of sensation is folly which science puts paid to.

or claim that his personal view is that trans people are awful and shouldn't exist. — praxis

You have certainly made this claim, but i accept the others. I shouldn't have intimated you had.

Besides this, we are just going to go in circles bitching about how one another is incapable of honestly addressing things - for me, your take on the video, for instance. I imagine the same in reverse. Let's just leave it aside :) I thought your "sexistential" quip was 10/10 btw. Good job.

P.S: If you do truly want to try to get the bottom of any of this/understand what hte reasoning is for a claim, do feel free to continue through PMs. That seems to be working for me on this more contentious issues.

Yeah, definitely agree here. There's some issues with his finances etc... but clearly a reasonable person in general.

I'm unsure you're seeing hte problem that objectors see with that position. It's not quite that it's "wrong" - because intolerance, on it's face is something soceity rejects. So much is true, and te concept is sound.

But what constitutes "intolerance" is often confused, muddled and in some cases plainly reversed (i.e UK arrests for pithy posts, abusing citizens for wearing tshirts you don't like etc..). I am not saying you, personally, would indulge in this sort of confusion but it clearly happens that, apparently, plenty agree that killing Charlie Kirk was justified on those grounds. I presume you'd disagree? So maybe there's less daylight between the two positions than initially appears.
Which is worse: Wearing a MAGA shirt, or assaulting someone wearing one? Again, not putting that on your shoulders just illustrating why some are going to just laugh at this.

Not tolerating the intolerant is an act to defend freedom of speech. — Christoffer

When adequately tempered and moderated, sure, but then the questions arise about who gets to draw lines etc... It may seem obvious to you where they are, but that doesn't make you right.

why is a scientific theory need to believe people when they tell us who they are? — Questioner

Rachel. Dolezal. A bit quippy, but that is why. We want to know who the people around us are - I do not want to date a male, when I have intended to date a female and I am well within my rights to hold that view, and react "badly" if that deception was perpetrated on me. If your entire point is to "pass" as the opposite sex (which is what transition is for, by and large) then that is at least partially the intention. I see no malice or anything else in this, but it is deceptive and those caught by the deception are justified in being unhappy about it. Not because they're, for instance, homophobic, but because they did not consent to the situation they are in. I think its key to remember that many objections within this milieu are actually not to do with the person being trans at all. This can be gleaned from the sports debate - whereas most people (i think this is even true for lets say "pro-trans" people) agree males should not be competing against females in, at the extreme least, combat sport - Not because they are trans, but because they are male - if a transman wanted to compete, go ahead. But you'll notice the issue is the potential for harm, which results from males in female spaces - the fact of "trans" is relevant except insofar as it caused the situation. All that might sound mealy-mouthed, but I think its correct. I certainly have no issue with trans people per se, but will go to the mat on several issues in this thread for reasons that happen to be in the orbit.

All they ask is that basic rights not be denied — Questioner

That is definitely not the case for all - and certainly not hte most visible. The right for a male to enter female spaces is not 'basic'. This said, you have to be honest and acknowledge that plenty of trans people (most, TRAs which I understand in any group are usually the worst) want privileges. Demanding free surgeries is an example. Elective, cosmetic surgery is not a healthcare issue and it has been shown that medical transition does not improve mental health long term when controlled well, rather than relying on short-term self-report.

You fail to grasp the argument. Transgender persons only want to live their own truth. — Questioner

I would have agreed with this, if TRAs and the entire ideological movement didn't also exist besides trans people who want to do this. I think the concept of "my truth" is absolutely unacceptable in a civilized society, so we're going to disagree on that anyway - but just on empirical grounds, the people Phil and I and referencing (and we need to be honest about this, as above) are overly, explicitly and aggressive expecting/demanding that others live "their truth" (i.e the trans person's "truth") despite either believing it is a lie, or not really caring enough to engage. You don't have to take part in my self-image, and you don't have to take part in mine - again, even if* it reflects some "true" tension between the mind and body in an individual.
* I don't believe it does anymore than Children claiming to be x are in most cases. I just htink trans people are reasonable, intelligent and adult in most cases.

Sorry, purely in terms of readability can you restate? I presume you mean people using AI to "abuse women". I can't quite see what you mean. For context of why I might not see something you consider obvious, I don't have any immediate issue with AI being used to generate CA material. We can discuss why, I just want to be clear that i have no issue with fictional, functionally satisfying behaviour when no one is hurt even if its morally ugly.

The biological body does not cease to exist at death.

Your second line can apply to any singular event. I am a rape victim. I will never not be one. That fact will exist for all time. And, technically, beyond.

And to be clear, my intention was to hold you to the fire about making no real sense. Not a semantic argument.

o be honest, I am in some doubt as to whether it would be worthwhile to discuss anything with you. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

I've come to this conclusion some time ago. I'm sure we can get on without each other :)

at a deeper metaphysical level about what counts as a feature of the world at all. — Esse Quam Videri

Yes, that seems right - I did my best to try to say there may be fundamental issues we're not seeing the same way. Thanks for that.

As I understand you, you’re assuming that any property defined in relation to human perceptual capacities collapses into a claim about perception rather than a claim about the world. — Esse Quam Videri

As I see it, it's not an assumption, but a requirement of what we know about our physiology. We are seeing that fact causing different follow-ons, I think, and so my saying this isn't an assumption doesn't work for you - but you calling it one doesn't work for me. I think. At any rate, I cannot conceptually escape this line of thinking without hte handwaving I want to avoid.

On that assumption, statements like “the sky elicits blue-type responses under normal conditions” amount to nothing over and above claims about how humans experience the sky, and so the distinction I’ve been drawing between claims about experience and claims about the world simply disappears. — Esse Quam Videri

Roughly, yes. Its semantically sound to say that the one is "about the sky" and the other about human perception (because they are lol), but there's a ball being hidden imo viz a viz our disagreement. 1. would be more complete as "the sky elicits blue-type responses (in humans) under normal conditions" imo. Those "normal conditions", I take it, are the standard, physiological, interpretive processes involved in the perceptual chain. I can't see what else they are here, which would be relevant to the statement. But i definitely reacted to strongly to clarify properly, so thanks for the charity here.

I reject that assumption... I take ordinary color predicates to work in a similar way: they are world-involving, response-dependent properties, not reports about inner presentation. — Esse Quam Videri

Fair enough. We may not be able to litigate this, but safe to say I can't make sense of the position. It seems like wanting cake and eating it. It seems that we want substance dualism to work there..

So, yes, lol, your final para seems totally on point. Thanks mate - appreciate your elucidations.

they begin with sensory input — Questioner

Would you say that's true always? I understand some "conditions" to essentially be emotions arising without any sensory input. Have I misunderstood you?

But why would you want to see this:

I would want to see a comparison with autistic non-trans people and non-autistic trans people. — Questioner

.......................................................................to get the results of such a comparison:

I think the results would edify this study nicely. — AmadeusD

Why else?
I want to see this so we can accurate determine whether there is a direct correlation between being trans and being autistic. That would tell us a lot.

Herein lies your misunderstanding. Being transgender is not a "self-image problem." — Questioner

It is, unquestionably, a self-image problem. Whether that problem reflects some internal tension is up for grabs (i think not, but there we go). If it were not a self-image problem, we would not be hearing about it.

Lots to think about - but just wanted to say great OP. Thanks.

Sure - I have several friends who are legally 'disabled' because they have weird views about the world. and so hearing certain words or phrases causes their mind to collapse or something - but they get all the protections and accommodations of someone with no legs and spina bifida. I have one friend who is considered legally disabled because some painkillers gave him a headache twice in a row. Supposedly, that was cause by (without investigation) "chemical imbalances" which prevent the friend from accessing sufficient pain mediation. This is absolute bollocks.

But even in those cases, I don’t think truth requires that the phenomenal character of experience reproduce those properties as they are in the world. — Esse Quam Videri

(i'm going to reply to this, then move on to your reply directly to me).

Interesting. So, is your position that even if tout court perception is indirect, we can derive truth from coherent experiences of properties we presume are out there in the world? Seems pretty murky to me, so assume I'm missing something there..

In neither case does perceptual truth require that properties be “directly present” in experience in the sense the naïve realist needs. — Esse Quam Videri

The reason I assume I'm missing something on hte murkiness, is because this doesn't actually say anything to me. Both situations require that the thinker determines their position on veridicality and then practicality and decide to which the term "true" should be applied (conceptually, they maybe contradictory 'objects' of thought, and so cannot be run together).
This seems intellectually expedient at the expense of truth. That said, "humans, under normal circumstances, look at the sky and see it as the colour we call blue" can be considered true, and so in a sense "the sky is blue" is going to be trivially true. But I do not think - and this may be where I diverge from much of the discussion - that that is any of interesting, complex or worthy of debate.

Are we maybe talking about two different things? There's a great paper that came out last year discussing this exact issue and concludes that the question of IR v DR needs to be set aside, as both are non-scientific, folk views which derive from equally substantial pre-scientific belief structures. I found that extremely unsatisfying and seemed more to be geared at sounding profound than anything to do with actually figuring the problem out. Although, I do think it's true among lay people (which the paper was talking about... very, very strangely).

My take has always been that perception is "near enough" reflecting the world to allow for intense, robust co-operation and for memory to function - but that doesn't give me naive realism. Hence, at some stage accepting some of Banno's takes - and at times having to just imagine he hasn't left his house.

"Perception is interpretive, mediated, and embedded in the world — and none of that entails indirectness"

Perfect example. This is total nonsense.

Identity is not comparison. — Esse Quam Videri

Hmm. I can't figure out what you're trying to say. I said that you haven't responded to what I've said there, as you restated the same thing I objected to without further elucidation. This doesn't help either. Can you clarify?

What I mean is that causal mediation does not by itself settle what perception is of. — Esse Quam Videri

Sure. That much is true - Kantian or not, we can't rely on our senses to tell us about what's out there by definition (this is important, though, for my objection) - so it could be a 1:1 match, or a 0:1 match, or a 0:0 match in the case of genuine hallucination. Definitely agree. But as I understand, that isn't the debate. It's whether or not one or other possibilityis the case. There are people who will deny the mediation of the senses to support a DR position. Banno avoids this (i am talking about him a lot because we've had several exchanges on this, at the expense of perhaps engaging with others on it and he did a great job of outlining a position I found totally incoherent to begin with) and it was that which had me move towards the understanding that many people have already set aside the debate I'm trying to have without telling anyone.

But it does not follow from this that the object of perception must be an inner representation rather than a mind-external object. — Esse Quam Videri

That's true - and I don't immediately claim that's the case. It isn't required to support an IR position. It could be 1:1, but if IR is true, we can never know. That seems fine to me and I don't get the discomfort many have with it. Science isn't going to fall apart and stop predicting things because we can't be sure what it's predicting in-and-of-itself. It predicts our perceptions almost perfectly, and that's "near enough" to ensure we do not pull the floor out by saying "science proves that perception is indirect, by way of indirect and unreliable perceptions". This is a confusion. "unreliable" here doesn't relate to whether or not it will work, or cohere. It is unreliable as an indicator of the actual object. Which, on my view, it is even if it's (from God's view) 1:1 in every single case. That part doesn't change the debate between IR and DR.

Saying that the mind “constructs images from sense-data” is already a philosophical interpretation of the science, not something the science itself establishes. All that science requires is that perception depends on causal processes. It does not require that awareness terminates in sense-data or inner pictures rather than in the world itself. — Esse Quam Videri

I am pretty confident it in fact does do this. We can physically watch photons hit cones/rods and transmute to neural signals and move into the brain for interpretation. There is nothing in an object that results in it's image in our mind. I do not think this is philosophically interpretive until you start saying things like "therefore, there's no way to..." or "because of this, we must accept...".

I'm not quite doing that. I'm saying that objectively, we do not see "objects" but images of them. This isn't an interpretation - it's how the mind works (subject to my explanation of why this doesn't defeat my reliance on the scientific findings). The interpretive aspect would be to call it "indirect" and I fully cop to that. Many will accept everything I've said and still call it "direct". I just can't make sense of that - seems a convenient lie to get on with things. Which you can do without the lie.

So the “chasm” you’re describing is not something science forces on us; it’s the result of adopting a particular representationalist model of perception. — Esse Quam Videri

I quite vehemently, and with elucidation above, disagree. It is exactly what we are presented with and exactly what this debate it supposed to categorize in a way that can capture experience and fact. The DRist must find hte physical object in the mental image. That's a chasm science provides also. So, this isn't just a one-way issue of interpretation - both avenues must grapple with the physiology of the eye, vision, the perceptual process and indeed, aberration in any of those, to get a "direct" aspect in to the mix. We only ever see hand-waving at this point. I trust you'll be a little more engaging :) Again, though, we may be having separate conversations but with each other lmao.

how the human perceptual system presents things — Esse Quam Videri

Is the same, without content as:

the sky as it is in relation to the human perceptual system under normal conditions. — Esse Quam Videri

They are literally the same exact thing, but the second includes an example. If you did not mean this, please do clarify.

“humans tend to experience the sky as blue” — Esse Quam Videri

Is the same as

“the sky has properties such that, under normal conditions, it elicits blue-type responses” — Esse Quam Videri

I understand that you're trying to say that 1. is about perception, and 2. is about the sky. The sky isn't even an object. Both are about perception. Again, if you can clarify to tease these apart, I'd be happy to engage.

Those differ quite clearly in terms of:

subject matter (experience vs world), They do not differ. They both talk about (with a guise, in one example) how humans see things
truth conditions (facts about perceivers vs facts about the sky), Again, they amount to the same claim: Humans see things in X way (and then applied to the sky)
direction of explanation (mind → world vs world → mind) true, and doesn't change the content of the two claims being fundamentally the same thing. — Esse Quam Videri

For your claims to be different claims, you need to tell me something about hte sky sans human perceptions. Otherwise, that's all we're discussing as I see it. And probably should. Perhaps this is why i'm not groking you - that resistance is folly to me.

That is not true in ordinary perception — Esse Quam Videri

Yes it is. This may also be a fundamental we cannot come to terms on.

That the body reacts faster than the mind is well established scientifically: — Questioner

I'm unsure an article on a Ketamine clinic's website is the best source for this type of thing. But that's not a problem, because I'm aware this is true anyway. I just cannot understand what it says about my point there - emotions arise in the mind. They are mindstates.

Well, this would go against well-established practices of how the scientific method is used. In any one study, there must be one independent variable and one dependent variable, and all other variables that might affect the outcome of the dependent variable must be controlled. So looking at autistic/nonautistic/trans/cis - introduces too many variables. — Questioner

So yeah, standard method would be to introduce a control group for each aspect you're studying. That wouldn't be hard, but you'd have the data to compare between all four groups. And actually see something worth repeating, in my view.

Well, this introduces a totally new hypothesis and suggests a new study to be done! — Questioner

I don't think it does - probably most lay people who don't have proximity think this way. Seems to me this is hte case for most self-image problems. Not sure how this owuld could differ..

I’m concerned about all the lives lost and suffering as a result of Trump’s behaviour. — Punshhh

Oh good God. LOL.

A judgment is answerable to how things are not by resembling the world, but by being correct or incorrect depending on how things are; when true, what is affirmed is identical with what is the case, without any mediating, internal mental replica. — Esse Quam Videri

This is a restatement of what I've said amount to the same thing? I can't see a response to what I've said there specifically.

Where I disagree is with the further step that treats causal mediation as implying epistemic mediation by inner representations. That step isn’t delivered by science. — Esse Quam Videri

I'm not quite sure how you can make that claim: science tells us our mind cannot look at objects. Our eyes look at objects and our mind constructs images from sense-data. There is an unavoidable chasm between objects and our representations in this form. Can you explain what you mean in the above quote in light of this?

No, the claim is not just about how the human perceptual system presents things. It’s still a claim about the sky; namely the sky as it is in relation to the human perceptual system under normal conditions. — Esse Quam Videri

They are the same thing. Wording things two different ways wont give us two different things.

Threads create a rope.
You can be hung with a rope. But you might not see several threads slowly coming together.

This is hte basis for plenty of legal argumentation. That people do not apply this to society for a bit of forethought is baffling.

Interesting, that you find my points are poetics. Poetics are supposed to be beautiful written expressions of thoughts on the nature or mind. What part of my thoughts and writing were poetics? — Corvus

From What I can tell, all of it. Nothing is direct description or argument for anything - it's just (admittedly, very nice and enjoyable) ways to describe your position. That's fine, btu does nothing for hte things I've put forward.

Really? What is your definition of philosophy? — Corvus

I don't have a definition. But I can tell you that flowery, interesting ways to put forward ones opinion isn't doing philosophy. I'm sure you'd agree (acknowledging you doin't think you've done this - fine).

You need more than bluster. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

Pretty cool that I gave much, much more than this.

Trans people (about whom I know very little) are probably obsessive about their gender (why else would they bother becoming trans). So I assume it's more important to them than it would be to you (if you have normal sensibilities). — Ecurb

There are plenty of things I care about, and in fact, obsess about, which no one has any obligation whatseover to engage with me over.

People's self-image isn't everyone else's obligation.
I see the same slide down the hole of irrationality praxis fell into.

I've granted that "blueness" is not a property of the sky, yet I maintain that "the sky is blue" is true. This sounds like a contradiction, but I don't think it is. — Esse Quam Videri

It is a contradiction in terms, but I understand the second to actually mean "The sky is blue, as far as the HUman perceptual system tends to present" and that is obviously true.

Telling people the facts about their conditions has, across time and place been the singular emotionally effective approach I have ever found with 'truly' disabled people. I make this distinction because in most places you can be deemed legally disabled without any true lack of ability. I'm not complaining, just delineating.

People unable to squarely wordify their condition cannot come to terms with it in a way that can lead to actual peace. The only disabled people who, to me, have appeared happy, are those who accept in raw, accurate terms, their lot in life. This is true of every person I've ever met, but this is a thread about disability.

Seeing the ship is unmediated... Seeing it through a telescope might be called unmediated. What we call a "ship" just is the sort of thing that we see. We don't see it "indirectly" in any ordinary sense. — Banno

Its possible OP was trying to point out how nonsensical such a statement is. But there's been nine pages since, so I don't know.

What we call a 'ship' is also what a babe sees. They are mediated by the babes eyes and existing data set (as you point out, aptly). This is indirectness writ large and is not changed by accumulating more data to more quickly ascertain what the sensations are indicating to you.

I think the science clearly shows that colour, taste, smell, etc. are the product of our biology, causally determined by but very different to the objective nature (e.g. the chemical composition) of apples and ice creams. — Michael

This has long been my argument - science (which, if you take a moment, cannot give us certainty under any circumstances) - the best method we have for understanding anything - tells us that perception is patently indirect. This isn't really a philosophical issue.

mirroring between what’s in the mind and what’s in the world, but in a judgment’s being correct or incorrect depending on how things are — Esse Quam Videri

These seem to be the same thing?

can be corrected by further interaction with them — Esse Quam Videri

Not always. You could simply talk about emotional sensations or at least involuntary mental states and make clear that our perceptions are wildly divergent. This can apply to sound, sight and touch. When the system is adjusted, sensation is adjusted and we do not really have ways to adjudicate between them between perception is, scientifically, a step askance from objects.

I am quite unsure why this ruffles so many feathers. There's kind of two positions that could taken in this type of vein:

1. Science tells us perception is indirect. Acknowledging that it requires perception to come to this conclusion, this doesn't mean we reject our senses for practical purposes. It means we cannot be sure of what our sensations represent - but if they are coherent as between individuals (mostly true) then we can get on just fine. This seems to be hte purpose of science, just to an extremely narrow and rigid margin of error - particularly in comparison with other methods (like trying to logically deduce emotional responses to stimuli);
Objection: Given that this requires that our sensations are, fundamentally, unreliable in some sense, we cannot trust science to give us this conclusion. We cannot trust science to lead us to any worth-while conclusions.
I'm sure we all see the issue with this response.

2. Science tells us perception is direct.
Objection: Patently untrue. It just might not matter to the realist because they're having a different discussion maybe?

When we cite "emotional blindness" - to what are the emotions blind? Clues and signals from the body. — Questioner

Hmm, tough one. I can't say this strikes me as 'right'. Emotions seem to come from (or at least arise in) the mind. Not being able to adequately parse the mental states that accompany what we routine call.. pick your poison: sadness, exultation, disappointment etc.. seems to be what it refers to. But you're otherwise right, in that this is included in the loop that creates a perceived self-identity.

Not exactly. From what I read, being "nonautistic" was a controlled variable in the study, since autistic persons tend to have higher rates of alexithymia. The two relevant variables in the study were transgender vs. cisgender. — Questioner

I'm unsure what control is used changes my (tentative and certainly not detailed) conclusion. I understand that the groups in question were those groups - I would want to see a comparison with autistic non-trans people and non-autistic trans people. I think the results would edify this study nicely. But again, replication etc.. so happy to accept both possible interpretations.

I don't mean connected by muscle, blood and bone, but by the electrochemical signals coursing through your nervous system. Nervous system communication is confused and can result in depersonalization. — Questioner

Oh, ok I see what you mean. Fair enough - maybe hte terms were just unclear.

I can't see a reason to introduce self-absorption or an "internal ignorance" into the discussion. — Questioner

Because they adequately explain the results. It might not be the case, or might be a mild contributing factor (I think that's fairly uncontroversial to claim).. I suppose partially i'm going by experience too. Again, happy to accept both interpretations as it stands.

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

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

Grow up.

That is the standard response to being asked to challenge your own views. Particularly when evidence is presented. Not sure why.

1. Uhh, the claim is his personal view is that trans people are awful and shouldn't exist. This context puts paid to that egregiously stupid claim. It is incorrect. Given that we have several instances of Charlie defending minorities against his own followers, maybe you should reconsider the ridiculous caricature you seem to have in mind.

2. We've just found out that it may have been (well, that's dramatic - but certainly there's truck to some claims made back then). But I don't defend that - everyone says elections are stolen and it's always stupid. Russian influence etc... Plenty of people claim Trump stole both elections. Not serious people, to be sure (well, to my knowledge). This is wholly irrelevant to what's been said, though.

I suggest you make an effort to falsify your incorrect view on this person. I've provided one link.

L1. If something is "different from what is usual," then it is special
{from the definition AmadeusD provided}
L2. Humans are different from what is usual
L3. Therefore, humans are special — Leontiskos

L2 is false (it is usual to be unique, and choosing human traits above others is arbitrary).

A1. If that which is different from the usual is special, then everything is special
A2. But not everything is special
A3. Therefore, it is not true that that which is different from the usual is special
{modus tollens} — Leontiskos

Yep. It's not that the definition is inadequate or that 'special' is arbitary under those terms - it's just meaningless. which leads me to believe only the anthropocentric use matters. If that's the case, I have no problem(which I've noted) but this is entirely contingent and we cannot say that humans are special, other than in this contingent, parochial sense.

You keep implying that the definition that you picked out is insufficient: — Leontiskos

I do not. As above, L2 is false under this definition. I do not need to revise it at all. I cannot follow you, because you're not making much sense.

So, to run again the claim you made that "babies are special". The support was that babies become adult humans, and humans are special.

As noted, if this is a claim contingent on being a human, looking at other humans(seems that it is, by your elaborations) - humans can be special in the contingent sense outlined above, but babies cannot. They are entirely usual for a human.

Humans are only special insofar as the majority of beings are special. Is that hte type of 'special' you mean? If so, it's pretty empty to me. If you genuinely mean humans are 'special' per definition, I think you're committed to the anthropocentric use which to me, precludes babies being special.

But that still leaves you with a difficult argument to make, namely the argument that humans are not better or greater than what is usual. — Leontiskos

Not hard at all for a non-theologist.

Hmm, you think so? It seems to me a threat has to exist for us to note one. Albeit, this could be memorial threat rather than imminent and so sometimes it'll be erroneous.

I think outgroups function fine when they stay apart from yours. I, personally, have absolutely no issue with voluntary social segregation along cultural lines - I'm fairly sure any form of Islam which is anything but mild is fairly incompatible with a free and open society - so too is full religious right-wing Christianity.

I just don't know how to create a central control mechanism like a federal govt without favouring different groups in ways that suck.

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

No, not at all. That's not semantics. "death" is an event. "being dead" is not "death".

Corvus is literally using poetics to try to make metaphysical points. Its weird and empty.

aniv has caused more harm than help to the cause of transgender persons, so not quite so comedic. — Questioner

That's fair - As i say, from a detached perspective. But I agree, anyway. It's just cartoonish. Maybe that would have been better phrasing.

She is no more representative of that community than Trump is of the American people. — Questioner

I think the apt way to put this is "republicans". Otherwise its apples and oranges. Not to say your point about Yaniv isn't meaningful. But do bear in mind, that applies to plenty of voices in the trans community, including those who carry out violence and intimidation on behalf of their identatarian thought regime. I know this isn't representative of "trans" but its what the world has to deal with. I hope it's been noted I know (well, and not so well) plenty of trans people due to both my previous "extreme left" social life and my work life. I have no problem with people expressing themselves. Its that I do not believe for a moment that "trans" is some immutable, born-this-way characteristic of anyone. Feminniity and masculinity may be biologically influenced, but I can't go much further than that. Clear, social aspects influence those traits far more than biology in the modern world and that gives pause.

psychobiological processes: interoception and alexithymia — Questioner

This may become redundant, but I don't understand either of these as processes. They appear to be either conditions or facilities (one of which I have been diagnosed with in the past). Onward..

Alexithymia is a difficulty in interpreting those signals. — Questioner

It seems more correct that this is an issue identifying and processing emotions and noting them via body language or subtle spoken language. Its a very "spectrum" condition. I was diagnosed with it as an aspect of DsD at one point. It is known as "emotional blindness". Careful not to conflate the former, which is the body's ability to process internal signalling like temperature, hunger and muscle tension with the latter, which is problems processing emotions.

Further research shows that “nonautistic transgender participants reported significantly higher mean levels of alexithymia than nonautistic cisgender participants, and that there was a significant overrepresentation of individuals in this group who met the clinical cutoff for alexithymia. — Questioner

This indicates an overlap between trans and autism spectrum disorder. This is expected by most who do not take trans as a standalone mental state. It actually indicates that what's being discovered is high levels of autism in those claiming a trans identity. Two ways of looking at hte same coin.

Transgender individuals experiencing dysphoria are literally and biologically less connected to their bodies. — Questioner

These terms do not make sense, I don't think - you are, biologically, your body (well - not quite. But you cannot escape your body in any way). You cannot be biologically disconnected from it in any way other than to remove parts of it (lets not go there). I don't know what you might mean by "literally" in this case.

This interferes with the construction of self-identity, which naturally relies on the signals interpreted by the brain. Only if you feel connected to your body can you say, “This body is me.” — Questioner

I disagree, but i fully understand the point and take it. As with the previous note above, that conclusion could (and I read the majority of the paper) equally indicate that being focused on oneself for long enoguh will do the trick. That seems true.

The suggestion in the paper could be correct, but it could also simply mean that TW who have been self-obsessed for a long enough time increase their bodily awareness and therefore interoception. It could just be a matter overcoming an internal ignorance.

I don't know - but it's hard to read those papers (particularly in the middle of hte replication crisis, and with such incredibly small sample sizes) as showing much.

My favourite sentence of all time, a friend and I stumbled across some 12 years ago:

"Nothing means it.." in reference to... something.

Yep. In the exact context I gave.

He also, multiple times, stood up for minorities even against his own fans, spoke highly of all people as children of God. This speaks to delusion, as I'm not religious, ubt it is outright wrong to suggest that he, personally, had some moral issue with trans people tout court.

This is a genuine thing, not my suggesting something about you - if you're willing to see Charlie for what he actually was, and see his utterances in context and without specious commentary, you may find this interesting. It was one factor that made me realise my understanding of Kirk as hateful was woefully inaccurate. It is an analysis from a Christian perspective, which is important - but also from a Kirk critic (in his lifetim).

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

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

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

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

2.

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

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

3.

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

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

4.

Why? What did they tell you? — Questioner

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

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

5.

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

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

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

6.

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

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

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

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

I've always said that if you would have a democracy that would be the closest to libertarian values, the libertarians themselves would be the ones very disappointed with the system. But that's their problem, not mine. — ssu

LOL. Yep.

But the outliers should not decide the rule — Questioner

Definitely with you this. I do my best not to - but then, I don't see someone like Kirk as an extremist where plenty will. I thikn that's unfounded and unfortunate - again, there may just be daylight we can't cut across if so. Not an accusation on you, just talking about the wider conversation more generally.

I like that you introduced the word "worldview" - good word. Although, I am not sure what you mean by the "trans identity worldview." — Questioner

Well, there seems to me to be a stark different between trans people who essentially just see the world as it is, and accept there's an unfortunate aspect to their nature on the one hand, and trans people who make it their entire identity and everything in their life hinges on ways in which that identity can be inculcated into all those other aspects. That seems ideological. Yaniv is probably a good, while comedic (from a detached perspective anyway), example there. The way people make that joke about how a Vegan will let you know they're vegan - even if trans people weren't, in 99% of cases easily identifiable physically, the group I'm talking about will make it plenty obvious before you have a chance to assess their height and find out their surname (quip, not claim).

No, sorry, that study does not apply, since it compares stable families with families that have dissolved. Not the same thing at all as comparing cisgender parents to transgender parents. — Questioner

That wasn't specifically a question I was answering (hence, not quoting it). In a "fully trans" family, it will be a nuclear family, albeit with the sexes switched for the gendered roles. I think the logic applies.

I also don't see how that difference changes the conclusions of the study - the point is that the dissolved families are more likely to draw outside the noted framework (fwiw, I don't care and wouldn't encourage or discourage any type of family unit that isn't abusive).

But if you are adhering to it, then what is wrong with the argument I provided you? — Leontiskos

I've treated it. In response, you essentially made the claim that certain novelties of being human is what supports the label, right? If that's wrong, correct me and I'll have another go. If that's right:

We only have two options:
1. "special" is human-centric (i.e to do with only the human lens on the world, let's say). In this case, Humans are the norm. Babies are the norm. Nothing special going on; or
2. it's not human centric and choosing specifically human attributes to support use of the label reverts to a sneaky form of using 1. It also violates the definition, eventually, as if all beings (or most) beings on Earth carry with them specificities and uniqueness not shared by others, then that is normal. Nothing special about being unique.

So in any case, It doesn't seem humans are special outside of the (totally fine, reasonable and acceptable) parochial, contingent and non-metaphysical use.

It is extremely tedious having to walk through this again in the face of claims like this:

I gave you an argument showing that, according to the definition you provided, human beings are special. — Leontiskos

Because you didn't do this. You claimed it. The argument didn't work. I have "thought about it" a lot.

Right back at you. You'd have to actually explain yourself.

On your question; No. That doesn't make any sense.

Engaging with your cite (and pointing out the flaws) is not being an "honest interlocutor"?
What exactly am I allowed to post in this discussion forum? I must agree with you uncritically? — Mijin

I did not cite it - you'll note from my language that this is obvious. As I've addressed. Please read clearly and carefully before responding. I think it's pitiful to be engaging in this way.

Yes you do; that's the whole point of trying to cite something. — Mijin

As above. You do not read posts clearly before responding. It makes things very difficult.

Your argument is baseless right now — Mijin

Err, nope. You haven't even identified it, despite my pointing it out clearly and concisely. And here you go anyway. This also shows that the comments above about domestic-abuse related crimes both doesn't hold up, and doesn't make sense.

ChatGPT warns that, given the limitations in the data, arrests are likely to be higher.

There we go. Now my argument is perfectly well founded, even based on your misreadings and fallacies.

If I posted anything incorrect then please correct me. — Mijin

Fallacies are not 'incorrect'. They are bad arguments. You:

1. Poisoned the well;
2. Made statements without backing (about an identifiable person);
3. Strawmanned.

Anti-Islam isn't racist. It isn't even bigoted. It's having a preference against a religion. Antichristian themes have been well-accepted across most of society (to the point of extremely offensive provocation) for decades. Nothing wrong with it.

The majority of claims about Robinson stem from reports. Not facts. He's clearly not the greatest spokesperson for anything, but these claims are just lazy and uninteresting.

Still not actually doing anything. Cool man. Perhaps just don't post in threads you have nothing to add to.

Interesting opener.

My position has been that gender identity is something formed during fetal development, during the differentiation and organization of the brain during the third trimester of pregnancy. — Questioner

I reject this, so we're already at big odds.

But I mean being gender critical isn't an ideology either. Yet, you have people citing it to support clearly ideological nonsense, some of which is obviously dangerous. So to on the TRA side with the Zizians and plenty of small (and yes, mainly inconsequential) militias arming to the teeth and going after those they decide are wrong, or individuals like Jessica Yaniv waging legal wars against people due to her clear delusional world view.

I suggest we can bring up plenty of examples like your clip there to indicate an "ideology" behind trans activism, at least, and it does clearly seem to be a 'worldview'. So, to me, 'being trans' is clearly not an ideology, but the worldview it tends to embed within can be. There are plenty of trans people who entirely reject the worldview that tends to come along with trans identity - this is the biggest point to me in assessing the factions at play.

So "being trans" might or might not fit the bill, but I think more clearly both sides are talking about legitimately scary, dangerous factions. No problem admitting there's no parity when you have groups like the one you've posted the clip of supporting shit like that as compared to usually pretty isolated examples on the other side. The only comment I will make on the other side is that we're yet to see the psychological damage done by the trans ideologues (small as those groups might be) in convincing children they can change sex. A fair bit of the psychological distress seems to be borne from this lie.

I can retort to this by asking, what evidence do you have that any family outside the "father-mother-children" paradigm is less stable? — Questioner

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10313020/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Not conclusive, but it seems to be pretty replicable. Averages and all that as a pinch of salt. It wont work for everyone.

"exist spatially"? Then first response is right.

"exist conceptually"? Then definitely more that do not exist, in fact exist. See. Philosophy can be fun.