"Woke" Franchises

Vyor said:
You aren't trying to say anything. You're just throwing around a whole lotta philosophical concepts without actually using them for what they actually mean. You ignore the opposing argument because it reveals you to be a dumbass.

The theology is "god man man and woman as man and woman, not man in woman or woman in man therefore transgender shit is just that: bullshit"

This is a self consistent argument.
Click to expand...
I have no idea why you’re expressing so much hostility out of the blue. My point isn’t that being trans is good or bad. My point is that people who are pro-trans and anti-trans are operating on two mutually incompatible ontological frameworks and will basically be stuck arguing the point endlessly without resolution. This is kind of self-demonstrating, in this case.

Bassoe said:
Of course not! Nothing about the whole 'enormous rodent' thing, she's a married women.

The problem with Istvan's argument for people having the ultimate individual freedom to reshape their biology is the same as any other hyperlibertarian argument, that he doesn't take zero-sum competition forcing people to do what's effective/profitable, not what they want, into account.

Imagine a society with biotech such that they can remake their bodies and minds into anything they want.

Now imagine a group within said society uses said tech to specialize themselves for their economic role. For a desk job, they're a brain and a bare minimum of life-support feeding off the cheapest/most economically effective nutrient gruel.

Or equivalent for whatever career.

Since said group are more effective, they're the only ones being hired, therefore becoming one of them regardless of whether or not you actually want to becomes the bare minimum necessity for employment like degree inflation today. And of course, the rulers of said society will inevitably be trying to add rent-seeking measures with every biological rewrite. You're unemployable unless you pay for biomods but the biomods come with a coincidental ketracel-white addiction only supplied by the company manufacturing them.

Meanwhile, the whole capitalist society is under threat from Outside Context Problems, anyone who rather than using biomods to make themselves more effective within it, used them to make themselves more capable in general with intention toward not needing it.


Or, you know, a barbarian horde composed of the nietzscheans from andromeda with a master race complex sacking civilization.
Click to expand...

Yes. This is precisely the problem. The tech for “morphological freedom” would more likely be used to split people into superior and inferior castes, Brave New World style, which is an abomination from my perspective.
 
SoliFortissimi said:
Sounds really fantasy. Where did you get that and what does it mean?
Click to expand...

Its from a philosopher known as Bruce Charlton. He identifies three forms of evil..the Luciferian which is based on narcissism, hedonism and selfishness, the Ahrimanic which is based on control and domination and the Sorathic, which is based on envy, resentment and nihilism. Of the three, the Sorathic evil is the worst. It seeks to consume and destroy everything, even itself leaving nothing in its wake.

Luciferic, Ahrimanic and Sorathic evil reflect the societal hierarchy

If we take the three types of evil - Luciferic, Ahrimanic and Sorathic (lustful-tormenting, systemic-bureaucratic, and negative-destructiv...
charltonteaching.blogspot.com charltonteaching.blogspot.com
 
Iconoclast said:
I have no idea why you’re expressing so much hostility out of the blue. My point isn’t that being trans is good or bad. My point is that people who are pro-trans and anti-trans are operating on two mutually incompatible ontological frameworks and will basically be stuck arguing the point endlessly without resolution. This is kind of self-demonstrating, in this case.
Click to expand...
I'm hostile because you're a lying fuckwit.
 
SoliFortissimi said:
Sounds really fantasy. Where did you get that and what does it mean?
Click to expand...
It's tripe invented by the megalomaniacal occultist Rudolf Steiner, who was so much of an antichrist lover that he believed in two of them; Lucifer and Ahriman who represented opposite foundations of Human knowledge. He believed that a dialectical fusion between the two was inevitable, and that done properly and healthily it would cultivate the "Christ Impulse", but that it would otherwise lead to the annihilative presence of "Sorath" the super-antichrist. Also he refused to identify materialism and spiritualism by anything other than the anthropomorphic representations of their unhealthiest extremes, which aside from making it unreadable also makes me think, 'what's your point because you are talking exactly like you want to be misread as a devil worshipper by both your devotees and critics'.
Also while he correctly identified that Christendom largely suffers from denial the Spirit of Prophecy, his 'solution' was to continue with exactly that instead of seeking communion with God.
Theosophism is very definitely fantasy, and dangerous fantasy, you have all the hallmarks of it; obsession with cosmic symmetries, weird determinism, superpowers, restriction of 'religious motifs' to only the weird parts, self-aggrandizing past lives.
 
Vyor said:
Did you or did you not say this?
Click to expand...
My point is that people weirdly flip-flop from dualism to monism and back when confronted with the issue of gender. You demonstrated it yourself in this very thread. You stated the sentiment that "God made man as a man and woman as a woman, not man in a woman or woman in a man", et cetera. That is a very monist sentiment, that people are their physical bodies and not a separate spiritual essence floating around inside their heads. But you also said that humans have souls, so you're also willing to accept the dualist position. So, which is it? Monism or dualism? People can never seem to make up their minds about this.
 
Iconoclast said:
My point is that people weirdly flip-flop from dualism to monism and back when confronted with the issue of gender. You demonstrated it yourself in this very thread. You stated the sentiment that "God made man as a man and woman as a woman, not man in a woman or woman in a man", et cetera. That is a very monist sentiment, that people are their physical bodies and not a separate spiritual essence floating around inside their heads. But you also said that humans have souls, so you're also willing to accept the dualist position. So, which is it? Monism or dualism? People can never seem to make up their minds about this.
Click to expand...

They are the same fucking position.
 
Iconoclast said:
My point is that people weirdly flip-flop from dualism to monism and back when confronted with the issue of gender. You demonstrated it yourself in this very thread. You stated the sentiment that "God made man as a man and woman as a woman, not man in a woman or woman in a man", et cetera. That is a very monist sentiment, that people are their physical bodies and not a separate spiritual essence floating around inside their heads. But you also said that humans have souls, so you're also willing to accept the dualist position. So, which is it? Monism or dualism? People can never seem to make up their minds about this.
Click to expand...
If you want a constructive explanation of this; the entire concept of dualism exists in cherrypicking between what is part of your invisible higher person, most dualists would agree that your injuries or even birth defects are not part of your spirit, as a good start. Theolgians have accepted that Heaven would be a neuter existence, sex is something to cope with the limits of biology, and gender roles (when the church doesn't hate those) are training wheels for our relationship with God.
 
Vyor said:
They are the same fucking position.
Click to expand...
No, they are separate and distinct. The idea of gender identity implies the existence of a psyche separate from the soma, which, in turn, implies that the human body is just a type of vehicle that the psyche pilots, and that the two are not necessarily of the same essence. As a matter of fact, transgenderism is very common among people with autism, because people with autism have deficits in proprioception and interoception that make their minds feel more separate and distinct from their bodies than most people. Most neurotypical people don't feel like a mind trapped in a body that doesn't belong to them. They feel like they are their bodies, hence the lower rates of dysphoria and distress.


The dualistic view sees man as composed of mind and body-the mental and the physical (in ancient anthropological terms, "soul and body" or "spirit and body"). This "ghost-in-the-machine" model has a long history, dating from Plato and other early Greek philosophers. In modern times, the outstanding success of the field of medicine in conquering disease has reinforced a kind of "mind-plus-plumbing'? conception of man. Although the mind and the plumbing are thought to interact, there seems to be an implicit belief that man is composed of psyche and soma, as the term "psychosomatic medicine7' suggests. In its strongest form, dualism suggests that man is mind and body. In a somewhat weaker, but more subtle form, it implies that mental events are correlated with physical events, or that the mind influences the body. But to speak of correlation is to imply that there are two factors or two entities involved, for one cannot correlate something with itself. It is precisely this kind of interactional or correlational dualism which is probably adhered to by many Christians who reject the more direct and overt theory of mind-body dualism. 280 JOHN M. BERECZ The monistic model rejects any splitting of man into parts and views him as a unified organism of great complexity and varied functioning. This view rejects the notion that he is composed of a mind and a body which interact (a weak form of dualism), but rather emphasizes man's absolutely basic unity. To use an analogy from modern physics, we know that a flash of lightning is an electrical discharge. There are not two things, the flash and the discharge. There is just one thing; the flash is the electrical discharge. These are but two different ways of characterizing the same event. Similarly, according to the monistic theory, there do not exist mental events which are correlated with physiological events; rather, a "mental" event is also a "physiological" event. The terminology simply represents two ways of characterizing the selfsame event.
Click to expand...

www.spectrumnews.org

Largest study to date confirms overlap between autism and gender diversity

People who do not identify with the sex they were assigned at birth are three to six times as likely to be autistic as cisgender people are.
www.spectrumnews.org www.spectrumnews.org

People who do not identify with the sex they were assigned at birth are three to six times as likely to be autistic as cisgender people are, according to the largest study yet to examine the connection1. Gender-diverse people are also more likely to report autism traits and to suspect they have undiagnosed autism.
Click to expand...

neurodivergentinsights.com

Autism and Interoception

There is a strong link between Autism and interoception difficultuties--which could be impacting your health. Learn more here.
neurodivergentinsights.com neurodivergentinsights.com

When it comes to autism and interoception, it's a complex and paradoxical picture. One study on Autism Interoception found that while Autistic people tend to have less interoceptive accuracy, we have more interoceptive sensibility and sensitivity. This means that

1) We tend to perform less well when interoception awareness is objectively measured (for example, through heartbeat detection tests)

2) And paradoxically, we tend to have an exaggerated interoceptive sensibility (subjective sensitivity to internal sensations)

On self-report measures, Autistic people report higher awareness of bodily sensations while doing more poorly on objective measures. This suggests that, on average, the Autistic person has difficulty objectively detecting bodily signals while simultaneously experiencing an over-inflated perception of bodily sensations (Garfinkel et al., 2016). This means that an Autistic person may experience (subjective) heightened signals while being less accurate in their ability to objectively measure and interpret these signals.
Click to expand...

www.frontiersin.org

Frontiers | Gender Brain Structural Differences and Interoception

Interoception, the ability to perceive inner body sensations, has been demonstrated to be different among genders, with a stronger female attention toward in...
www.frontiersin.org www.frontiersin.org

Interoception is a multifaceted construct, reflecting the capability in perceiving inner body signals. The self-evaluation of subjective interoceptive sensations returns the interoceptive sensibility (Garfinkel et al., 2015). Substantial sex-related variations in paying attention to one's bodily states have been demonstrated in several independent samples (Longarzo et al., 2020), where women exhibit higher attention to internal states and somatic complaints but reduced objective interoceptive accuracy (Grabauskaitë et al., 2017), understood as the objective accuracy to detect bodily sensations (Garfinkel et al., 2015). Murphy et al. (2019) in their review argued about the known sex differences in interoception, whereby women with respect to men report heightened attention to internal signals, and they hypothesized that interoceptive differences might be due to the amount of physical and hormonal changes experienced by women through life due to experiences of menstruation, pregnancy, and menopause. Interoception is closely related with visceral sensations; in fact, it is also a factor of the Self-Awareness Questionnaire (SAQ), a questionnaire focused on interoceptive stimuli (Longarzo et al., 2015). Gender seems to cover a role in abdominal pathologies such as irritable bowel syndrome: several authors such as Chang and Heitkemper (2002) reported that women experienced more constipation, nausea, bloating, and extraintestinal symptoms than men. As a brain correlate, it has been found that neural networks respond differently to visceral stimuli in men and women with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).
Click to expand...
 
I get very minor body dysmorphia when I go too long without shaving since I feel more comfortable presenting as androgynous than outwardly masculine cisgender male. Hardly anything that would necessitate any sort of invasive body-altering surgery. And from what I understand about biology shaving is about all you can do, there is no known surgery for permanently reducing the amount of body hair iirc
 
Vyor said:
Here is a man, it is filled with man
Here is a woman, it is filled with woman

The filling is the soul.
Click to expand...
So what you're saying is that the essence of the soul is strictly tied to the essence of the body, even if they are two separate entities? That's an interesting argument.

For a long time, sex and gender were assumed to be synonyms. When a form asked you for your gender, basically, it was inquiring about your sex, for instance. However, in recent years, gender has been presented as something completely different; as a general "feeling" of man-ness or woman-ness, as a set of principles governing behavior, as something airy and ephemeral separate and distinct from the physical experience of biological sex. Technically, this notion of internal self-identification could be applied to any category of identity. If someone says, for instance, "I feel like a woman inside", this is fundamentally no different from someone saying "I feel like a wolf inside".

Mental self-identity is not set at birth. It is malleable and changeable. It is entirely possible for someone, at any time, to simply decide that their psyche has a different identity from what their outward appearance would imply. That's where you get transgender people, transracial people, otherkin, and so on. It's all the same phenomenon. It is a belief about oneself, regardless of their physical attributes.

Usually, most arguments against this form of mental self-identification take on a materialist-monist character, asserting that identity is dictated by the physical substance of the body, and that mental self-identification of this sort is an aberration. Your argument, it would appear, is that the mind and body are indeed separate entities, but that their identity is intrinsically linked (which, by the way, recapitulates many aspects of monism, regardless).

These are two groups of people with fundamentally incompatible ontological perspectives. When someone asserts, for instance, "I'm trans, I feel like a member of the opposite sex", what they're saying is that it is impossible to know their internal characteristics by examining their outward appearance.

To people who are anti-trans, this is disturbing, even deceitful. They're realists. They like being able to trust their senses and immediately grasp who is a man or a woman just by looking at their actual, physical body and taking in the evidence of their secondary sexual characteristics. From this perspective, trans people are weird mental changelings, morphing from one identity to the next seemingly on a whim.

Ontology is the area of metaphysics that deals with the nature of being. Epistemology deals with knowledge. Together, these principles decide which categories of entities exist, whether or not we can have knowledge of them, and so on. It occurs to me that people who are pro-trans and people who are anti-trans have two very different ontological and epistemological ideas of what constitutes "a state of being", and that this will be a source of endless friction between the two groups.

Many ideological struggles in the present day take on this exact sort of character, being emblematic of an idealist/realist or nominalist/realist divide, and having nothing to do with actual politics as most people conceive of them. These problems are basically irreconcilable by design. My theory is that the ruling class invent these sorts of divides to keep people fragmented and fighting each other endlessly without ever reconciling their beliefs.

DarthOne said:
Except the body and soul are linked. I know that much from Orthodox teachings- I will try to do further research.

Also, the whole transgender (and LGBTQ) ideology is based upon utter nonsense. Even from a purely scientific stand point it’s nonsense. It was nonsense back in the 1930’s and it was nonsense when Kinsey did his ‘research’.
Click to expand...
I looked into Kinsey years ago and was honestly quite horrified by what I found. I couldn't believe how many people cited him as a source, with the things he actually did. Absolutely repulsive.
 
Vyor said:
It's the standard argument.
Click to expand...
I still think you're missing the point.

Note the general trend among wokesters to prioritize "lived experience", and so forth. Their argument is that what you believe to be true about yourself and your own identity takes precedence over what others believe about you. This is, for instance, why they get upset when authors write "the other", like when a white person writes about a black protagonist, and so on. They have this idea that it's impossible to know what it's like to actually be a different race without having lived it, that people are essentially experts on their own identities.

It's kind of funny, but the wokesters actually contradict themselves in this, too. That same argument could be applied against trans people (i.e. "It's impossible to know what it's like to be a woman without having lived the physical reality of womanhood"), and so on.
 
Vyor said:
Here is a man, it is filled with man
Here is a woman, it is filled with woman

The filling is the soul.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that there are male and female souls? Isn’t this a dangerous argument since trannies can say that they have gender dysmorphia because they are a woman’s soul trapped in a man’s body. The argument would be they are disabled or crippled in some way since the world is imperfect just like humans can be born with one arm and missing the other one the same argument would say that they were born in the wrong body.
Iconoclast said:
So what you're saying is that the essence of the soul is strictly tied to the essence of the body, even if they are two separate entities? That's an interesting argument.

For a long time, sex and gender were assumed to be synonyms. When a form asked you for your gender, basically, it was inquiring about your sex, for instance. However, in recent years, gender has been presented as something completely different; as a general "feeling" of man-ness or woman-ness, as a set of principles governing behavior, as something airy and ephemeral separate and distinct from the physical experience of biological sex. Technically, this notion of internal self-identification could be applied to any category of identity. If someone says, for instance, "I feel like a woman inside", this is fundamentally no different from someone saying "I feel like a wolf inside".

Mental self-identity is not set at birth. It is malleable and changeable. It is entirely possible for someone, at any time, to simply decide that their psyche has a different identity from what their outward appearance would imply. That's where you get transgender people, transracial people, otherkin, and so on. It's all the same phenomenon. It is a belief about oneself, regardless of their physical attributes.

Usually, most arguments against this form of mental self-identification take on a materialist-monist character, asserting that identity is dictated by the physical substance of the body, and that mental self-identification of this sort is an aberration. Your argument, it would appear, is that the mind and body are indeed separate entities, but that their identity is intrinsically linked (which, by the way, recapitulates many aspects of monism, regardless).

These are two groups of people with fundamentally incompatible ontological perspectives. When someone asserts, for instance, "I'm trans, I feel like a member of the opposite sex", what they're saying is that it is impossible to know their internal characteristics by examining their outward appearance.

To people who are anti-trans, this is disturbing, even deceitful. They're realists. They like being able to trust their senses and immediately grasp who is a man or a woman just by looking at their actual, physical body and taking in the evidence of their secondary sexual characteristics. From this perspective, trans people are weird mental changelings, morphing from one identity to the next seemingly on a whim.

Ontology is the area of metaphysics that deals with the nature of being. Epistemology deals with knowledge. Together, these principles decide which categories of entities exist, whether or not we can have knowledge of them, and so on. It occurs to me that people who are pro-trans and people who are anti-trans have two very different ontological and epistemological ideas of what constitutes "a state of being", and that this will be a source of endless friction between the two groups.

Many ideological struggles in the present day take on this exact sort of character, being emblematic of an idealist/realist or nominalist/realist divide, and having nothing to do with actual politics as most people conceive of them. These problems are basically irreconcilable by design. My theory is that the ruling class invent these sorts of divides to keep people fragmented and fighting each other endlessly without ever reconciling their beliefs.


I looked into Kinsey years ago and was honestly quite horrified by what I found. I couldn't believe how many people cited him as a source, with the things he actually did. Absolutely repulsive.
Click to expand...
I already answered you about the soul vs the body though. Did you miss it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top