My Thing on Transgenderism hate me if you want.

[KilroywasNOTHere]

the thing for me on sex in general, is that sex/gender is often determined by chromosomes either XX or XY, in order for true transgenderism to occur, one would have to manipulate their bodies on a chromosomal level, and considering that (level of) Genetic therapy and manipulation is still a very new and controversial science, we are nowhere near technologically capable of such feats, even if and when we do get to that level of technology, it's going to come with it's own slew of physical and social problems. We're still struggling with organ transplants right now.

Styx is more liberal on this than I am, but he nails the biology part.

 

[GodIsaSerb]

This is why the left has spent the past couple decades screwing around with the definitions of the terms sex and gender. When you talk to these people they will frequently use them interchangeably and conflate the two but when you pressure on them for concrete definitions you'll see their viewpoints break down. What I've found is that if you push them on this point they will say they aren't changing their sex they are changing their gender because "gender is a social construct" (its not). Look up pictures of people who have de-transitioned. People spend years shooting up hormones to look like an uncanny valley version of the opposite sex and within 2 months de-transitioning they go back to looking exactly like their birth sex because its not possible to change your sex. Transgenderism is the only form of dysphoria where people claim the cure is to indulge the person in their delusions.

 

[Doomsought]

You need to start with good definitions. Lets start with sex:
The male and female sex are phenotypes existing within the same species which function in a complimentary fashion for the purpose of procreation.
The Male sex is the phenotype which supplies mobile gametes to the female sex.

Like a pair of differential equations, these two sentences lock down the meanings of the words. Most important is the purpose clause. Most arguments in support of transgenderism on a biological basis rely on the false premise that sex traits are purely random rather than purposeful.

Gender on the other-hand is completely made up by ideologues. Human sexuality sexual attraction is a Bayesian belief network which is constantly learning.

Next is any argument on the principle of "X is really Y". You can shut this down with a proof from first principles using the definition of reality "Reality is that which remains true when you cease to believe in it".

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

This is why the left has spent the past couple decades screwing around with the definitions of the terms sex and gender. When you talk to these people they will frequently use them interchangeably and conflate the two but when you pressure on them for concrete definitions you'll see their viewpoints break down. What I've found is that if you push them on this point they will say they aren't changing their sex they are changing their gender because "gender is a social construct" (its not). Look up pictures of people who have de-transitioned. People spend years shooting up hormones to look like an uncanny valley version of the opposite sex and within 2 months de-transitioning they go back to looking exactly like their birth sex because its not possible to change your sex. Transgenderism is the only form of dysphoria where people claim the cure is to indulge the person in their delusions.

The problem is they are associating Sex, with Gender social behavior and I mean even in that sense it's inaccurate to say it's a purely social construct given the fact that behavior is part overall biology + environment/Societal + individual makeup, and to be honest doesn't really mean much unless your living in a complete OCD authoritarian society where everyone must fit the role the society has given them.

Part of the reason why I think Gender studies is useless is that it was trying to solve a problem that was a non-issue and just created a whole bunch of confusion in the process. Just because little Susie likes chugging Pepsi driving fast, lifting weights, and knocking jerks on their buts doesn't change the fact that Susie is still a female. (Sounds like my kind of woman now that I think about it but I digress.)

The part where I say I'm less liberal than Styx on this case Is I'm really leaning toward not supporting transgenderism in any capacity beyond giving people who suffer from dysphoria medical help. it'd be one thing if gender reassignment surgery actually helped with the dysfunctional dysphoria and helped with social interaction and blending in with society at large, but we are finding it doesn't and in fact in many cases it makes things worse. I don't believe in Permanently putting people in institutions like thier a bunch of undesirables as I don't see how that's any better than Euthanizing or aborting people, but I do think we'll find that the dysphoria has less to do with gender and more to do with misfires of the brain that render a person dysfunctional and it needs to be treated as such. People don't need to fit into gender stereotypes but at the point you almost immediately fall into extreme paranoia and massive suicidal tendencies, there is a problem.

 

[Deleted member]

Nobody hates you here. This board defends free speech.

A rather lengthy summary of the subject for an alternative perspective was provided here. -- NSFW access is required.

To address a few points as a brief reprise from a prior post in support of the above link -- from a biological matter, consider that we have demonstrated fertile XY females who give birth to presumptively fertile XY females. Therefore, we can state that while XY karyotyping may be presumptively male, it is not axiomatically male (it does not demonstrate maleness only by itself). Because human features are statistically mediated and men and women will share overlap in almost all traits, what's left at that point? Sexual organs.

So if those are removed, as they are in someone who is completely castrated or in a male-to-female transsexual, then such a person is objectively biologically neutral. They are not male, and not female, by the facts we have so far covered. Now, in our society we expect people to be either male or female, and how do we actually code people into those categories on a day to day basis? Based on appearance, mannerism, voice, etc. All of these can be mastered by a sincere transsexual woman who puts serious effort into it. So the biologically neutral person, who spiritually identifies as female (but this is unprovable in the physical world, I grant), behaves like a woman, speaks like one, acts like one, and based on appearance looks like one. In that case you have spiritually someone who asserts they are female, socially someone who behaves as females do, someone who possesses the secondary sexual characteristics (appearance, to be simple) of a female, and someone who is biologically neutral, lacking any features which may be axiomatically assigned to one sex or the other.

In that case, it is much more socially disruptive, as well as ethically cruel, to attempt to rely on non-axiomatic features which trend toward maleness, or past history, to code someone against the Nature of the majority of their defined traits.

Now, of course, this renders bankrupt the entire ideology of transgenderists. We can actually see from this exercise that transgenderists, by saying that surgery is unnecessary for one's identity to be valid and that people do not need to put serious effort into passing, that gender itself is a mere category which can be violated at will, are objectively wrong. Because those are exactly the only ways that a transsexual can be a woman! Transgenderists literally argue against the only way that a transsexual woman may be called a woman! This is why there is a fundamental tension between primary transsexuals and the autogynephilia/"secondary transsexual" led "transgender rights" movement. The former is a fundamentally conservative act which upholds social norms; the later is self-defeating.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

@Hastur of Carcosa
Say, what do you think of “nonbinaries”

Honestly, it sounds like a variant of Chuunibyou Syndrome for some really thin looking androgynous ladies

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Nobody hates you here. This board defends free speech.

A rather lengthy summary of the subject for an alternative perspective was provided here. -- NSFW access is required.

To address a few points as a brief reprise from a prior post in support of the above link -- from a biological matter, consider that we have demonstrated fertile XY females who give birth to presumptively fertile XY females. Therefore, we can state that while XY karyotyping may be presumptively male, it is not axiomatically male (it does not demonstrate maleness only by itself). Because human features are statistically mediated and men and women will share overlap in almost all traits, what's left at that point? Sexual organs.

So if those are removed, as they are in someone who is completely castrated or in a male-to-female transsexual, then such a person is objectively biologically neutral. They are not male, and not female, by the facts we have so far covered. Now, in our society we expect people to be either male or female, and how do we actually code people into those categories on a day to day basis? Based on appearance, mannerism, voice, etc. All of these can be mastered by a sincere transsexual woman who puts serious effort into it. So the biologically neutral person, who spiritually identifies as female (but this is unprovable in the physical world, I grant), behaves like a woman, speaks like one, acts like one, and based on appearance looks like one. In that case you have spiritually someone who asserts they are female, socially someone who behaves as females do, someone who possesses the secondary sexual characteristics (appearance, to be simple) of a female, and someone who is biologically neutral, lacking any features which may be axiomatically assigned to one sex or the other.

In that case, it is much more socially disruptive, as well as ethically cruel, to attempt to rely on non-axiomatic features which trend toward maleness, or past history, to code someone against the Nature of the majority of their defined traits.

Now, of course, this renders bankrupt the entire ideology of transgenderists. We can actually see from this exercise that transgenderists, by saying that surgery is unnecessary for one's identity to be valid and that people do not need to put serious effort into passing, that gender itself is a mere category which can be violated at will, are objectively wrong. Because those are exactly the only ways that a transsexual can be a woman! Transgenderists literally argue against the only way that a transsexual woman may be called a woman! This is why there is a fundamental tension between primary transsexuals and the autogynephilia/"secondary transsexual" led "transgender rights" movement. The former is a fundamentally conservative act which upholds social norms; the later is self-defeating.

While i do get there are exceptions in nature (hemphradites do exist in the human species however rare.) there's not really enough to justify the kind of authortian rules that the LGBTQ is trying to impose on the rest of society, for better or worse when it comes to making political policy you have to rely mostly on the physical, and as you yourself it's not the transexuals that are uprooting cultural norms and demanding repersentation at every corner.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

@Hastur of Carcosa
Say, what do you think of “nonbinaries”

Honestly, it sounds like a variant of Chuunibyou Syndrome for some really thin looking androgynous ladies

it's a non-term used by people on the internet to make themselves cooler than what they are. At best it's redundent, at worst and most likely it's nonsensical

 

[ParadiseLost]

There are actual theories regarding how and why transgender people exist. And I'm not talking about theories created by queer theorists or gender studies professors, but actual doctors and neuroscientists.

The currently most widely accepted and sensible theory can be explain as follows:

We already know that in the womb, there are several developmental phases. The sex of the baby is determined very on in development by the hormone balances.

However, the brain developers in much later stages of the babies fetal development.

The current theory is that early on in the development, the baby receives male/female hormones that develop their body; then in later development, something gets fucked up and instead of receiving male/female hormones the baby receives female/male hormones.

This causes a baby to physically develop as a male/female, but psychologically their brain develops female/male structures that are likely inclined towards female/male behaviors.


Essentially your behaviors are determined by your brain development and hormones. If those are female, then you will develop as a female psychologically, XY chromosone or not.

@Hastur of Carcosa
Say, what do you think of “nonbinaries”

Honestly, it sounds like a variant of Chuunibyou Syndrome for some really thin looking androgynous ladies

Yeah, non-binary people don't really exist; they're just fetishists.

 

[Deleted member]

While i do get there are exceptions in nature (hemphradites do exist in the human species however rare.) there's not really enough to justify the kind of authortian rules that the LGBTQ is trying to impose on the rest of society, for better or worse when it comes to making political policy you have to rely mostly on the physical, and as you yourself it's not the transexuals that are uprooting cultural norms and demanding repersentation at every corner.

Oh, I just want to get the etiology and the terminology correct. I'm not disagreeing with much of what you say, I'm just trying to limit the scope, because the chromosomal position is, to me, not definite, but also, the very concept of "transgender" is something that needs to be demolished, because it's a left-wing concept which intentionally muddies the waters of both science and philosophy to achieve ideological objectives.

 

[ParadiseLost]

the very concept of "transgender" is something that needs to be demolished, because it's a left-wing concept which intentionally muddies the waters of both science and philosophy to achieve ideological objectives.

Hot take.

Yes, its being used to promote ideological objectives and muddies the waters of science and philosophy.

People use the Bible the same way. The writings of Nietzsche. The idea of free speech is often used to promote ideological objectives and muddies the waters of science and philosophy, and free speech very much originated as a left wing concept.

Congratulations, you've just called for the destruction of the pillars of Western Civilization!

And yes, I recognize that this is an unfair representation. My point is that calling for something to be demolished so casually is not only unnecessary but counterproductive.

Postmodernism can't be destroyed; the only way to fix things is to bring the world back to modernism, and then try to steer humanity in a different direction from there. But I doubt it can be done.

 

[Deleted member]

Hot take.

Yes, its being used to promote ideological objectives and muddies the waters of science and philosophy.

People use the Bible the same way. The writings of Nietzsche. The idea of free speech is often used to promote ideological objectives and muddies the waters of science and philosophy, and free speech very much originated as a left wing concept.

Congratulations, you've just called for the destruction of the pillars of Western Civilization!

And yes, I recognize that this is an unfair representation. My point is that calling for something to be demolished so casually is not only unnecessary but counterproductive.

Postmodernism can't be destroyed; the only way to fix things is to bring the world back to modernism, and then try to steer humanity in a different direction from there. But I doubt it can be done.

I don't see how what you're suggesting is actually any different from what I actually said.

 

[7 Gold Eye Heals the Wise]

Only definition that matters is "Would You Tap That?".

 

[GodIsaSerb]

There are actual theories regarding how and why transgender people exist. And I'm not talking about theories created by queer theorists or gender studies professors, but actual doctors and neuroscientists.

The currently most widely accepted and sensible theory can be explain as follows:

We already know that in the womb, there are several developmental phases. The sex of the baby is determined very on in development by the hormone balances.

However, the brain developers in much later stages of the babies fetal development.

The current theory is that early on in the development, the baby receives male/female hormones that develop their body; then in later development, something gets fucked up and instead of receiving male/female hormones the baby receives female/male hormones.

This causes a baby to physically develop as a male/female, but psychologically their brain develops female/male structures that are likely inclined towards female/male behaviors.


Essentially your behaviors are determined by your brain development and hormones. If those are female, then you will develop as a female psychologically, XY chromosone or not.

Are these theories or studies? Can you cite any of these? I would like to read through them. Do they offer any incite as to why all these babies are suddenly getting fucked up hormones now all of a sudden when this hasn't been a wide spread issue since the dawn of time? These theories sound pretty bullshit like a teenage girl trying to apply science to astrology.

 

[Deleted member]

Are these theories or studies? Can you cite any of these? I would like to read through them. Do they offer any incite as to why all these babies are suddenly getting fucked up hormones now all of a sudden when this hasn't been a wide spread issue since the dawn of time? These theories sound pretty bullshit like a teenage girl trying to apply science to astrology.

Documentation of a feminine-identified population of this type stretches back to the early Bronze Age in Sumer. Of course, it was extremely small as a fraction of the population. The Epic of Erra, for example, references kurgarra and assinnu, of whom the poet says, “Whose maleness Ishtar turned female, for the awe of the people," or the statuary inscription commonly translated as "Silimabzuta, hermaphrodite of Inanna," where hermaphrodite was an English translator's attempt to render a word that literally translates as "person-man-woman."

Probably some of the best evidence for a recognised transsexuality in Sumer reflects on the salzikrum, however. "Male-daughter", who were treated separately in inheiritance laws and given the same consideration as female priestesses in inheritance.

But then, turning north but in the same era, among the Scythians we have the example of the Enarees. The Enarees were "inflicted with a female disease" by Aphrodite and in serving as the priestesshood of Argimpasa underwent ritual castration.

They were still considered somewhat fierce, certainly, but that was like all the Scythians (with Scythian women being some of the freest and most warlike in ancient history and so that behaviour in line with culturally appropriate female behaviour), and indeed the kurgarra, who carried swords before the image of the Goddess, are usually neglected in looking at Sumerian transsexuality, but are were also treated as agendered in the ancient texts.

So transsexuality is reasonably well attested to ancient times. The problem is that it is very rare, which is congruent with what we know about it in modern terms. The issue is not that it exists at all, but that the new category of "transgender" has exploded in popularity in a very short period of time.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

There are actual theories regarding how and why transgender people exist. And I'm not talking about theories created by queer theorists or gender studies professors, but actual doctors and neuroscientists.

The currently most widely accepted and sensible theory can be explain as follows:

We already know that in the womb, there are several developmental phases. The sex of the baby is determined very on in development by the hormone balances.

However, the brain developers in much later stages of the babies fetal development.

The current theory is that early on in the development, the baby receives male/female hormones that develop their body; then in later development, something gets fucked up and instead of receiving male/female hormones the baby receives female/male hormones.

This causes a baby to physically develop as a male/female, but psychologically their brain develops female/male structures that are likely inclined towards female/male behaviors.


Essentially your behaviors are determined by your brain development and hormones. If those are female, then you will develop as a female psychologically, XY chromosone or not.



Yeah, non-binary people don't really exist; they're just fetishists.

that would explain how tomboys and dreamers come about (no it's not a derogatory slur quite the opposite) but it doesin't really explain the other slue of phycological issues that seem to be occurring among the LGBTQ+ and even if it did, i'd still argue that it needs to be treated, again the problem isin't that you have boys and girl not living up to thier stereotypes the problem is the biggest chunk of people within the lgbtq seem to have a load of problem ranging from anger issues to potentially outright psychosis.

 

[GodIsaSerb]

Documentation of a feminine-identified population of this type stretches back to the early Bronze Age in Sumer. Of course, it was extremely small as a fraction of the population. The Epic of Erra, for example, references kurgarra and assinnu, of whom the poet says, “Whose maleness Ishtar turned female, for the awe of the people," or the statuary inscription commonly translated as "Silimabzuta, hermaphrodite of Inanna," where hermaphrodite was an English translator's attempt to render a word that literally translates as "person-man-woman."

Probably some of the best evidence for a recognised transsexuality in Sumer reflects on the salzikrum, however. "Male-daughter", who were treated separately in inheiritance laws and given the same consideration as female priestesses in inheritance.

But then, turning north but in the same era, among the Scythians we have the example of the Enarees. The Enarees were "inflicted with a female disease" by Aphrodite and in serving as the priestesshood of Argimpasa underwent ritual castration.

They were still considered somewhat fierce, certainly, but that was like all the Scythians (with Scythian women being some of the freest and most warlike in ancient history and so that behaviour in line with culturally appropriate female behaviour), and indeed the kurgarra, who carried swords before the image of the Goddess, are usually neglected in looking at Sumerian transsexuality, but are were also treated as agendered in the ancient texts.

So transsexuality is reasonably well attested to ancient times. The problem is that it is very rare, which is congruent with what we know about it in modern terms. The issue is not that it exists at all, but that the new category of "transgender" has exploded in popularity in a very short period of time.

Yes I am well aware that instances that appear trans like appear in ancient texts which is why I deliberately used the phrase "wide spread issue" in my original post. But I disagree that trans sexuality was well attested to in ancient times. Both the instances of the kurgarra and assinnu in the Epic of Erra and the salzikrum in Sumer are highly debated in regards to what the translation should be and what the original authors meant. There is no agreement as to whether these terms meant transgender, eunuch, male escort, cross dresser, lesbian, or intersex. I see more people claiming these groups were the original lesbians than transgender and most of the people I see claiming they were trans are trans people trying to demonstrate some historical justification for their feelings. Depending on who is translating Herodotus the Enarees are described as effeminate, androgynous, or hermaphrodites none of which is equivalent to being trans much like having Scythian warrior women who would defy gender norms is the same as being trans. In all of these instances two things are happening: 1) People who are described as intersex or androgynous who defy gender norms appear a number of times in ancient texts 2) People are taking modern ideas and applying them to multi-thousand year old civilizations.

You say define the current trans sexual definition as "a new category of transgender" which makes me think you agree to some extent that what we are dealing with now is not what the ancients were trying to describe. I think where we differ is that you are defining this as an evolution of trans identity whereas I am classifying it as something else entirely. I don't want to put words in your mouth but let me know if that sounds like how you see it too.

 

[ParadiseLost]

To be quite frank, I don't think anyone really cares about what ancient 3000 year old civilizations thought about Modern issues. Its only when people really care about a specific issue that they strongly like or dislike when they start caring about what ancient civilizations thought.

Personal I care much more about scientific consensus and logic than some 3000 year old document.

 

[Abhorsen]

To be quite frank, I don't think anyone really cares about what ancient 3000 year old civilizations thought about Modern issues. Its only when people really care about a specific issue that they strongly like or dislike when they start caring about what ancient civilizations thought.

Personal I care much more about scientific consensus and logic than some 3000 year old document.

For human behavior, the 3000 year old stuff matters to science. Seeing similar behavior across various cultures and times generally means that the behavior is innate to humankind, and not a weird thing that came from a weird culture.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

For human behavior, the 3000 year old stuff matters to science. Seeing similar behavior across various cultures and times generally means that the behavior is innate to humankind, and not a weird thing that came from a weird culture.

true but behavior also tends to vary a bit based on gelogical enviorment as well so there is that to consider, plus science doesin't really dscuss morality so much as normality. At one Time man's normal methods of reporduction would be considered rape by all but your most trollish/unempathetic people