Transgender Rights

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Oh Shit, we have a tankie.

what's a tankie?

 

[The One Char]

what's a tankie?

Commie apologist.

 

[ATP]

Commie apologist.

Still not as good as commies from my young times.Their talk was something like tis :
1.This never happened
2.Germans did it,even if it never happened
3.And USA are fascist who beat blacks,and germans did it even if it never happened

 

[Aldarion]

dictators are kings with a post industrial revolution skin and none of the romanticism of medieval era nostalgia so we'd have to get rid of that too.

That is why I noted "feudal monarchy", although I should note that even other types of premodern monarchies (e.g. Byzantine Empire etc.) were nothing like 20th century absolutist dictatorships. In some ways, modern democracy is closer to said dictatorships than traditional monarchies were, especially when it comes to powers, extent and influence of state apparatus in people's lives.

Did you know Stalin's regime declared homosexuality a sign of fascism, the same way Hitler's claimed it was caused by socialism?

Because murderers who want to tell other people how to live their lives are pretty much the same.

Stalin noticed that sexual freedom was ruining the society so he banned it, as I have noted already. That does not change the fact that pre-Stalin Communists were a) already mass murderers and b) advocated sexual freedom as a way of destroying traditional society which they saw as standing in the way of Marxist / socialist revolution.

My point however was that if you are going to reject something merely because it was done by Stalin or Hitler, you would have to reject most aspects of modern society. Try to reply to what was written, if possible.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

That is why I noted "feudal monarchy", although I should note that even other types of premodern monarchies (e.g. Byzantine Empire etc.) were nothing like 20th century absolutist dictatorships. In some ways, modern democracy is closer to said dictatorships than traditional monarchies were, especially when it comes to powers, extent and influence of state apparatus in people's lives.

surrreee and the war crimes committed by the Mongolians were over exaggerations too.

 

[Aldarion]

surrreee and the war crimes committed by the Mongolians were over exaggerations too.

Look at what British (parliamentary monarchy), Americans (democratic republic) etc. did in war. Such stuff is par the course, though Mongls were unusually brutal by standards of the time (half the population of China died during conquest). But Mongols, once they conquered you, were actually not that bad overlords... as long as you didn't resist or rebel. There was none of the "oh, I just killed couple million of my subjects by accident / by intent / for sh*t and giggles" so prevalent under Nazis and various Communist regimes. In fact, life improved for Chinese peasants under Mongols.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Look at what British (parliamentary monarchy), Americans (democratic republic) etc. did in war. Such stuff is par the course, though Mongls were unusually brutal by standards of the time (half the population of China died during conquest). But Mongols, once they conquered you, were actually not that bad overlords... as long as you didn't resist or rebel. There was none of the "oh, I just killed couple million of my subjects by accident / by intent / for sh*t and giggles" so prevalent under Nazis and various Communist regimes. In fact, life improved for Chinese peasants under Mongols.

or at least no one left alive to bear witness.

 

[Terthna]

You are apparently not terribly familiar with the history of psychiatry and psychology as often practiced. Many schools of thought in these disciplines have been farm from scientific, and little more than 'scientists' attempting to justify what they want to be true, and often trying to program people into behaving how the 'scientist' thinks that humans should be.

Sigmund Freud, with his sexual issues, is one of the most infamous cases of this, but it's far from the only one. There was that article recently about an inmate in Juvie was given female hormones involuntarily to try to make his behavior more like what the people running the facility thought was 'right,' and he grew breasts as a result. This is a far from unique occurrence, where psychologists or psychiatrists try to control people through manipulation of their brains and bodies.

I consider Psychology an absolutely crucial discipline, that pretty much everybody should have a basic grounding in. I also have an intense distrust of many of the practitioners therein, because they're not actually out for the patient's well-being, they're in it to grind their philosophical and ideological axe.

I am well aware of the controversies and inadequacies surrounding psychiatry and psychology; just as I'm sure you're aware of those that have surrounded religion. You will find no argument from me against the idea that Psychology, as it is practiced today, falls short of the descriptor; in that those who practice it are often more interested in engineering society than studying the mind and how it works. My contention is that's not the core intent of the field, and to imply otherwise, accusing Psychology of inherently being a threat to one's spirituality, as Zoe did, is intellectually dishonest.

 

[LordsFire]

I am well aware of the controversies and inadequacies surrounding psychiatry and psychology; just as I'm sure you're aware of those that have surrounded religion. You will find no argument from me against the idea that Psychology, as it is practiced today, falls short of the descriptor; in that those who practice it are often more interested in engineering society than studying the mind and how it works. My contention is that's not the core intent of the field, and to imply otherwise, accusing Psychology of inherently being a threat to one's spirituality, as Zoe did, is intellectually dishonest.

I think you're misreading Zoe's intent.

Also, I'm curious as to how you would define the 'core intent' of a 'field'?

 

[Terthna]

I think you're misreading Zoe's intent.

Also, I'm curious as to how you would define the 'core intent' of a 'field'?

Honestly, I don't think even Zoe knows what her intent was when she wrote that; she has something of a history of saying things without considering their full implications first. For example; that time she announced she was a fascist, or that time she floated the idea of punishing anyone who said things regarding the Corona Virus she didn't want them to say.

As for the core intent of the field of Psychology, it's the scientific study of the mind and behavior; of conscious and unconscious phenomena. Not of how to "engineer the human soul".

 

[LordsFire]

Honestly, I don't think even Zoe knows what her intent was when she wrote that; she has something of a history of saying things without considering their full implications first. For example; that time she announced she was a fascist, or that time she floated the idea of punishing anyone who said things regarding the Corona Virus she didn't want them to say.

As for the core intent of the field of Psychology, it's the scientific study of the mind and behavior; of conscious and unconscious phenomena. Not of how to "engineer the human soul".

That's the 'definition of the term,' not the 'core intent' of the field. A field cannot have an intention, as a field is not a living or animate thing. Only those working within a field can have an intention. I think that, to you, the difference is semantic and functionally irrelevant. You know what you meant.

To me though, it sounded like you were attributing human traits to an abstract concept, even as you castigated someone else for attributing abstract traits to those who practice a field. I doubt that's what you intended, but that's how it came across.

My point with this comparison, is that what to Tyanna may have been a clearly intended meaning, and I certainly understood clearly, you've rebuked in a way that shows you did not understand her meaning, when you went and did the same basic thing just a couple posts later.

Psychology and Psychiatry are tools. A tool cannot have an 'intent.' Those who use it can have an intent, and those who create it can have an intent, but the tool itself is not capable of having an intent. It can very accurately be said that most of the 'thought leaders' who have shaped psych as a field have absolutely tried to use it to 'restructure the human soul,' or put another way, to try to make people into who they think people should be.

If you are going to rebuke Tyanna for a simple linguistic inaccuracy such as saying 'any science' rather than 'the practitioners of any science,' you have no business then going around talking about a field's 'core intent.' Regardless of what foolish things she may or may not have said at other times or places.

 

[Deleted member 88]

I think this is off topic. If we’re going to have a thread about the Nazis, Weimar, Transgenderism, and whatever else I already made such a thread.

Anyone is free to make another one.

 

[Big Steve]

So I moved the current discussion to a new thread so this thread can be brought back on topic.

Edit:

Here's the link.

https://the-sietch.com/index.php?threads/nazis-and-homosexuality.3936/

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

I will say this in regards to transgenderism. It is disappointing to see people try to change themselves so much. I'm amazed a how many singers are going trans and they end up completely killing their voice in the process. the amount of Suicides post transition aren't reassuring either. What is it like a 40% suicide rate and like 60% self harm rate? and most of these people's transitions are realitvily recent while they are still fairly young, what's going to happen 10 20 30 years from now when they get older? It seems like the disturbing trend is that you either grow out of it (the dysphoria), or you self-destruct. What probably needs to be a main concern is what is causing this gender dysphoria in the first place.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Recent polling from Gallups Annual Faith and Values survey specifically pertaining to Transgendered individuals serving in the military and in athletic participation.

The results came from Gallup’s annual Values and Beliefs survey, conducted earlier this month and released Wednesday, which found that only 34 percent of responders believed trans athletes should be able to play on sports teams that match their gender identity.

On the other side of the issue, 62 percent said trans athletes should only be allowed to play on sports teams that matched their gender at birth.

Four percent said they had no opinion.

However, Americans took a different position with regard to serving in the armed forces.

Sixty-six percent said they favored allowing openly transgender men and women to serve in the military.

That number is down from 2019, when 71 percent said they were in favor.

The biggest drop, Gallup noted, came from independents.

“Political independents, meanwhile, have become less supportive than they were in 2019 — down 12 percentage points. Still, two in three self-identifying independents favor allowing openly trans people to serve.”

Majority of Americans support trans military members, but not trans athletes: poll

A majority of Americans do not support transgender athletes competing on sports teams with players of the gender they identify with.

nypost.com

 

[Captain X]

I don't support trans military members either, unlike most Americans, apparently.

 

[bintananth]

I don't support trans military members either, unlike most Americans, apparently.

I suspect most Americans are more ok with trans military members than trans athletes because the ones who join the military are volunteering to potentially get shot at.

With athletes: Someone FtM could easily be perceived as "a girl playing with the boys" and most people aren't going to make too much of a fuss about that. Someone MtF, on the other hand, is going to get a whole lot instictive "he's cheating" pushback unless the sport is one guys and gals already play with or against each other on even terms.

 

[GoldRanger]

I suspect most Americans are more ok with trans military members than trans athletes because the ones who join the military are volunteering to potentially get shot at.

With athletes: Someone FtM could easily be perceived as "a girl playing with the boys" and most people aren't going to make too much of a fuss about that. Someone MtF, on the other hand, is going to get a whole lot instictive "he's cheating" pushback unless the sport is one guys and gals already play with or against each other on even terms.

Exactly. The military is not a competition. A trans soldier doesn't generally take the money and accolades that should rightfully belong to a biological woman, like it is in sports.

 

[DarthOne]

Exactly. The military is not a competition. A trans soldier doesn't generally take the money and accolades that should rightfully belong to a biological woman, like it is in sports.

Given trans people's tendency towards suicide or self-harm, I question if letting them have access to all sorts of firearms and weaponry is a good idea. Well, that and it makes our military look like a joke

 

[bintananth]

Exactly. The military is not a competition. A trans soldier doesn't generally take the money and accolades that should rightfully belong to a biological woman, like it is in sports.

If men and women were about the same size and shape the reproductive organs an athelete has wouldn't matter. They're not: men are substantially larger and stronger.