What is the difference between gender and gender norms?

[Saelune]

Your example of the medically impotent person is basically the exception that proved the rule, I'm fine with saying everyone except such cases is the one who I'm deeming unseemly. (same as the hermaphrodite gender surgery being actually useful example I provided earlier)

Why is it "unseemly" to have sex when in later life? I just don't really get that.

It seems to me you may as well argue old people shouldn't want to go on hikes if they've got a dicky knee or play pool if their eyesight degrades, despite either being treatable, because they should just grow old gracefully.

It's not unseemly to do anything you still can do, I'm talking about refusing to accept that this stage of your life is over, that's unseemly. If a 90 year old can still function as well as a kid, that's awesome. Medicating your way into something you can't do and pretending you can do it when you really can't though, that's unseemly.

Going on hikes at an old age is awesome, being carried on a pagoda up a mountain and pretending you went on a hike when you tell the story to your friends is unseemly.

You keep saying things that almost sound like you get it, then you make analogies like this, and at this point I think you just want to find an excuse to dislike trans people.

What burden is it on you if trans people are happy?

I don't like or dislike any entire groups of people. I assure you, I can think someone's delusional and still like them plenty due to other traits they can possess that offset that one negative. It depends on the person.


In any case, being happy is fine and all but when society is forced to say something that most people don't truly think is true but they have to say it to not come off as offensive and get fired from their jobs, that's a bad direction. Your happiness shouldn't hinge on overall society accepting you. Nobody should have control of society to the degree where it can compel it to accept them. Your happiness is also going to be more lasting if it is less dependent on factors outside of your control, and trust me, you can't control society tightly enough to prevent the ugly over-compensation when the pendulum swings the other way, so in fact trying to see where I'm coming from and finding happiness from an inward source and not from an external one makes the most sense here.

Whats your definition of 'entire groups of people'? Cause I hate all rapists, every single one. And its not really a matter of like or dislike when you're advocating against people's happiness. Being friendly means little when you oppose their happiness.

Being an asshole should be a fire-able offence. There is more than misgendering that qualifies someone as a jerk. I think knowingly calling someone the wrong name even after they correct you a million times is a dick move. Not even calling 'Amy' Arnold, but calling Jeff 'John' when his name isnt John.

Lets stop pretending society actually gives a fuck about LGBT people to the point of firing people left and right for abusing LGBT people, cause guess what! You're more likely to be fired for BEING LGBT than for disrespecting LGBT people.

I generally don't group people but what I was referring to there was in the sense of group identity politics. I prefer to see people as individuals. Also as for hating criminals, I'm of the "every saint had a past, every sinner has a future" mentality so I don't hate anyone.


Being an asshole in some sort of customer service job or a field that relies on word of mouth or popularity? Sure, that's fireable. But if you're an astronaut or a brain surgeon or something and you are the best person for a job that people's lives depend on, hellll no. That's anti-progress and retards humanity as a whole when you waste such talent because of the feelings of much less useful people. Also in some jobs being an asshole is a benefit. In wrestling there's the "heel" fighter whose job is to be unlikable and offensive to give people someone to cheer against.

And you'd be surprised at what some people have gotten fired over lol. Either way, I'm not saying firing someone for being in that group is ok either. Both are wrong.

LGBT people didnt start identity politics. People who hate LGBT people started identity politics. Stop blaming us for the burdens others placed on us.

Not everyone is redeemable. There is a line.

Talent is not an excuse to be a shitty person.

Playing a villainous role in a film or wrestling match is not the same as just being an actual real life jerk. It is not comparable.

You would be surprised what people have NOT gotten fired over. Such as abusing LGBT people.

Defending bad people doesnt make you a saint.

 

[stroopwafel]

I think I do see what you are getting at: I think you're confusing "science" to mean "natural sciences".

Yeah, I guess that's it. I see science as a process of eradication but such an approach is impossible with human behavior or emotion as there is no constant in predictability to measure cause and effect. That's why 'scientific' claims about the subject are easily refuted and demonstrates how statistical relevance can easily be manipulated by the observer(like for example the claim big pharma postulates that depression is caused by 'chemical imbalance' in the brain). Not only is this morally bankrupt given the low efficacy and side effects of their drugs but also publicly hazardous given how it disinhibits some people(eg the 'prozac killings'). Same goes for the claim that opiate pain killers are safe to prescribe by medical practitioners. Well, look at the results.

I don't see intuition as the pathway to some irrational, superstitious belief in eg the weather gods but rather the way we understand the world from subjective experience, which can offer a better perspective on mental cognition than the scientific approach of eradication. Like with the example above we can empathize with the conditons that make a person depressed we don't look at it as some 'neurochemical imbalance' in the brain that clinical trials of the pharmaceutical industry would want us to believe. Like your example with anger, ofcourse I think it exists but only b/c we subjectively experienced it and as such, intuitively understand it. That's what I define as intuition; knowledge from subjective experience that enables anticipation on unpredictable patterns in cognition.

Intuition is also the one thing that separates us from A.I., and is also something I consider not only the human essence but also the highest form of intelligence given how impossible to replicate this is in a machine or computer. Despite humans only having a fraction of the ability of crunching numbers. Intuition is the oxygen of our self-awareness and is the basis of that one threshold A.I. can't pass. But where does it come from? Under what circumstances did it develop? And what was it's purpose? Here I think evolutionary psychology can provide insight given it's non-reactionary theoretical approach.

But yeah, I'm indeed not a scientist so this is all just an outsider's perspective.

 

[Agema]

That's why 'scientific' claims about the subject are easily refuted and demonstrates how statistical relevance can easily be manipulated by the observer(like for example the claim big pharma postulates that depression is caused by 'chemical imbalance' in the brain). Not only is this morally bankrupt given the low efficacy and side effects of their drugs but also publicly hazardous given how it disinhibits some people(eg the 'prozac killings'). Same goes for the claim that opiate pain killers are safe to prescribe by medical practitioners. Well, look at the results.

Well, the idea of "chemical imbalance" in the brain for depression (famously the so called "serotonin hypothesis") died over two decades ago. No-one seriously pursues it anymore at the cutting edge of science, but it may persist as a convenient abstraction to explain things to laymen, or in more elderly medical practitioners who could be a bit out of date. There are related theories of disorders with serotinergic pathays (usually more about the proteins that control serotinergic signalling than serotonin itself), and we know other neurotransmitter pathways are involved. Big Pharma is not separated from science in that sort of way, and they can't reasonably pursue completely discredited science. Obviously back when SSRIs first came out, Big Pharma will have happily advanced the theory of the day, when the serotonin theory was still viable.

Despite the follies and abuses of pharmaceutical companies ove the years, you shouldn't underestimate the efforts that have also gone into improving clinical trials. Biomarkers of illness and treatment, for instance, are a really big deal, and much of that is to improve the rigour of drugs testing.

The opioids crisis, incidentally, is complex and not really a fault of science. It's more to do with political lobbying and improper pressure on medical practitioners based off no useful science whatsoever. That's a lot of why they're getting sued for $$$$$$$$$$$.

I don't see intuition as the pathway to some irrational, superstitious belief in eg the weather gods but rather the way we understand the world from subjective experience, which can offer a better perspective on mental cognition than the scientific approach of eradication. Like with the example above we can empathize with the conditons that make a person depressed we don't look at it as some 'neurochemical imbalance' in the brain that clinical trials of the pharmaceutical industry would want us to believe. Like your example with anger, ofcourse I think it exists but only b/c we subjectively experienced it and as such, intuitively understand it. That's what I define as intuition; knowledge from subjective experience that enables anticipation on unpredictable patterns in cognition.

Intuition is also the one thing that separates us from A.I., and is also something I consider not only the human essence but also the highest form of intelligence given how impossible to replicate this is in a machine or computer. Despite humans only having a fraction of the ability of crunching numbers. Intuition is the oxygen of our self-awareness and is the basis of that one threshold A.I. can't pass. But where does it come from? Under what circumstances did it develop? And what was it's purpose? Here I think evolutionary psychology can provide insight given it's non-reactionary theoretical approach.

But yeah, I'm indeed not a scientist so this is all just an outsider's perspective.

I would explain intuition as a sort of instictive, yet experientially and knowledge informed, understanding. It is thus differentiated from analysis - i.e. going away and thinking over something in depth over time, with greater context, taking in other sources, research, etc.

I would suggest a psychologist listening to a patient during a psychotherapy session is likely to rely substantially on intuition in the heat of the moment. However I would suggest that same therapist, after the session, is going to go away and do non-intuitive analysis. They're going to think through very carefully what happened and what was said, perhaps check it against other evidence and theory, etc. They're also going to be doing analytical thinking when constructing theories. This is why I'm not sure I'd call them intuitive thinkers: because the construction of those theories, arguing about how they may work and fit together, is not particularly an intuitive task.

As a scientist, I would use a lot of intuition in the course of my experiments; a sense of what's the right cell to look for, and how to adjust and control things in the course of an experiment so they turn out right. I can't realistically analyse a lot of it without disrupting the experiment: it's an informed knowledge, a sort of "know how", amassed through experience of doing stuff and seeing how it turns out. Then I go away and do a lot of measurement and number crunching. I might use intuition to kick off constructing a new hypothesis or to spot interesting things in data (building on it with analysis).

When a psychologist does research, they will set parameters to examine. But the observer can influence the data in my field too: imagine I run an experiment where I decide to look at calcium concentrations in a cell, when instead I could have looked at electrical currents across the cell membrane - but they could potentially give different information. A psychologist or I just have to state what we did and run with it.

I say this again to suggest that when I see what research psychologists do, the process itself seems to me to involve a great deal of parallels. Psychological therapy, though, that's pretty different.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Your example of the medically impotent person is basically the exception that proved the rule, I'm fine with saying everyone except such cases is the one who I'm deeming unseemly. (same as the hermaphrodite gender surgery being actually useful example I provided earlier)

Why is it "unseemly" to have sex when in later life? I just don't really get that.

It seems to me you may as well argue old people shouldn't want to go on hikes if they've got a dicky knee or play pool if their eyesight degrades, despite either being treatable, because they should just grow old gracefully.

It's not unseemly to do anything you still can do, I'm talking about refusing to accept that this stage of your life is over, that's unseemly. If a 90 year old can still function as well as a kid, that's awesome. Medicating your way into something you can't do and pretending you can do it when you really can't though, that's unseemly.

Going on hikes at an old age is awesome, being carried on a pagoda up a mountain and pretending you went on a hike when you tell the story to your friends is unseemly.

You keep saying things that almost sound like you get it, then you make analogies like this, and at this point I think you just want to find an excuse to dislike trans people.

What burden is it on you if trans people are happy?

I don't like or dislike any entire groups of people. I assure you, I can think someone's delusional and still like them plenty due to other traits they can possess that offset that one negative. It depends on the person.


In any case, being happy is fine and all but when society is forced to say something that most people don't truly think is true but they have to say it to not come off as offensive and get fired from their jobs, that's a bad direction. Your happiness shouldn't hinge on overall society accepting you. Nobody should have control of society to the degree where it can compel it to accept them. Your happiness is also going to be more lasting if it is less dependent on factors outside of your control, and trust me, you can't control society tightly enough to prevent the ugly over-compensation when the pendulum swings the other way, so in fact trying to see where I'm coming from and finding happiness from an inward source and not from an external one makes the most sense here.

Whats your definition of 'entire groups of people'? Cause I hate all rapists, every single one. And its not really a matter of like or dislike when you're advocating against people's happiness. Being friendly means little when you oppose their happiness.

Being an asshole should be a fire-able offence. There is more than misgendering that qualifies someone as a jerk. I think knowingly calling someone the wrong name even after they correct you a million times is a dick move. Not even calling 'Amy' Arnold, but calling Jeff 'John' when his name isnt John.

Lets stop pretending society actually gives a fuck about LGBT people to the point of firing people left and right for abusing LGBT people, cause guess what! You're more likely to be fired for BEING LGBT than for disrespecting LGBT people.

I generally don't group people but what I was referring to there was in the sense of group identity politics. I prefer to see people as individuals. Also as for hating criminals, I'm of the "every saint had a past, every sinner has a future" mentality so I don't hate anyone.


Being an asshole in some sort of customer service job or a field that relies on word of mouth or popularity? Sure, that's fireable. But if you're an astronaut or a brain surgeon or something and you are the best person for a job that people's lives depend on, hellll no. That's anti-progress and retards humanity as a whole when you waste such talent because of the feelings of much less useful people. Also in some jobs being an asshole is a benefit. In wrestling there's the "heel" fighter whose job is to be unlikable and offensive to give people someone to cheer against.

And you'd be surprised at what some people have gotten fired over lol. Either way, I'm not saying firing someone for being in that group is ok either. Both are wrong.

LGBT people didnt start identity politics. People who hate LGBT people started identity politics. Stop blaming us for the burdens others placed on us.

Not everyone is redeemable. There is a line.

Talent is not an excuse to be a shitty person.

Playing a villainous role in a film or wrestling match is not the same as just being an actual real life jerk. It is not comparable.

You would be surprised what people have NOT gotten fired over. Such as abusing LGBT people.

Defending bad people doesnt make you a saint.

Who started something doesn't really matter if someone's using that same thing to ill effect despite not having come up with it. It's not like I charged em with creating this thing, they're just the latest to use it. If you're against something you gotta be against it no matter who is using it. The communists came up with political correctness but it's wrong when capitalists use it too, you know.

I don't think anyone can ever be truly irredeemable. This may be remnants of christian upbringing-induced brainwashing that I still believe in somewhere (I do say I'm agnostic and not atheistic, after all) but I just can't think of the limitless potential of a human's future and say that it's not possible for them to do enough good to offset whatever evils they have done up to that point. Only a dead person is irredeemable. Only someone who died a bad person is truly a bad person. Anyone still alive is a work in progress good person.

It's not that you can use your talent to excuse doing bad things, it's that you can do enough good things to offset the bad things you did, and there are a ton of people who already easily provide enough utility in society to offset being jerks to others, effortlessly. Again, if your life is on the line and you have to pick between two doctors, one who is a saint and has killed every third patient, and one who is an asshole but has never let anyone die, who would you pick? That's the idea here. Utility doesn't absolve you of your wrongdoings but it can make them be insignificant.


This last point is very important and at least comprehending others see things this way will let you understand why for example people are against games being criticized for random cultural issues when they're perfectly great games. We just want the game to be a good game, we don't look for it to be a moral game. And, most importantly, a game can be heavily immoral in some way and yet still be good enough to make that immorality not matter in the slightest to a lot of people.

This is where a lot of the resistance stems from and if you don't understand this but just treat people as fans of the immorality when they're just fans of the game to the point where other concerns become meaningless you will be fundamentally misunderstanding them. Most of these people would be against that immorality in a vacuum, they just love games more than morals so they don't really care about it in the context of a game.

 

[Saelune]

Your example of the medically impotent person is basically the exception that proved the rule, I'm fine with saying everyone except such cases is the one who I'm deeming unseemly. (same as the hermaphrodite gender surgery being actually useful example I provided earlier)

Why is it "unseemly" to have sex when in later life? I just don't really get that.

It seems to me you may as well argue old people shouldn't want to go on hikes if they've got a dicky knee or play pool if their eyesight degrades, despite either being treatable, because they should just grow old gracefully.

It's not unseemly to do anything you still can do, I'm talking about refusing to accept that this stage of your life is over, that's unseemly. If a 90 year old can still function as well as a kid, that's awesome. Medicating your way into something you can't do and pretending you can do it when you really can't though, that's unseemly.

Going on hikes at an old age is awesome, being carried on a pagoda up a mountain and pretending you went on a hike when you tell the story to your friends is unseemly.

You keep saying things that almost sound like you get it, then you make analogies like this, and at this point I think you just want to find an excuse to dislike trans people.

What burden is it on you if trans people are happy?

I don't like or dislike any entire groups of people. I assure you, I can think someone's delusional and still like them plenty due to other traits they can possess that offset that one negative. It depends on the person.


In any case, being happy is fine and all but when society is forced to say something that most people don't truly think is true but they have to say it to not come off as offensive and get fired from their jobs, that's a bad direction. Your happiness shouldn't hinge on overall society accepting you. Nobody should have control of society to the degree where it can compel it to accept them. Your happiness is also going to be more lasting if it is less dependent on factors outside of your control, and trust me, you can't control society tightly enough to prevent the ugly over-compensation when the pendulum swings the other way, so in fact trying to see where I'm coming from and finding happiness from an inward source and not from an external one makes the most sense here.

Whats your definition of 'entire groups of people'? Cause I hate all rapists, every single one. And its not really a matter of like or dislike when you're advocating against people's happiness. Being friendly means little when you oppose their happiness.

Being an asshole should be a fire-able offence. There is more than misgendering that qualifies someone as a jerk. I think knowingly calling someone the wrong name even after they correct you a million times is a dick move. Not even calling 'Amy' Arnold, but calling Jeff 'John' when his name isnt John.

Lets stop pretending society actually gives a fuck about LGBT people to the point of firing people left and right for abusing LGBT people, cause guess what! You're more likely to be fired for BEING LGBT than for disrespecting LGBT people.

I generally don't group people but what I was referring to there was in the sense of group identity politics. I prefer to see people as individuals. Also as for hating criminals, I'm of the "every saint had a past, every sinner has a future" mentality so I don't hate anyone.


Being an asshole in some sort of customer service job or a field that relies on word of mouth or popularity? Sure, that's fireable. But if you're an astronaut or a brain surgeon or something and you are the best person for a job that people's lives depend on, hellll no. That's anti-progress and retards humanity as a whole when you waste such talent because of the feelings of much less useful people. Also in some jobs being an asshole is a benefit. In wrestling there's the "heel" fighter whose job is to be unlikable and offensive to give people someone to cheer against.

And you'd be surprised at what some people have gotten fired over lol. Either way, I'm not saying firing someone for being in that group is ok either. Both are wrong.

LGBT people didnt start identity politics. People who hate LGBT people started identity politics. Stop blaming us for the burdens others placed on us.

Not everyone is redeemable. There is a line.

Talent is not an excuse to be a shitty person.

Playing a villainous role in a film or wrestling match is not the same as just being an actual real life jerk. It is not comparable.

You would be surprised what people have NOT gotten fired over. Such as abusing LGBT people.

Defending bad people doesnt make you a saint.

Who started something doesn't really matter if someone's using that same thing to ill effect despite not having come up with it. It's not like I charged em with creating this thing, they're just the latest to use it. If you're against something you gotta be against it no matter who is using it. The communists came up with political correctness but it's wrong when capitalists use it too, you know.

I don't think anyone can ever be truly irredeemable. This may be remnants of christian upbringing-induced brainwashing that I still believe in somewhere (I do say I'm agnostic and not atheistic, after all) but I just can't think of the limitless potential of a human's future and say that it's not possible for them to do enough good to offset whatever evils they have done up to that point. Only a dead person is irredeemable. Only someone who died a bad person is truly a bad person. Anyone still alive is a work in progress good person.

It's not that you can use your talent to excuse doing bad things, it's that you can do enough good things to offset the bad things you did, and there are a ton of people who already easily provide enough utility in society to offset being jerks to others, effortlessly. Again, if your life is on the line and you have to pick between two doctors, one who is a saint and has killed every third patient, and one who is an asshole but has never let anyone die, who would you pick? That's the idea here. Utility doesn't absolve you of your wrongdoings but it can make them be insignificant.


This last point is very important and at least comprehending others see things this way will let you understand why for example people are against games being criticized for random cultural issues when they're perfectly great games. We just want the game to be a good game, we don't look for it to be a moral game. And, most importantly, a game can be heavily immoral in some way and yet still be good enough to make that immorality not matter in the slightest to a lot of people.

This is where a lot of the resistance stems from and if you don't understand this but just treat people as fans of the immorality when they're just fans of the game to the point where other concerns become meaningless you will be fundamentally misunderstanding them. Most of these people would be against that immorality in a vacuum, they just love games more than morals so they don't really care about it in the context of a game.

If someone starts beating you up, are you wrong for fighting back? Cause according to your first sentence, you think it is wrong to fight back.

You blame the bully's victim for being bullied and that is beyond not ok.

STOP BLAMING LGBT PEOPLE FOR STANDING UP FOR OURSELVES!

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Your example of the medically impotent person is basically the exception that proved the rule, I'm fine with saying everyone except such cases is the one who I'm deeming unseemly. (same as the hermaphrodite gender surgery being actually useful example I provided earlier)

Why is it "unseemly" to have sex when in later life? I just don't really get that.

It seems to me you may as well argue old people shouldn't want to go on hikes if they've got a dicky knee or play pool if their eyesight degrades, despite either being treatable, because they should just grow old gracefully.

It's not unseemly to do anything you still can do, I'm talking about refusing to accept that this stage of your life is over, that's unseemly. If a 90 year old can still function as well as a kid, that's awesome. Medicating your way into something you can't do and pretending you can do it when you really can't though, that's unseemly.

Going on hikes at an old age is awesome, being carried on a pagoda up a mountain and pretending you went on a hike when you tell the story to your friends is unseemly.

You keep saying things that almost sound like you get it, then you make analogies like this, and at this point I think you just want to find an excuse to dislike trans people.

What burden is it on you if trans people are happy?

I don't like or dislike any entire groups of people. I assure you, I can think someone's delusional and still like them plenty due to other traits they can possess that offset that one negative. It depends on the person.


In any case, being happy is fine and all but when society is forced to say something that most people don't truly think is true but they have to say it to not come off as offensive and get fired from their jobs, that's a bad direction. Your happiness shouldn't hinge on overall society accepting you. Nobody should have control of society to the degree where it can compel it to accept them. Your happiness is also going to be more lasting if it is less dependent on factors outside of your control, and trust me, you can't control society tightly enough to prevent the ugly over-compensation when the pendulum swings the other way, so in fact trying to see where I'm coming from and finding happiness from an inward source and not from an external one makes the most sense here.

Whats your definition of 'entire groups of people'? Cause I hate all rapists, every single one. And its not really a matter of like or dislike when you're advocating against people's happiness. Being friendly means little when you oppose their happiness.

Being an asshole should be a fire-able offence. There is more than misgendering that qualifies someone as a jerk. I think knowingly calling someone the wrong name even after they correct you a million times is a dick move. Not even calling 'Amy' Arnold, but calling Jeff 'John' when his name isnt John.

Lets stop pretending society actually gives a fuck about LGBT people to the point of firing people left and right for abusing LGBT people, cause guess what! You're more likely to be fired for BEING LGBT than for disrespecting LGBT people.

I generally don't group people but what I was referring to there was in the sense of group identity politics. I prefer to see people as individuals. Also as for hating criminals, I'm of the "every saint had a past, every sinner has a future" mentality so I don't hate anyone.


Being an asshole in some sort of customer service job or a field that relies on word of mouth or popularity? Sure, that's fireable. But if you're an astronaut or a brain surgeon or something and you are the best person for a job that people's lives depend on, hellll no. That's anti-progress and retards humanity as a whole when you waste such talent because of the feelings of much less useful people. Also in some jobs being an asshole is a benefit. In wrestling there's the "heel" fighter whose job is to be unlikable and offensive to give people someone to cheer against.

And you'd be surprised at what some people have gotten fired over lol. Either way, I'm not saying firing someone for being in that group is ok either. Both are wrong.

LGBT people didnt start identity politics. People who hate LGBT people started identity politics. Stop blaming us for the burdens others placed on us.

Not everyone is redeemable. There is a line.

Talent is not an excuse to be a shitty person.

Playing a villainous role in a film or wrestling match is not the same as just being an actual real life jerk. It is not comparable.

You would be surprised what people have NOT gotten fired over. Such as abusing LGBT people.

Defending bad people doesnt make you a saint.

Who started something doesn't really matter if someone's using that same thing to ill effect despite not having come up with it. It's not like I charged em with creating this thing, they're just the latest to use it. If you're against something you gotta be against it no matter who is using it. The communists came up with political correctness but it's wrong when capitalists use it too, you know.

I don't think anyone can ever be truly irredeemable. This may be remnants of christian upbringing-induced brainwashing that I still believe in somewhere (I do say I'm agnostic and not atheistic, after all) but I just can't think of the limitless potential of a human's future and say that it's not possible for them to do enough good to offset whatever evils they have done up to that point. Only a dead person is irredeemable. Only someone who died a bad person is truly a bad person. Anyone still alive is a work in progress good person.

It's not that you can use your talent to excuse doing bad things, it's that you can do enough good things to offset the bad things you did, and there are a ton of people who already easily provide enough utility in society to offset being jerks to others, effortlessly. Again, if your life is on the line and you have to pick between two doctors, one who is a saint and has killed every third patient, and one who is an asshole but has never let anyone die, who would you pick? That's the idea here. Utility doesn't absolve you of your wrongdoings but it can make them be insignificant.


This last point is very important and at least comprehending others see things this way will let you understand why for example people are against games being criticized for random cultural issues when they're perfectly great games. We just want the game to be a good game, we don't look for it to be a moral game. And, most importantly, a game can be heavily immoral in some way and yet still be good enough to make that immorality not matter in the slightest to a lot of people.

This is where a lot of the resistance stems from and if you don't understand this but just treat people as fans of the immorality when they're just fans of the game to the point where other concerns become meaningless you will be fundamentally misunderstanding them. Most of these people would be against that immorality in a vacuum, they just love games more than morals so they don't really care about it in the context of a game.

If someone starts beating you up, are you wrong for fighting back? Cause according to your first sentence, you think it is wrong to fight back.

You blame the bully's victim for being bullied and that is beyond not ok.

STOP BLAMING LGBT PEOPLE FOR STANDING UP FOR OURSELVES!

The analogue in my sentence is not just fighting back but rather bullying them back. Defending yourself from bullying is fine, bullying bullies is not because bullying, unlike self-defense, is fundamentally wrong. Even bullying people to stop bullying is wrong, the same way that killing killers is wrong. If we want to say as a society that doing this thing is wrong, we can't engage in it, ever. You don't get to redefine self-defense to mean anything that's convenient for you to mean and through that oppress people with your newly-defined self-defense that you think is moral just because you were wronged. Being a victim doesn't give you special rights to victimize others. Even evil people have just as many human rights as you do.

If someone tries to beat me up and tries to kill me, I won't kill them back in return. I'll incapacitate them to a degree where I'm not in danger any longer but I'm not going to go ahead and kill them just because that's what they tried to do to me. To even think of doing that is evil in my eyes.

Defend yourself a different way if you want to keep the moral high ground or accept the criticism that comes your way.

 

[Saelune]

Your example of the medically impotent person is basically the exception that proved the rule, I'm fine with saying everyone except such cases is the one who I'm deeming unseemly. (same as the hermaphrodite gender surgery being actually useful example I provided earlier)

Why is it "unseemly" to have sex when in later life? I just don't really get that.

It seems to me you may as well argue old people shouldn't want to go on hikes if they've got a dicky knee or play pool if their eyesight degrades, despite either being treatable, because they should just grow old gracefully.

It's not unseemly to do anything you still can do, I'm talking about refusing to accept that this stage of your life is over, that's unseemly. If a 90 year old can still function as well as a kid, that's awesome. Medicating your way into something you can't do and pretending you can do it when you really can't though, that's unseemly.

Going on hikes at an old age is awesome, being carried on a pagoda up a mountain and pretending you went on a hike when you tell the story to your friends is unseemly.

You keep saying things that almost sound like you get it, then you make analogies like this, and at this point I think you just want to find an excuse to dislike trans people.

What burden is it on you if trans people are happy?

I don't like or dislike any entire groups of people. I assure you, I can think someone's delusional and still like them plenty due to other traits they can possess that offset that one negative. It depends on the person.


In any case, being happy is fine and all but when society is forced to say something that most people don't truly think is true but they have to say it to not come off as offensive and get fired from their jobs, that's a bad direction. Your happiness shouldn't hinge on overall society accepting you. Nobody should have control of society to the degree where it can compel it to accept them. Your happiness is also going to be more lasting if it is less dependent on factors outside of your control, and trust me, you can't control society tightly enough to prevent the ugly over-compensation when the pendulum swings the other way, so in fact trying to see where I'm coming from and finding happiness from an inward source and not from an external one makes the most sense here.

Whats your definition of 'entire groups of people'? Cause I hate all rapists, every single one. And its not really a matter of like or dislike when you're advocating against people's happiness. Being friendly means little when you oppose their happiness.

Being an asshole should be a fire-able offence. There is more than misgendering that qualifies someone as a jerk. I think knowingly calling someone the wrong name even after they correct you a million times is a dick move. Not even calling 'Amy' Arnold, but calling Jeff 'John' when his name isnt John.

Lets stop pretending society actually gives a fuck about LGBT people to the point of firing people left and right for abusing LGBT people, cause guess what! You're more likely to be fired for BEING LGBT than for disrespecting LGBT people.

I generally don't group people but what I was referring to there was in the sense of group identity politics. I prefer to see people as individuals. Also as for hating criminals, I'm of the "every saint had a past, every sinner has a future" mentality so I don't hate anyone.


Being an asshole in some sort of customer service job or a field that relies on word of mouth or popularity? Sure, that's fireable. But if you're an astronaut or a brain surgeon or something and you are the best person for a job that people's lives depend on, hellll no. That's anti-progress and retards humanity as a whole when you waste such talent because of the feelings of much less useful people. Also in some jobs being an asshole is a benefit. In wrestling there's the "heel" fighter whose job is to be unlikable and offensive to give people someone to cheer against.

And you'd be surprised at what some people have gotten fired over lol. Either way, I'm not saying firing someone for being in that group is ok either. Both are wrong.

LGBT people didnt start identity politics. People who hate LGBT people started identity politics. Stop blaming us for the burdens others placed on us.

Not everyone is redeemable. There is a line.

Talent is not an excuse to be a shitty person.

Playing a villainous role in a film or wrestling match is not the same as just being an actual real life jerk. It is not comparable.

You would be surprised what people have NOT gotten fired over. Such as abusing LGBT people.

Defending bad people doesnt make you a saint.

Who started something doesn't really matter if someone's using that same thing to ill effect despite not having come up with it. It's not like I charged em with creating this thing, they're just the latest to use it. If you're against something you gotta be against it no matter who is using it. The communists came up with political correctness but it's wrong when capitalists use it too, you know.

I don't think anyone can ever be truly irredeemable. This may be remnants of christian upbringing-induced brainwashing that I still believe in somewhere (I do say I'm agnostic and not atheistic, after all) but I just can't think of the limitless potential of a human's future and say that it's not possible for them to do enough good to offset whatever evils they have done up to that point. Only a dead person is irredeemable. Only someone who died a bad person is truly a bad person. Anyone still alive is a work in progress good person.

It's not that you can use your talent to excuse doing bad things, it's that you can do enough good things to offset the bad things you did, and there are a ton of people who already easily provide enough utility in society to offset being jerks to others, effortlessly. Again, if your life is on the line and you have to pick between two doctors, one who is a saint and has killed every third patient, and one who is an asshole but has never let anyone die, who would you pick? That's the idea here. Utility doesn't absolve you of your wrongdoings but it can make them be insignificant.


This last point is very important and at least comprehending others see things this way will let you understand why for example people are against games being criticized for random cultural issues when they're perfectly great games. We just want the game to be a good game, we don't look for it to be a moral game. And, most importantly, a game can be heavily immoral in some way and yet still be good enough to make that immorality not matter in the slightest to a lot of people.

This is where a lot of the resistance stems from and if you don't understand this but just treat people as fans of the immorality when they're just fans of the game to the point where other concerns become meaningless you will be fundamentally misunderstanding them. Most of these people would be against that immorality in a vacuum, they just love games more than morals so they don't really care about it in the context of a game.

If someone starts beating you up, are you wrong for fighting back? Cause according to your first sentence, you think it is wrong to fight back.

You blame the bully's victim for being bullied and that is beyond not ok.

STOP BLAMING LGBT PEOPLE FOR STANDING UP FOR OURSELVES!

The analogue in my sentence is not just fighting back but rather bullying them back. Defending yourself from bullying is fine, bullying bullies is not because bullying, unlike self-defense, is fundamentally wrong. Even bullying people to stop bullying is wrong, the same way that killing killers is wrong. If we want to say as a society that doing this thing is wrong, we can't engage in it, ever. You don't get to redefine self-defense to mean anything that's convenient for you to mean and through that oppress people with your newly-defined self-defense that you think is moral just because you were wronged. Being a victim doesn't give you special rights to victimize others. Even evil people have just as many human rights as you do.

You clearly think standing up for yourself is the same as bullying, but it isnt and it is absurd you dont understand that.

If someone tries to beat me up and tries to kill me, I won't kill them back in return. I'll incapacitate them to a degree where I'm not in danger any longer but I'm not going to go ahead and kill them just because that's what they tried to do to me. To even think of doing that is evil in my eyes.

You say that now, but you cant honestly say that definitively.

Defend yourself a different way if you want to keep the moral high ground or accept the criticism that comes your way.

I should be saying that to you. You have made it clear you put all the blame on LGBT people for wanting to be treated equally, and that is unfair.

To people with privilege, equality feels like oppression.

 

[Saelune]

Between this and the other LGBT topic, I notice alot of non-LGBT people telling all the LGBT people how terrible we are. Hmmm...

(To the non-LGBT people on here who ARE actually allies, we appreciate you)

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

Indeed, they are not doing it to "be who they feel they should be" on a cognitive or feelings-based sense. They are just taking medicine to survive from an actual physical illness.

If someone for some reason needs to undergo gender surgery to save their live (some weird complication with someone born a hermaphrodite that requires surgery or something along those lines for example) that's completely different to someone just doing it to feel better about themselves. If there's an actual medical cause like a diagnosis of autoimmune disease that completely changes things.

Well then to use your definitions, if drugs for physical illness are fine then what about drugs for mental illnesses? If someone can take steroids so they can better fight infections, what about taking anti-depressants so they can better fight depression? Where does that fall on your scale of okay things?

I am against treating psychology like a hard science the same way you treat immunology. There's too many unknowns and there's too much over-medication or pathologization of the regular spectrum of human behaviors like with medicating willful children. Thanks to mistaking the two for equivalent.

A lot of these things often have unknown sideffects or a shopping list worth of them. I've even heard of anti-depressants making someone more suicidal when it's the opposite thing of what they should be doing.


In the context of this topic, I think the suggested cure is worse than the disease basically, on top of causing the societal ill of forcing people to live the lie of pretending it is not. Mass delusions are not good.

Cool, but not really the parameters of what we were talking about. Do you think someone taking drugs to help deal with their depression is somehow less of a person?

That's an odd question, since I never said anyone was less of a person to begin with, so obviously the answer is no.

Actually you did. Thats why I've been posing you these questions. Your original statement determined that if you needed chemicals to be a man, you were not a man. Your assertion is, therefore, that needing drugs to be a thing means you are clearly not that thing. That is the crux of the argument you are putting forward. And yet when I start testing that argument, you start finding it distasteful. Somewhat telling, no?

People don't take anti-depressants to be "more of a person" like how people take testosterone to be "more like a man". That's an ass-pull if I've ever seen one lol. Unlike with being a man which has measured traits, being a person is not a scientifically defined thing that you can add or remove things from. It's a philosophical definition, completely divorced from these issues.

To me, self-aware consciousness is what makes someone a person. (yes I'm all for robot rights in my scifi stories )

Honestly I'd say "being a man" is far more a nebulous question than being a person, especially given your simple definition of being a person. I'm going to have to point out that you say there's measured traits but don't actually list any.

It is within the parameters of being a person to be delusional about some things and our job as a society is to point that out and fix it, not to go along with it. It doesn't make you less of a person to need help. Nobody's an island.

But what exactly makes trans folk delusional as opposed to the people needing help you say it is society's job to then help?

You are going on as though it's established that people who take psych meds are taking them to be "more of a person" which is something that has yet to be established, something which I certainly never claimed. They're taking them to function better but a person is a person irrespective of their capacity to function. .You don't stop being a person if you're too sad all of a sudden. That implication sounds completely insane to me. How sad you are is irrelevant to whether you're a person or not, completely

The way to help, according to my estimate, is to first correctly identify the problem first and foremost. Using testosterone as a way to help them is incorrect, hence, isn't actual help. You can disagree with what constitutes help without being against helping someone.

Depression is more than just "you feel a bit sad" dude, utterly misunderstanding mental illness isn't exactly helping your case here. Depression can completely prevent people from doing things or, in my case, give them disassociative episodes which absolutely made me feel like I wasn't a fully functional person while I was having them. So have I stopped being a person to you because I need chemical assistance? Because I needed meds to get my brain to keep feeling like who I am, does that mean I'm not actually who I am? Because thats the argument you're putting forth my dude.

Also, going to point out that despite being directly challenged to state the "measured traits" you say obviously define "being a man", you have failed to do so. Going to keep pointing this out until you actually do so, just fyi

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Indeed, they are not doing it to "be who they feel they should be" on a cognitive or feelings-based sense. They are just taking medicine to survive from an actual physical illness.

If someone for some reason needs to undergo gender surgery to save their live (some weird complication with someone born a hermaphrodite that requires surgery or something along those lines for example) that's completely different to someone just doing it to feel better about themselves. If there's an actual medical cause like a diagnosis of autoimmune disease that completely changes things.

Well then to use your definitions, if drugs for physical illness are fine then what about drugs for mental illnesses? If someone can take steroids so they can better fight infections, what about taking anti-depressants so they can better fight depression? Where does that fall on your scale of okay things?

I am against treating psychology like a hard science the same way you treat immunology. There's too many unknowns and there's too much over-medication or pathologization of the regular spectrum of human behaviors like with medicating willful children. Thanks to mistaking the two for equivalent.

A lot of these things often have unknown sideffects or a shopping list worth of them. I've even heard of anti-depressants making someone more suicidal when it's the opposite thing of what they should be doing.


In the context of this topic, I think the suggested cure is worse than the disease basically, on top of causing the societal ill of forcing people to live the lie of pretending it is not. Mass delusions are not good.

Cool, but not really the parameters of what we were talking about. Do you think someone taking drugs to help deal with their depression is somehow less of a person?

That's an odd question, since I never said anyone was less of a person to begin with, so obviously the answer is no.

Actually you did. Thats why I've been posing you these questions. Your original statement determined that if you needed chemicals to be a man, you were not a man. Your assertion is, therefore, that needing drugs to be a thing means you are clearly not that thing. That is the crux of the argument you are putting forward. And yet when I start testing that argument, you start finding it distasteful. Somewhat telling, no?

People don't take anti-depressants to be "more of a person" like how people take testosterone to be "more like a man". That's an ass-pull if I've ever seen one lol. Unlike with being a man which has measured traits, being a person is not a scientifically defined thing that you can add or remove things from. It's a philosophical definition, completely divorced from these issues.

To me, self-aware consciousness is what makes someone a person. (yes I'm all for robot rights in my scifi stories )

Honestly I'd say "being a man" is far more a nebulous question than being a person, especially given your simple definition of being a person. I'm going to have to point out that you say there's measured traits but don't actually list any.

It is within the parameters of being a person to be delusional about some things and our job as a society is to point that out and fix it, not to go along with it. It doesn't make you less of a person to need help. Nobody's an island.

But what exactly makes trans folk delusional as opposed to the people needing help you say it is society's job to then help?

You are going on as though it's established that people who take psych meds are taking them to be "more of a person" which is something that has yet to be established, something which I certainly never claimed. They're taking them to function better but a person is a person irrespective of their capacity to function. .You don't stop being a person if you're too sad all of a sudden. That implication sounds completely insane to me. How sad you are is irrelevant to whether you're a person or not, completely

The way to help, according to my estimate, is to first correctly identify the problem first and foremost. Using testosterone as a way to help them is incorrect, hence, isn't actual help. You can disagree with what constitutes help without being against helping someone.

Depression is more than just "you feel a bit sad" dude, utterly misunderstanding mental illness isn't exactly helping your case here. Depression can completely prevent people from doing things or, in my case, give them disassociative episodes which absolutely made me feel like I wasn't a fully functional person while I was having them. So have I stopped being a person to you because I need chemical assistance? Because I needed meds to get my brain to keep feeling like who I am, does that mean I'm not actually who I am? Because thats the argument you're putting forth my dude.

Also, going to point out that despite being directly challenged to state the "measured traits" you say obviously define "being a man", you have failed to do so. Going to keep pointing this out until you actually do so, just fyi

You seem to be conflating how you feel with the reality of your being. You may feel like less of a person when you suffer from these conditions, but you still ARE just as much of a person as you were. How you feel about it doesn't matter. It seems incomprehensible to me that you can't understand that just because you feel like less of a person that doesn't affect anything. A baby can barely do anything for themselves outside of cry for help but they have just as many human rights as a decathlete. If someone does something to you that's legal to do to non-persons but illegal to do to persons, they'll go to jail just as much. Your line of reasoning is what had been used back centuries ago as an excuse to abuse the mentally ill.

You literally can't become different amounts of a person. Nobody can be more of a person and nobody can be less of one for as long as they live.

The measured traits are whatever traits the person who is undergoing testosterone treatment is aiming to enhance in themselves. Things like deeper voice and facial hair and so on are some of them.

 

[CheetoDust_v1legacy]

Indeed, they are not doing it to "be who they feel they should be" on a cognitive or feelings-based sense. They are just taking medicine to survive from an actual physical illness.

If someone for some reason needs to undergo gender surgery to save their live (some weird complication with someone born a hermaphrodite that requires surgery or something along those lines for example) that's completely different to someone just doing it to feel better about themselves. If there's an actual medical cause like a diagnosis of autoimmune disease that completely changes things.

Well then to use your definitions, if drugs for physical illness are fine then what about drugs for mental illnesses? If someone can take steroids so they can better fight infections, what about taking anti-depressants so they can better fight depression? Where does that fall on your scale of okay things?

I am against treating psychology like a hard science the same way you treat immunology. There's too many unknowns and there's too much over-medication or pathologization of the regular spectrum of human behaviors like with medicating willful children. Thanks to mistaking the two for equivalent.

A lot of these things often have unknown sideffects or a shopping list worth of them. I've even heard of anti-depressants making someone more suicidal when it's the opposite thing of what they should be doing.


In the context of this topic, I think the suggested cure is worse than the disease basically, on top of causing the societal ill of forcing people to live the lie of pretending it is not. Mass delusions are not good.

Cool, but not really the parameters of what we were talking about. Do you think someone taking drugs to help deal with their depression is somehow less of a person?

That's an odd question, since I never said anyone was less of a person to begin with, so obviously the answer is no.

Actually you did. Thats why I've been posing you these questions. Your original statement determined that if you needed chemicals to be a man, you were not a man. Your assertion is, therefore, that needing drugs to be a thing means you are clearly not that thing. That is the crux of the argument you are putting forward. And yet when I start testing that argument, you start finding it distasteful. Somewhat telling, no?

People don't take anti-depressants to be "more of a person" like how people take testosterone to be "more like a man". That's an ass-pull if I've ever seen one lol. Unlike with being a man which has measured traits, being a person is not a scientifically defined thing that you can add or remove things from. It's a philosophical definition, completely divorced from these issues.

To me, self-aware consciousness is what makes someone a person. (yes I'm all for robot rights in my scifi stories )

Honestly I'd say "being a man" is far more a nebulous question than being a person, especially given your simple definition of being a person. I'm going to have to point out that you say there's measured traits but don't actually list any.

It is within the parameters of being a person to be delusional about some things and our job as a society is to point that out and fix it, not to go along with it. It doesn't make you less of a person to need help. Nobody's an island.

But what exactly makes trans folk delusional as opposed to the people needing help you say it is society's job to then help?

You are going on as though it's established that people who take psych meds are taking them to be "more of a person" which is something that has yet to be established, something which I certainly never claimed. They're taking them to function better but a person is a person irrespective of their capacity to function. .You don't stop being a person if you're too sad all of a sudden. That implication sounds completely insane to me. How sad you are is irrelevant to whether you're a person or not, completely

The way to help, according to my estimate, is to first correctly identify the problem first and foremost. Using testosterone as a way to help them is incorrect, hence, isn't actual help. You can disagree with what constitutes help without being against helping someone.

Depression is more than just "you feel a bit sad" dude, utterly misunderstanding mental illness isn't exactly helping your case here. Depression can completely prevent people from doing things or, in my case, give them disassociative episodes which absolutely made me feel like I wasn't a fully functional person while I was having them. So have I stopped being a person to you because I need chemical assistance? Because I needed meds to get my brain to keep feeling like who I am, does that mean I'm not actually who I am? Because thats the argument you're putting forth my dude.

Also, going to point out that despite being directly challenged to state the "measured traits" you say obviously define "being a man", you have failed to do so. Going to keep pointing this out until you actually do so, just fyi

You seem to be conflating how you feel with the reality of your being. You may feel like less of a person when you suffer from these conditions, but you still ARE just as much of a person as you were. How you feel about it doesn't matter. It seems incomprehensible to me that you can't understand that just because you feel like less of a person that doesn't affect anything. A baby can barely do anything for themselves outside of cry for help but they have just as many human rights as a decathlete. If someone does something to you that's legal to do to non-persons but illegal to do to persons, they'll go to jail just as much. Your line of reasoning is what had been used back centuries ago as an excuse to abuse the mentally ill.

You literally can't become different amounts of a person. Nobody can be more of a person and nobody can be less of one for as long as they live.

The measured traits are whatever traits the person who is undergoing testosterone treatment is aiming to enhance in themselves. Things like deeper voice and facial hair and so on are some of them.

I know a guy, 17 with a voice genuinely like Mickey Mouse. He probably weighs 130lbs soaking wet. I can't be sure if he's clean shaven or can't grow a beard. So I don't think those count as "measured traits for being a man"

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Indeed, they are not doing it to "be who they feel they should be" on a cognitive or feelings-based sense. They are just taking medicine to survive from an actual physical illness.

If someone for some reason needs to undergo gender surgery to save their live (some weird complication with someone born a hermaphrodite that requires surgery or something along those lines for example) that's completely different to someone just doing it to feel better about themselves. If there's an actual medical cause like a diagnosis of autoimmune disease that completely changes things.

Well then to use your definitions, if drugs for physical illness are fine then what about drugs for mental illnesses? If someone can take steroids so they can better fight infections, what about taking anti-depressants so they can better fight depression? Where does that fall on your scale of okay things?

I am against treating psychology like a hard science the same way you treat immunology. There's too many unknowns and there's too much over-medication or pathologization of the regular spectrum of human behaviors like with medicating willful children. Thanks to mistaking the two for equivalent.

A lot of these things often have unknown sideffects or a shopping list worth of them. I've even heard of anti-depressants making someone more suicidal when it's the opposite thing of what they should be doing.


In the context of this topic, I think the suggested cure is worse than the disease basically, on top of causing the societal ill of forcing people to live the lie of pretending it is not. Mass delusions are not good.

Cool, but not really the parameters of what we were talking about. Do you think someone taking drugs to help deal with their depression is somehow less of a person?

That's an odd question, since I never said anyone was less of a person to begin with, so obviously the answer is no.

Actually you did. Thats why I've been posing you these questions. Your original statement determined that if you needed chemicals to be a man, you were not a man. Your assertion is, therefore, that needing drugs to be a thing means you are clearly not that thing. That is the crux of the argument you are putting forward. And yet when I start testing that argument, you start finding it distasteful. Somewhat telling, no?

People don't take anti-depressants to be "more of a person" like how people take testosterone to be "more like a man". That's an ass-pull if I've ever seen one lol. Unlike with being a man which has measured traits, being a person is not a scientifically defined thing that you can add or remove things from. It's a philosophical definition, completely divorced from these issues.

To me, self-aware consciousness is what makes someone a person. (yes I'm all for robot rights in my scifi stories )

Honestly I'd say "being a man" is far more a nebulous question than being a person, especially given your simple definition of being a person. I'm going to have to point out that you say there's measured traits but don't actually list any.

It is within the parameters of being a person to be delusional about some things and our job as a society is to point that out and fix it, not to go along with it. It doesn't make you less of a person to need help. Nobody's an island.

But what exactly makes trans folk delusional as opposed to the people needing help you say it is society's job to then help?

You are going on as though it's established that people who take psych meds are taking them to be "more of a person" which is something that has yet to be established, something which I certainly never claimed. They're taking them to function better but a person is a person irrespective of their capacity to function. .You don't stop being a person if you're too sad all of a sudden. That implication sounds completely insane to me. How sad you are is irrelevant to whether you're a person or not, completely

The way to help, according to my estimate, is to first correctly identify the problem first and foremost. Using testosterone as a way to help them is incorrect, hence, isn't actual help. You can disagree with what constitutes help without being against helping someone.

Depression is more than just "you feel a bit sad" dude, utterly misunderstanding mental illness isn't exactly helping your case here. Depression can completely prevent people from doing things or, in my case, give them disassociative episodes which absolutely made me feel like I wasn't a fully functional person while I was having them. So have I stopped being a person to you because I need chemical assistance? Because I needed meds to get my brain to keep feeling like who I am, does that mean I'm not actually who I am? Because thats the argument you're putting forth my dude.

Also, going to point out that despite being directly challenged to state the "measured traits" you say obviously define "being a man", you have failed to do so. Going to keep pointing this out until you actually do so, just fyi

You seem to be conflating how you feel with the reality of your being. You may feel like less of a person when you suffer from these conditions, but you still ARE just as much of a person as you were. How you feel about it doesn't matter. It seems incomprehensible to me that you can't understand that just because you feel like less of a person that doesn't affect anything. A baby can barely do anything for themselves outside of cry for help but they have just as many human rights as a decathlete. If someone does something to you that's legal to do to non-persons but illegal to do to persons, they'll go to jail just as much. Your line of reasoning is what had been used back centuries ago as an excuse to abuse the mentally ill.

You literally can't become different amounts of a person. Nobody can be more of a person and nobody can be less of one for as long as they live.

The measured traits are whatever traits the person who is undergoing testosterone treatment is aiming to enhance in themselves. Things like deeper voice and facial hair and so on are some of them.

I know a guy, 17 with a voice genuinely like Mickey Mouse. He probably weighs 130lbs soaking wet. I can't be sure if he's clean shaven or can't grow a beard. So I don't think those count as "measured traits for being a man"

It's not like there's a threshold of these things where if you're past it you're a man. It's more that the people who want to be more like one want to enhance these aspects of themselves. It's not about their absolute value but more about them feeling that they're not sufficient at their current level, whatever that may be.

Basically, if your mickey sounding skinny pal feels that he sounds masculine, whatever decibel his voice is, that's being a man. This is exactly why undergoing dangerous medical treatments instead of addressing your mentality about yourself is questionable.

 

[CheetoDust_v1legacy]

Indeed, they are not doing it to "be who they feel they should be" on a cognitive or feelings-based sense. They are just taking medicine to survive from an actual physical illness.

If someone for some reason needs to undergo gender surgery to save their live (some weird complication with someone born a hermaphrodite that requires surgery or something along those lines for example) that's completely different to someone just doing it to feel better about themselves. If there's an actual medical cause like a diagnosis of autoimmune disease that completely changes things.

Well then to use your definitions, if drugs for physical illness are fine then what about drugs for mental illnesses? If someone can take steroids so they can better fight infections, what about taking anti-depressants so they can better fight depression? Where does that fall on your scale of okay things?

I am against treating psychology like a hard science the same way you treat immunology. There's too many unknowns and there's too much over-medication or pathologization of the regular spectrum of human behaviors like with medicating willful children. Thanks to mistaking the two for equivalent.

A lot of these things often have unknown sideffects or a shopping list worth of them. I've even heard of anti-depressants making someone more suicidal when it's the opposite thing of what they should be doing.


In the context of this topic, I think the suggested cure is worse than the disease basically, on top of causing the societal ill of forcing people to live the lie of pretending it is not. Mass delusions are not good.

Cool, but not really the parameters of what we were talking about. Do you think someone taking drugs to help deal with their depression is somehow less of a person?

That's an odd question, since I never said anyone was less of a person to begin with, so obviously the answer is no.

Actually you did. Thats why I've been posing you these questions. Your original statement determined that if you needed chemicals to be a man, you were not a man. Your assertion is, therefore, that needing drugs to be a thing means you are clearly not that thing. That is the crux of the argument you are putting forward. And yet when I start testing that argument, you start finding it distasteful. Somewhat telling, no?

People don't take anti-depressants to be "more of a person" like how people take testosterone to be "more like a man". That's an ass-pull if I've ever seen one lol. Unlike with being a man which has measured traits, being a person is not a scientifically defined thing that you can add or remove things from. It's a philosophical definition, completely divorced from these issues.

To me, self-aware consciousness is what makes someone a person. (yes I'm all for robot rights in my scifi stories )

Honestly I'd say "being a man" is far more a nebulous question than being a person, especially given your simple definition of being a person. I'm going to have to point out that you say there's measured traits but don't actually list any.

It is within the parameters of being a person to be delusional about some things and our job as a society is to point that out and fix it, not to go along with it. It doesn't make you less of a person to need help. Nobody's an island.

But what exactly makes trans folk delusional as opposed to the people needing help you say it is society's job to then help?

You are going on as though it's established that people who take psych meds are taking them to be "more of a person" which is something that has yet to be established, something which I certainly never claimed. They're taking them to function better but a person is a person irrespective of their capacity to function. .You don't stop being a person if you're too sad all of a sudden. That implication sounds completely insane to me. How sad you are is irrelevant to whether you're a person or not, completely

The way to help, according to my estimate, is to first correctly identify the problem first and foremost. Using testosterone as a way to help them is incorrect, hence, isn't actual help. You can disagree with what constitutes help without being against helping someone.

Depression is more than just "you feel a bit sad" dude, utterly misunderstanding mental illness isn't exactly helping your case here. Depression can completely prevent people from doing things or, in my case, give them disassociative episodes which absolutely made me feel like I wasn't a fully functional person while I was having them. So have I stopped being a person to you because I need chemical assistance? Because I needed meds to get my brain to keep feeling like who I am, does that mean I'm not actually who I am? Because thats the argument you're putting forth my dude.

Also, going to point out that despite being directly challenged to state the "measured traits" you say obviously define "being a man", you have failed to do so. Going to keep pointing this out until you actually do so, just fyi

You seem to be conflating how you feel with the reality of your being. You may feel like less of a person when you suffer from these conditions, but you still ARE just as much of a person as you were. How you feel about it doesn't matter. It seems incomprehensible to me that you can't understand that just because you feel like less of a person that doesn't affect anything. A baby can barely do anything for themselves outside of cry for help but they have just as many human rights as a decathlete. If someone does something to you that's legal to do to non-persons but illegal to do to persons, they'll go to jail just as much. Your line of reasoning is what had been used back centuries ago as an excuse to abuse the mentally ill.

You literally can't become different amounts of a person. Nobody can be more of a person and nobody can be less of one for as long as they live.

The measured traits are whatever traits the person who is undergoing testosterone treatment is aiming to enhance in themselves. Things like deeper voice and facial hair and so on are some of them.

I know a guy, 17 with a voice genuinely like Mickey Mouse. He probably weighs 130lbs soaking wet. I can't be sure if he's clean shaven or can't grow a beard. So I don't think those count as "measured traits for being a man"

It's not like there's a threshold of these things where if you're past it you're a man. It's more that the people who want to be more like one want to enhance these aspects of themselves. It's not about their absolute value but more about them feeling that they're not sufficient at their current level, whatever that may be.

Basically, if your mickey sounding skinny pal feels that he sounds masculine, whatever decibel his voice is, that's being a man. This is exactly why undergoing dangerous medical treatments instead of addressing your mentality about yourself is questionable.

So these measured traits are completely subjective?

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Indeed, they are not doing it to "be who they feel they should be" on a cognitive or feelings-based sense. They are just taking medicine to survive from an actual physical illness.

If someone for some reason needs to undergo gender surgery to save their live (some weird complication with someone born a hermaphrodite that requires surgery or something along those lines for example) that's completely different to someone just doing it to feel better about themselves. If there's an actual medical cause like a diagnosis of autoimmune disease that completely changes things.

Well then to use your definitions, if drugs for physical illness are fine then what about drugs for mental illnesses? If someone can take steroids so they can better fight infections, what about taking anti-depressants so they can better fight depression? Where does that fall on your scale of okay things?

I am against treating psychology like a hard science the same way you treat immunology. There's too many unknowns and there's too much over-medication or pathologization of the regular spectrum of human behaviors like with medicating willful children. Thanks to mistaking the two for equivalent.

A lot of these things often have unknown sideffects or a shopping list worth of them. I've even heard of anti-depressants making someone more suicidal when it's the opposite thing of what they should be doing.


In the context of this topic, I think the suggested cure is worse than the disease basically, on top of causing the societal ill of forcing people to live the lie of pretending it is not. Mass delusions are not good.

Cool, but not really the parameters of what we were talking about. Do you think someone taking drugs to help deal with their depression is somehow less of a person?

That's an odd question, since I never said anyone was less of a person to begin with, so obviously the answer is no.

Actually you did. Thats why I've been posing you these questions. Your original statement determined that if you needed chemicals to be a man, you were not a man. Your assertion is, therefore, that needing drugs to be a thing means you are clearly not that thing. That is the crux of the argument you are putting forward. And yet when I start testing that argument, you start finding it distasteful. Somewhat telling, no?

People don't take anti-depressants to be "more of a person" like how people take testosterone to be "more like a man". That's an ass-pull if I've ever seen one lol. Unlike with being a man which has measured traits, being a person is not a scientifically defined thing that you can add or remove things from. It's a philosophical definition, completely divorced from these issues.

To me, self-aware consciousness is what makes someone a person. (yes I'm all for robot rights in my scifi stories )

Honestly I'd say "being a man" is far more a nebulous question than being a person, especially given your simple definition of being a person. I'm going to have to point out that you say there's measured traits but don't actually list any.

It is within the parameters of being a person to be delusional about some things and our job as a society is to point that out and fix it, not to go along with it. It doesn't make you less of a person to need help. Nobody's an island.

But what exactly makes trans folk delusional as opposed to the people needing help you say it is society's job to then help?

You are going on as though it's established that people who take psych meds are taking them to be "more of a person" which is something that has yet to be established, something which I certainly never claimed. They're taking them to function better but a person is a person irrespective of their capacity to function. .You don't stop being a person if you're too sad all of a sudden. That implication sounds completely insane to me. How sad you are is irrelevant to whether you're a person or not, completely

The way to help, according to my estimate, is to first correctly identify the problem first and foremost. Using testosterone as a way to help them is incorrect, hence, isn't actual help. You can disagree with what constitutes help without being against helping someone.

Depression is more than just "you feel a bit sad" dude, utterly misunderstanding mental illness isn't exactly helping your case here. Depression can completely prevent people from doing things or, in my case, give them disassociative episodes which absolutely made me feel like I wasn't a fully functional person while I was having them. So have I stopped being a person to you because I need chemical assistance? Because I needed meds to get my brain to keep feeling like who I am, does that mean I'm not actually who I am? Because thats the argument you're putting forth my dude.

Also, going to point out that despite being directly challenged to state the "measured traits" you say obviously define "being a man", you have failed to do so. Going to keep pointing this out until you actually do so, just fyi

You seem to be conflating how you feel with the reality of your being. You may feel like less of a person when you suffer from these conditions, but you still ARE just as much of a person as you were. How you feel about it doesn't matter. It seems incomprehensible to me that you can't understand that just because you feel like less of a person that doesn't affect anything. A baby can barely do anything for themselves outside of cry for help but they have just as many human rights as a decathlete. If someone does something to you that's legal to do to non-persons but illegal to do to persons, they'll go to jail just as much. Your line of reasoning is what had been used back centuries ago as an excuse to abuse the mentally ill.

You literally can't become different amounts of a person. Nobody can be more of a person and nobody can be less of one for as long as they live.

The measured traits are whatever traits the person who is undergoing testosterone treatment is aiming to enhance in themselves. Things like deeper voice and facial hair and so on are some of them.

I know a guy, 17 with a voice genuinely like Mickey Mouse. He probably weighs 130lbs soaking wet. I can't be sure if he's clean shaven or can't grow a beard. So I don't think those count as "measured traits for being a man"

It's not like there's a threshold of these things where if you're past it you're a man. It's more that the people who want to be more like one want to enhance these aspects of themselves. It's not about their absolute value but more about them feeling that they're not sufficient at their current level, whatever that may be.

Basically, if your mickey sounding skinny pal feels that he sounds masculine, whatever decibel his voice is, that's being a man. This is exactly why undergoing dangerous medical treatments instead of addressing your mentality about yourself is questionable.

So these measured traits are completely subjective?

They're there but defining them as masculine or feminine is arbitrary. You could evolve to define them any which way you want.

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

If someone tries to beat me up and tries to kill me, I won't kill them back in return. I'll incapacitate them to a degree where I'm not in danger any longer but I'm not going to go ahead and kill them just because that's what they tried to do to me. To even think of doing that is evil in my eyes.

I work for a school, and we have to undergo active shooter training. Ihe training was administered by two State Troopers, and when asked what would happen if one of staff got the gun away from the shooter and shot him in turn, what would the legal consequences be? The senior Trooper's exact quote was this.

If you shoot the assailant in the head, we'll go to court for you, and we will inform the judge that you were only what law enforcement trained you to do in that situation

Am I evil?

 

[CheetoDust_v1legacy]

Indeed, they are not doing it to "be who they feel they should be" on a cognitive or feelings-based sense. They are just taking medicine to survive from an actual physical illness.

If someone for some reason needs to undergo gender surgery to save their live (some weird complication with someone born a hermaphrodite that requires surgery or something along those lines for example) that's completely different to someone just doing it to feel better about themselves. If there's an actual medical cause like a diagnosis of autoimmune disease that completely changes things.

Well then to use your definitions, if drugs for physical illness are fine then what about drugs for mental illnesses? If someone can take steroids so they can better fight infections, what about taking anti-depressants so they can better fight depression? Where does that fall on your scale of okay things?

I am against treating psychology like a hard science the same way you treat immunology. There's too many unknowns and there's too much over-medication or pathologization of the regular spectrum of human behaviors like with medicating willful children. Thanks to mistaking the two for equivalent.

A lot of these things often have unknown sideffects or a shopping list worth of them. I've even heard of anti-depressants making someone more suicidal when it's the opposite thing of what they should be doing.


In the context of this topic, I think the suggested cure is worse than the disease basically, on top of causing the societal ill of forcing people to live the lie of pretending it is not. Mass delusions are not good.

Cool, but not really the parameters of what we were talking about. Do you think someone taking drugs to help deal with their depression is somehow less of a person?

That's an odd question, since I never said anyone was less of a person to begin with, so obviously the answer is no.

Actually you did. Thats why I've been posing you these questions. Your original statement determined that if you needed chemicals to be a man, you were not a man. Your assertion is, therefore, that needing drugs to be a thing means you are clearly not that thing. That is the crux of the argument you are putting forward. And yet when I start testing that argument, you start finding it distasteful. Somewhat telling, no?

People don't take anti-depressants to be "more of a person" like how people take testosterone to be "more like a man". That's an ass-pull if I've ever seen one lol. Unlike with being a man which has measured traits, being a person is not a scientifically defined thing that you can add or remove things from. It's a philosophical definition, completely divorced from these issues.

To me, self-aware consciousness is what makes someone a person. (yes I'm all for robot rights in my scifi stories )

Honestly I'd say "being a man" is far more a nebulous question than being a person, especially given your simple definition of being a person. I'm going to have to point out that you say there's measured traits but don't actually list any.

It is within the parameters of being a person to be delusional about some things and our job as a society is to point that out and fix it, not to go along with it. It doesn't make you less of a person to need help. Nobody's an island.

But what exactly makes trans folk delusional as opposed to the people needing help you say it is society's job to then help?

You are going on as though it's established that people who take psych meds are taking them to be "more of a person" which is something that has yet to be established, something which I certainly never claimed. They're taking them to function better but a person is a person irrespective of their capacity to function. .You don't stop being a person if you're too sad all of a sudden. That implication sounds completely insane to me. How sad you are is irrelevant to whether you're a person or not, completely

The way to help, according to my estimate, is to first correctly identify the problem first and foremost. Using testosterone as a way to help them is incorrect, hence, isn't actual help. You can disagree with what constitutes help without being against helping someone.

Depression is more than just "you feel a bit sad" dude, utterly misunderstanding mental illness isn't exactly helping your case here. Depression can completely prevent people from doing things or, in my case, give them disassociative episodes which absolutely made me feel like I wasn't a fully functional person while I was having them. So have I stopped being a person to you because I need chemical assistance? Because I needed meds to get my brain to keep feeling like who I am, does that mean I'm not actually who I am? Because thats the argument you're putting forth my dude.

Also, going to point out that despite being directly challenged to state the "measured traits" you say obviously define "being a man", you have failed to do so. Going to keep pointing this out until you actually do so, just fyi

You seem to be conflating how you feel with the reality of your being. You may feel like less of a person when you suffer from these conditions, but you still ARE just as much of a person as you were. How you feel about it doesn't matter. It seems incomprehensible to me that you can't understand that just because you feel like less of a person that doesn't affect anything. A baby can barely do anything for themselves outside of cry for help but they have just as many human rights as a decathlete. If someone does something to you that's legal to do to non-persons but illegal to do to persons, they'll go to jail just as much. Your line of reasoning is what had been used back centuries ago as an excuse to abuse the mentally ill.

You literally can't become different amounts of a person. Nobody can be more of a person and nobody can be less of one for as long as they live.

The measured traits are whatever traits the person who is undergoing testosterone treatment is aiming to enhance in themselves. Things like deeper voice and facial hair and so on are some of them.

I know a guy, 17 with a voice genuinely like Mickey Mouse. He probably weighs 130lbs soaking wet. I can't be sure if he's clean shaven or can't grow a beard. So I don't think those count as "measured traits for being a man"

It's not like there's a threshold of these things where if you're past it you're a man. It's more that the people who want to be more like one want to enhance these aspects of themselves. It's not about their absolute value but more about them feeling that they're not sufficient at their current level, whatever that may be.

Basically, if your mickey sounding skinny pal feels that he sounds masculine, whatever decibel his voice is, that's being a man. This is exactly why undergoing dangerous medical treatments instead of addressing your mentality about yourself is questionable.

So these measured traits are completely subjective?

They're there but defining them as masculine or feminine is arbitrary. You could evolve to define them any which way you want.

So there are no measurable traits for being a man then because they're arbitrary and subjective. They're are vague notions of what it means to be a man that may vary from culture to culture, era to era or even person to person. That is not what a "measured traits" is.

 

[tstorm823]

So there are no measurable traits for being a man then because they're arbitrary and subjective. They're are vague notions of what it means to be a man that may vary from culture to culture, era to era or even person to person. That is not what a "measured traits" is.

One might call it a "social construct". It's amazing how quickly that phrase went out of favor.

 

[Trunkage]

Defend yourself a different way if you want to keep the moral high ground or accept the criticism that comes your way.

Couple of things. Moral high ground is not all its cracked up to be. It doesn't win people over and just makes you a target. Gaining the moral high ground, perversely, makes you loose the moral high ground. The current incarnation of this is "virtue signalling," but its happened for centuries under different guises.

Secondly, you NEVER win arguments through logic or the moral high ground. If that was the case, all our problems would have been sold. Playing yourself as a victim is the best course of action. That's why everyone clamours to become the victim. The second best is triggering emotions, advertisers have got this one down pat. Third is shaming (now called cancelling apparently)

But, I should say, the best way to win arguments is to target children. They haven't formed their identity yet and are thus malleable. It's way easier to convince them than an adult. That's just a long term strategy and the only real way we get change in society - let certain people get old and die off, and let the new generation rise up.

The 2016 election was weird for me. Both candidate were so old, hanging onto that Baby Boomer ideologies, when its better they just let go and stop forcing their ideologies onto everyone else. They aren't going to live through that world, or pay its prices.

Lastly, I find it funny how, when being bullied, your response is that they should just take it. Yes, I read all the rest of your responses, it still comes down to that. All your responses can be equally applied to LBGT people. But then, that's the point, isn't it. "Don't act naughty or you'll be in trouble. And don't mind this 2 by 4, it wont hurt much. DON'T react to it, or YOU'LL be in trouble."

Sorry, another point, I didn't add this in as a quote. You commented that it doesn't matter who started Identity Politics. Probably true. My issue is that one side pretends they have no Identity Politics. You know, the ones that quite possibly started it. I don't, at all, want to focus on the starting bit though, that is pretty unimportant. It's the claim that they don't use it, which is utterly untrue.

 

[Saelune]

Defend yourself a different way if you want to keep the moral high ground or accept the criticism that comes your way.

Couple of things. Moral high ground is not all its cracked up to be. It doesn't win people over and just makes you a target. Gaining the moral high ground, perversely, makes you loose the moral high ground. The current incarnation of this is "virtue signalling," but its happened for centuries under different guises.

Secondly, you NEVER win arguments through logic or the moral high ground. If that was the case, all our problems would have been sold. Playing yourself as a victim is the best course of action. That's why everyone clamours to become the victim. The second best is triggering emotions, advertisers have got this one down pat. Third is shaming (now called cancelling apparently)

But, I should say, the best way to win arguments is to target children. They haven't formed their identity yet and are thus malleable. It's way easier to convince them than an adult. That's just a long term strategy and the only real way we get change in society - let certain people get old and die off, and let the new generation rise up.

The 2016 election was weird for me. Both candidate were so old, hanging onto that Baby Boomer ideologies, when its better they just let go and stop forcing their ideologies onto everyone else. They aren't going to live through that world, or pay its prices.

Lastly, I find it funny how, when being bullied, your response is that they should just take it. Yes, I read all the rest of your responses, it still comes down to that. All your responses can be equally applied to LBGT people. But then, that's the point, isn't it. "Don't act naughty or you'll be in trouble. And don't mind this 2 by 4, it wont hurt much. DON'T react to it, or YOU'LL be in trouble."

Sorry, another point, I didn't add this in as a quote. You commented that it doesn't matter who started Identity Politics. Probably true. My issue is that one side pretends they have no Identity Politics. You know, the ones that quite possibly started it. I don't, at all, want to focus on the starting bit though, that is pretty unimportant. It's the claim that they don't use it, which is utterly untrue.

Only way to actually end 'Identity Politics' is to give everyone equality.

Republicans are the biggest supporters of Identity Politics, particularly to oppress anyone who is not of the straight white wealthy male identity. Ofcourse those rich straight white guys have tricked all the poor straight white guys into thinking they are on the same side.

Really though, I am just tired of bullies punching me while telling ME to stop hitting MYSELF. *****, you're throwing the punches here. (Not 'you' trunkage, 'you' people who are anti-equal rights)

 

[Eric the Orange]

Between this and the other LGBT topic, I notice alot of non-LGBT people telling all the LGBT people how terrible we are. Hmmm...

(To the non-LGBT people on here who ARE actually allies, we appreciate you)

I mean "A lot of" is like 2 here.