There's no such thing as Transexuals

Repetition isn’t an argument. Where your position is that you will reject the evidence provided by anyone who believes X, you are closing yourself off to compelling evidence that X is true (since we should expect anyone with compelling evidence that X is true to also believe X). That is a rejection of any objective measure of reality.

It wasn’t a lie to call nephrite and jadeite, “jade”, and it wasn’t a lie to determine that they are in fact two different substances. So too was it not a lie to treat social and physiological sex as the same, and it’s not a lie to point out that they aren’t. Words meanings reflect the world, and as we gain a better understanding of the world, we need to change our language to suit. There is an important sense in which a man who sincerely feels like a woman trapped in a man’s body is a woman. Your objection so far has been to point out that there are important senses in which that man is not a woman, and I’ve acknowledged that (e.g., we don’t need to give her birth control to prevent pregnancy). But those claims aren’t in conflict.

This thread is full of bad arguments.

The Modern world is defined by delusions. Pretend to be something, and you are that something. That’s the bottom-line. Is it true, realistic, accurate, objective? No, it’s subjective. It’s “I say so”. It is not factual. It is not scientific. It is pseudo-intellectual. A guy pretends to be a woman, Careleass says it is a woman. We all disagree. But the liberals are caught in a cross-road between participating in delusions, and common sense.

The more absurd they become, the less they are taken seriously, and will continue to lose political power.

Western Civilization is approaching a crossroad.

How far is the liberal-left willing to go, to not tread on “MUH FREEDOMS”? At what point, does common sense step-in and say, “No, you have/had a pair of hairy balls. You have/had a dong hanging down from your crotch. Therefore you will always be male no matter how much you pretend to be female?” Never? Well, the distinction matters.

It’s a problem of all-inclusivity. The liberal-left want to include everybody, the homosexuals, the queers, the fags, the transexuals, all races, illegal immigrants, murderers, basically “all those oppressed by the white male patriarchy”. The liberal-left dooms itself by this goal, this ideal, this “value”. The liberal-left claim to care for the poor and homeless, but do they? No, not when push comes to shove. Not when reality appears. Not when the liberal-left must actually pay (their own) money. The liberal-left is content to raise taxes on the conservative-right (those who work the most, and hardest). But the liberal-left don’t want their own pocket books going to what they claim to care about.

It’s a lot of lying, contradictions, and sensationalism.

Most of it is virtue-signaling. The liberal-left are driven, compelled by, feelings of Guilt. So the liberal-left want to appease to those they feel guilty with and by. So the liberal-left panders to all “the oppressed”, without understanding the very nature of oppression. In reality, the liberal-left are the ones most responsible for continuing “the oppression”.

Personally, I don’t think the Liberal-Left is inclusive at all. It’s actually the exact-opposite. Conservatives are more ‘tolerant’ of others, than Liberals. Instead Liberals only claim to be inclusive, until the ‘merge’ occurs. Then the truth comes out. Liberals are Elitists in waiting. They promote “One-Humanity”, living behind gated communities, or high up in skyscrapers, away from the riff-raff.

“One-Humanity” (with walls everywhere)

To reiterate, if you’re a man, to refer to and think of yourself as a woman, is not similar to referring to and thinking of yourself as a Liam, Willian or Benjamin, that’s a poor analogy, because names like Liam, Willian or Benjamin are arbitrary, nondescript.

What it’s really similar to, is referring to and thinking of yourself as an extrovert, when you’re an introvert, or an empath, when you’re a sociopath, or as having Asperger’s or Down’s, when you don’t have Asperger’s or Down’s, or as a doctor, lawyer, child or African American, when you’re none of these things.

Not only are you not actually one of these things, try as you may, you will never be able to behave like them, because behaving like them would require you to have the same biology as them, or it would require you to have a degree if you want to be a doctor or lawyer.

And while some people are better, actors than others, imitation pales in comparison to the genuine article, and while the scientific jury is still kind of out, as the study of brain and gender is still “in its infancy”, the evidence available to us so far suggests generally speaking, so called ‘transsexuals’ have sort of androgynous brains, not a wholly female brain in a wholly male body, like the progressive media would have us believe, and again, that’s generally speaking, some fauxsexuals mightn’t have brains like the sex they believe they are at all.

Masculinity and femininity aren’t meaningless categories, they refer to thousands of physiological, neurological and psychological traits, and men always in some cases, and generally in others have masculine traits, and women feminine traits, because masculinity and femininity are, in the main, biologically determined, which’s not to say socialization doesn’t play a role, it does.

But even here, fauxsexuals are never going to be socialized like the opposite sex is, because people are never going to think of and treat them exactly like they treat the opposite sex, and also physiology, your body, determines how you experience the world, and so your experiences are never going to be the same as the experiences of the opposite sex, and so neither is your psychology, because experience also partly determines psychology, it’s the other side of the coin.

And disguising, referring to and thinking of yourself as something you’re not, when that something is of profound importance, like your sex is, is wrong, it’s mentally ill, deceptive, and we’re all mentally ill, or deceived if we play along with this, masquerade.
If you pretend to yourself and others you’re a cop, doctor, lawyer or the opposite sex, it’s wrong, because if you’re good at it, some people mightn’t realize you’re pretending, they’re going to have certain expectations of you, and through no fault of their own, at some point these expectations are going to be thwarted when reality intervenes.

I think there’s been a comparison of fauxsexuals to subcultures like punk or goth and cosplay.
The difference here is subcultures have nothing to do with biology, one, and two, cosplay is make believe, and the people who do it know it’s make believe, they don’t do it 24/7, but if they actually believed they were video game or anime characters, we would tell them to, cut that shit out, and rightfully so, because it’s mentally ill.

Fauxsexuals, knowingly or unknowingly, are, charlatans, frauds, hucksters, imposters, most of them are mentally ill, but some of them are probably downright liars, trying to pull one over the world.

Punks and goths are also referred to as poseurs, when other members of their subculture feel they’re being disingenuous, or even when they earnestly try, and fail to live up to the part, so the comparison is doubly fallacious.

This is not the claim. We’re talking about sincere beliefs about ones own relation to a specific and complex concept. The concept is both biological and social, necessary and contingent. And to the extent it’s social and contingent, there’s no contradiction in applying it differently where it makes sense to do so.

I agree with this. Where someone is mentally a woman, it doesn’t make sense to demand that they think of themselves as a man. Exactly my point.

I challenge you to identify a mental trait that men always have.

So this line of argument seems to be that we shouldn’t think of and treat transsexuals as members of their chosen sex because people are never going to think of and treat them as members of their chosen sex?

This isn’t what transsexuals are going. When you say that they’re acting as “something [they]'re not”, you are interpreting it as them acting as someone with a specific chromosomal mix or genital shape. But that’s not a necessary implication from how they’re acting. They’re acting like someone who thinks of themself as a member of a particular sex and who wants to be treated as a member of that sex, and that’s exactly what they are. You acknowledge that sex is partly social and contingent, but you still treat it as fully biological for the purpose of evaluating this question. It isn’t, you acknowledge it isn’t, and to the extent that it isn’t, it makes sense to treat it as social and contingent, and let people adopt the social role with which they identify.

To your point on doctors and lawyers, I would liken that to the birth control point I’ve made a few times. I don’t have a problem with someone wanting me to treat them as a doctor, as long as that doesn’t include letting them operate on me. Similarly, we shouldn’t have a problem with treating someone as a woman who was born a man, but that doesn’t entail that we should consider them when looking for a pregnancy surrogate.

Fact: females have, and do, question the intent of big hulking transsexual he-she males. Why? because of a safety and security dictat.

Can that be argued against?

Does it need to be? I once had a friend who was afraid of balloons, but that doesn’t tell us very much about balloons.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/people-angry-safe-sex-guide-calls-vagina-front-hole-012527170.html

No end in sight for the craziness. :laughing: Why not all be sincerely multi-gendered like hermaphrodites with a front hole and a penis or a vagina and a strapless, say your non-binary queer, and have the best of all worlds possible?

Carleas wrote:

This is a very typical error in thinking, confusing feelings with realities.

The truth is that reality is what it is, nothing more, nothing less.

@Carleas

The words man and woman don’t belong to the state, they belong to us, as native English speakers.
Since time immemorial, man and woman referred to ones biology, which’s the hard, essential difference between man and woman, not ones psychology, or what one wished they were, just as the words adult, child, white, black and so on, refer to ones biology.

If you present yourself as, and claim to be a doctor, lawyer, employed, unemployed, healthy, sick, able, disabled and so on, no one will suppose you’re claiming to be the aforementioned in a soft, psychological sense, so you have to clarify what you mean, by saying: well I’m not actually an X, I just believe I have the psychology of an X, or I just wished I was an X.

It’s linguistically and socially unprecedented, confusing and deceitful.

Look, I, and other native English speakers who won’t be bullied by the state and progressive ideologues, are not going to change the way we do language and socialize to appease less than 1% of the population, a group of largely mentally ill people that has somehow, gotten inordinately powerful, and needs to be put in its place.
You, will accommodate our linguistic and social norms, not the other way round.

If you present yourself as, and claim to be the sex you’re not, you’re a liar, and if we’re planning on sleeping together, I’m going to be angry with you when I find out you’re lying, and rightfully so.

I am a tolerant man, dress however you please, conduct YOUR affairs as you see fit, but don’t lie to me, especially if we’re doing business or pleasure together.

You’re entitled to define yourself, for you, but you’re not entitled to define yourself, for me.

Not all science is equal, some science is soft, social, some science is speculative, theoretical, some science is esoteric (meaning, no laymen can verify it, and very few scientists can verify it), some science is funded by special interest groups (big business, government, ideologues…), some scientists hold beliefs that may jeopardize the integrity of their work, some science is new, experimental, some scientific fields are in the habit of changing their minds, some science is shoddy, and sometimes some laymen themselves can uncover how shoddy it is by examining it, some science contradicts our individual or collective experience, some scientific consensuses are contested by a minority of scientists within mainstream academia, and we can examine the work of these dissidents to see if it has merit, some science is contested by fringe academia…

And todays fringe, can become tomorrows mainstream.

There are no absolute authorities, reality is the ultimate arbiter.

I don’t have anymore respect for scientists than I do for politicians and media.

While some sources of info, might be more trustworthy than others, nothing is completely beyond public scrutiny.

@Carleas

My white ancestors may’ve not been persecuted, but that doesn’t mean I’m not being persecuted today, because I believe I’m Native, surely that entitles me to some form of government compensation?

And what if my white parents and grandparents also believed they were, claimed to be and dressed up as Natives?

I, and many people have a problem with the above.

I mean I believe people are entitled to modify their bodies as they please, but I’m also entitled to regard people who take it to extremes, as fake, which I do.

And a 60 year old person would be absolutely, out of their minds to insist we all refer to and think of them as 20, because they’ve modified their bodies, and have a ‘youthful psychology’, or have adopted a ‘young social role’.

Can I select the age I feel I am?

Can I have my drivers license say I’m 20 when I’m 90?

I never claimed to have seen statistics proving faxuwomen sexually exploit real women more than real women do in restrooms, I just said that in all likelihood, they are.

@Carleas

They’re still a man biologically, so they should still think of themselves as fundamentally male, and it’s doubtful a biological man could think very much like a woman anyway.

Psychology is secondary to biology.
Psychology can change on a dime, biology is hardwired.
Language and thought ought to reflect that.
It’s part of the reason why many trans, trans back, because it’s partly or fully a psychological phenomenon.
They call it being ‘gender fluid’, it could just as easily be called being a ‘gender flake’.

And even if it made sense to call a man with a woman’s mind a woman, than it would make sense to call a man who believed, or said he believed he had a woman’s mind, but didn’t, a man.

To avoid confusion, and deception, I’d rather invent new words to describe such people, insofar as they actually exist, we could call men with women’s minds gynopsyches, and women with men’s minds andropsyches.

Children shouldn’t be allowed to trans, and boys and girls, even ones who believe they’re girls and boys, have to be socialized somewhat differently, just to deal with the part of themselves that is biological, immutable, incontrovertible, and in any case, most trans, trans during adolescence or later, when most or all of their socialization has already occurred, which will be geared towards their biological sex, not their ‘chosen sex’.

Your body fundamentally isn’t and can’t become the opposite sex of your chromosomes and birth genitals.
Transsexuals who believe theirs is or can are mentally ill.
Your brain/mind fundamentally probably isn’t and can’t become the opposite sex of your chromosomes and your birth genitals.
Transsexuals who believe theirs is or can are probably mentally ill.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-something-unique-about-the-transgender-brain/

You may or may not share some secondary sex characteristics with the opposite sex, but just because you believe you do, doesn’t mean you do, if you believe you do, but don’t, you’re kind of mentally ill, but if you believe you do, and do, and wish to realistically add more secondary sex characteristics without believing you can fundamentally change your sex, than you’re not mentally ill, or at least you’re in touch with reality as it is, whether you’re in touch with reality as it ought to be, is mostly beyond the scope of this thread.

So are transsexuals mentally ill?
It depends on what they believe about their transsexuality.

But you shouldn’t refer to yourself as the opposite sex, when what you really mean is you share a few characteristics with the opposite sex, and would like to become more like it, because it’s confusing, and deceptive, you should always refer to yourself as a transwoman, or a transman, not a woman or a man, otherwise, you’re a fauxsexual, a fraud.

Not a good analogy.
A balloon can’t hurt you, a transwoman can.
Not only that, the average transwoman can more easily overpower a woman if he decides to than the average woman can just as the average man can, which’s why both transwomen and men should be restricted to the men’s washroom.

@Carleas

It’s not necessarily the implication, but it could be, and probably is in some cases.
I’m sure some trans believe that aside from their genitals, their bodies are wholly, fundamentally or mostly the bodies of the opposite sex, when they’re not, or will become wholly, fundamentally or mostly the bodies of the opposite sex post-sex reassignment surgery and/or steroid use, which’s delusional.
I’m sure many, if not most trans believe that their brains/mind are wholly, fundamentally or mostly the brains/minds of the opposite sex, when they’re not, or will become wholly, fundamentally or mostly the brains of the opposite sex post-sex reassignment surgery and/or steroid use, which’s probably delusional.
I’m sure that’s what many, if not most trans believe when they refer to themselves as the opposite sex.

Women tend to be physically weaker than men.
Women tend to get colder than men.
Women tend to be more holistic, men tend to be more compartmental.
Women tend to empathize more than men, men tend to systematize more than women.
Women tend to be more linguistically intelligent than men, men tend to be more visually spatially intelligent.
These’re just a few examples of how women normally differ from men.

You shouldn’t think of yourself as that, unless you are that.
I’m not going to treat you like that, unless you are that.
I’m not going to call you that, or wholly, fundamentally or mostly think of you as wholly, fundamentally or mostly that, unless you’re that, which they aren’t.
Perhaps I will treat you as a man with a few feminine characteristics, or as a woman with a few masculine characteristics, but that’s it.

I have a problem with treating someone as something they’re not, not just when it comes to my life/death, sickness/health dealings with them, but at all.
This is not how I, and 99% of people socialize, this is some new form of socialization trans invented just for themselves, with help from progressive psychosociologists, politicians and activists, where it’s okay to pretend you’re something you’re not so long as it doesn’t have overt, immediate, dire repercussions, and now there’s talk of extending this new form of socialization to every nook and cranny of social life.
This is fantasy role play taken to ridiculous, unprecedented lengths.
It’s not normal, and it’s not healthy.

This is adults playing make believe 24/7/365, worse than children.
And it’s so insidious and seemingly innocuous, to the unthinking mind, because it masquerades as healthy, normal and self-evident.
No, these elites are completely bending, twisting and rewriting customs and modes of behavior, and incrementally unleashing it upon the unsuspecting public in stages, possibly for a sinister agenda.

That being said, mankind has always fantasized.
People used to get their fantasy fix from religion, now that that’s out, increasingly they’re turning to fantasy novels, celebritism, movies, the paranormal, television, video games, and now 24/7/365 fantasy role play + transhumanism, perhaps that’ll become the new norm.
But I don’t want this rubbish imposed on me, no thanks.

We just swap one set of delusions for another.
The more things change…
History mightn’t always repeat, but it at least rhymes.
I guess these are the progressive, trendy delusions, an alternative to conservative, traditional ones.
Mankind can have its delusions, but the further out into left field it wanders, the more perilous.

From what I’ve managed to glean, the new motto is: don’t treat people according to what and who they are, treat people according to what and who they wished they were, as much as you ‘possibly can’, or is ‘reasonable’, and hitherto ‘possibly can’ hasn’t been well defined, and it’s never ‘reasonable’, in the strict sense of the word, to treat people other than what and who they are.
Perhaps in a loose, utilitarian sense of the word, like I’m making this person happy by indulging their delusions and/or fantasies, it could be construed as reasonable, but that’s not the way I operate, and it’s not the way almost everyone operates, certainly not to this extent, this is totally unprecedented.
Delusions always have repercussions, however great and overt, or slight and subtle.
I try to maximize how in tune I, and others I deal with, am and are with the world, not minimize.
At the same time, I try not to be a jerk about it, I try to give people constructive criticism, or none, but I’m not going to indulge peoples delusions and/or fantasies either.
I will treat people according to what and who they actually are, to the best of my ability.

So this’s the state of 21st century mainstream psychology today, indulge your fantasies/delusions as much as you can, so long as you don’t think there’s any obvious, major consequences, well either that or pop a pill.
This is not normal and it’s not healthy.
Just acquiesce to the mandates of government, the psychiatric and scientific communities, no independent thought

We’ve gone from tolerating minorities, which’s what I’m in favor of, to allowing them to impose their language and reality upon us.
When will the madness end?
Unfortunately, not anytime soon, it’s only going to accelerate.

The article is misleading, and it’s a lot less crazy in the sex guide itself. For example, they have a section called “Safe penetrative sex in a front hole, vagina, or anus”, showing that “front-hole” isn’t used as a gender-neutral replacement for “vagina”, but as a distinct orifice that one can engage with sexually.

And really, if you insist that post-op transsexuals aren’t women, you should be all about this idea. The people cited in the article as outraged were pro-trans people who were offended that “front-hole” marginalizes and dehumanizes trans-women.

Personally, I’m most upset that every sex-related word in that article uses a special character in place of a letter (e.g. x in “sex”, v in “vagina”, n in “genitals”). I guess that’s to make searching for it harder? Weird.

Some realities are intersubjective, so that if everyone agrees that X is the case, it becomes the case. Money, language, laws, religion, they are real phenomena whose reality is entirely dependent on shared narratives. The social aspects of gender are that way too, what makes a woman a woman socially is not her genitals or her genes, it’s whether or not there is intersubjective agreement that she’s a woman.

Please tell me you see the tension between acknowledging that you have no knowledge of the statistics and then immediately talking about how likely something is.

I’m not talking about what the government should do about transsexuals. I’m talking about individuals dignifying other individuals’ self-identity.

  1. There’s been a recognition of people who don’t fit in the male/female binary for thousands of years of recorded history.

  2. Biological sex is not binary.

  3. For a lot of our history, we didn’t really know much about biology. No one knew anything about genes or hormones or even much about organs. So it isn’t true that what you mean when you say “man” and “woman” is what people have meant by those words (or their translations) since time immemorial. The underlying concepts have shifted through history. When no one knew about genes and hormones, the concept of man and woman did not include genes and hormones. Now we have different concepts, and we’re using the same words.

Ultimately you’re making a linguistic argument, not an ontological one. Man means something for you that it doesn’t mean for a trans-man, right? When you say “you aren’t a man”, and he says “I am a man”, you aren’t actually disagreeing. You’re equivocating on the word “man”. For him, the definition is mostly social, and for you it’s mostly genetics and genital-shape.

On that note, as an aside, it’s interesting that you keep using “doctor” and “lawyer” as inviolable, when those words too have drifted over time. Not too long ago (and in many places even now), both words had the necessary implication of maleness, and a woman who said she wanted to be a doctor or lawyer might have been accused of “fantasy role play taken to ridiculous, unprecedented lengths”.

Lots of gender studies professors have tried, but that’s not really how language works. Some cultures do have alternative words; Thai has several. And arguably “trans-man” and “trans-woman” are already there in English.

But I think just saying “man” instead of “trans-man” is legitimate, where 1) the distinction is irrelevant in most social interactions, and 2) we live in a society where random internet people go on unprovoked rants about how readily that will violently attack people who mislead them about the shape of their genitals.

I think it’s rather that some part of who they are is defined by who they choose to be.

You keep talking about “delusion”, but consider what I said above about equivocation. Drill down into what that alleged delusion entails. A transman says he’s a man, you say he isn’t. You say, “But you have XX chromosomes.” He says yes. You say, “But you have a womb and a vagina and can get pregnant.” He says yes. You say, “So you’re a woman!” He says no. He says, “But I have a beard.” You say yes. He says, “But I wear cargo pants and that mom got uncomfortable when I smiled at her kid.” You say yes. He says, “So I’m a man!” You say no.

There’s no delusion in this exchange, he’s just using the word to point to a different concept.

Carleas wrote:

As far as I am concerned that equates to wishful thinking and that does not determine the truth, to rely on the majority to come to the conclusion because we all agree then it must be truth is less than insightful, as you also cannot deny that people are gullible.