rigorousintuition.ca

.....alot of its about the power of words and who gets to decide what those words mean....

....some women (.....as far as I can gather..... ) whilst not offended by or hostile to the existence of M2F transexuals feel very het-up about another group re-defining the term woman ( viz. the recent Germaine Greer skirmish ) as striking at something fundamental...

....it seems similar to some of the same-sex marriage controversey where civil partnerships were basically no different legally to civil marriages but both sides of the argument were prepared to fight to the death over the muddy patch of ground that was the actual word used to describe whatever they were fighting about...( which ofcourse is not to deny that alot of real-world stuff follows on from "ownership" of the word..."women only spaces" etc etc .)

transgenderism is an identity that permanently marks one as a non-binary person forever at risk of violence and persecution.

I'm sorry some people believe that, I truly am. It leads people with a gender identity crisis into the exact wrong atmosphere, the public arena, which is the last damn place they need to be to find a sympathetic ear.

This is not an accident. The Elite narrative loves this shit. Why? It causes transgender people to suffer. Then they get to interview these suffering people on national television and make a spectacle of them, to create more suffering and confusion.

This sort of belief only leads people who are suffering from a gender identity crisis into the public streets, to shout for public acceptance, to discuss a very sensitive and personal issue, only to find a huge audience that is not involved in this, and will not devote an enormous amount of time to it. It does not involve them and they don't care.

Some people, an incredibly small portion of society, do not like it when people stray outside their born gender roles and choose a different sexual preference. And mostly, they are not involved and do not care anyway. This is called an "opinion", and it is NOT called systematic persecution.

Nobody will like everything we do, its a fact of life. People that have been led to believe otherwise have been duped with low quality bait into focusing on subjects, intentionally derived by mainstream media bullshit, to be divisive, and cause further suffering to the groups the pretend to protect, in this case transgender people.

People suffering a gender identity crisis would be much better off to seek comfort, aid, help, and soothing WITHIN the narrow confines of the population that also share the same interests, instead of being misled into the public streets to shout it out to the other 96% of the population that is not involved and will not understand.

The demographics of sexual orientation and gender identity in the United States have been more accurately studied in the social sciences in recent decades. In the first large-scale government survey measuring Americans’ sexual orientation, the NHIS reported in July 2014 that 1.6 percent of Americans identify as gay or lesbian, and 0.7 percent considered themselves bisexual.[1] In a Williams Institute review based on an June–September 2012 Gallup poll, approximately 3.4 percent of American adults identify themselves as being LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender).[2] An earlier report published in April 2011 by the Williams Institute estimated that 3.8 percent of Americans identified as gay/lesbian, bisexual, or transgender: 1.7 percent as lesbian or gay, 1.8 percent as bisexual, and 0.3 percent as transgender.[3] The 2011 Williams Institute report also states that 8.2 percent of Americans reported that they had engaged in same-sex sexual behavior, and 11 percent reported some same-sex attraction. Studies from several nations, including the U.S., conducted at varying time periods, have produced a statistical range of 1.2[3] to 6.8[4] percent of the adult population identifying as LGBT. Online surveys tend to yield higher figures than other methods,[4] a likely result of the higher degree of anonymity of Internet surveys, which elicit reduced levels of socially desirable responding.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demo ... ted_States

^^^^^^Considering the above statistics, if you truly believe that it is beneficial to drag these people into the public arena, so that they can demand that people understand, only to be disappointed, THIS IS DELUSIONAL.

You may as well drag people that hate peanut butter into the public spotlight to argue with people that like peanut butter because you will get the same damn insane results.

Serious questions. Not being snarky. Let us all be adults on this, assume we have empathy for the transgender humans, and have no hand waving and accusations ok?

The national and global narratives in the age of big media are not grass roots. It is set by the agenda of elite institutions. Anybody that reads this site knows that.

1. Why do you think one of the most prevalent narratives has been focused on a subject that contains such a small percentage of the population?

2. Why do you think the elite narrative was focused on such a sensitive topic, (transgender sex) that affects such a small part of the population, and does not apply to 96% of the population?

3. Why do you think it has been made intentionally divisive?

4. You do understand that 96% of the population, day in and day out spends almost no time thinking about, dealing with, or worrying about these issues, don't you?

5. Why do you think people are intentionally clogging up a huge brain trust like RI, the national television airwaves, magazines, internet, radio, and every other form of communication, with issues that affect less people than GMO foods, how many people are killed by pharma, vaccines, flouride in water, banking abuses, poverty, psyops abuse, and issues that have profound impact on huge percentages of the population?

and then daring us to be "insensitive" about it? How dare us all right????

6. Nature assigns gender, that cannot be denied, why do you think the elite narrative seeks to confuse gender with sexual preference, and make it purposefully divisive?

7. Who benefits from attempting to get human beings to focus on an issue that encompasses roughly 3 or 4% of the population, and then daring the other 96% of the population, to whom it does not apply, to "not care and be insensitive to it?"

8. Why is it that the same institutions, and their minions, who demand that we all focus on an issue that affects 3% of the population will shout us down for talking about vaccines and banking, etc....while we suffer, and they benefit?

Secretly using racism, classism, genderism, to pretend to fight against the same, while secretly and intentionally creating more of the same, is the oldest game in town. I am convinced that every RI reader is aware of this, but there sure is a lot of low quality bait thrown in the pool....it keeps other topics off the radar, don't it?

fish food for thought....my gay friends are smarter than this, and I think most are. they don't fall for this shit. be careful what "they" tell us we believe, chances are, most of us really don't....but we might fight about it if we believe, that everybody else believes it....

If you hang out in a crowd that is arguing about what you do when you pull your pants down, you are in the wrong damn crowd, saying the wrong damn things...

Life is broad and wide, much to be thought about....

82_28 » Fri Nov 20, 2015 9:27 am wrote:No matter what you do there is still no getting around this -- which is self apparent.

The XY sex-determination system is the sex-determination system found in humans, most other mammals, some insects (Drosophila), and some plants (Ginkgo). In this system, the sex of an individual is determined by a pair of sex chromosomes (gonosomes). Females have two of the same kind of sex chromosome (XX), and are called the homogametic sex. Males have two distinct sex chromosomes (XY), and are called the heterogametic sex.

This system is in contrast with the ZW sex-determination system found in birds, some insects, many reptiles, and other animals, in which the heterogametic sex is female.

A temperature-dependent sex determination system is found in some reptiles.

I could chop whatever off but my genes will still be XY in every other part of my body no matter what. Sure I have a brand new vagina, but genetics still say you're a male. No choice. Male and female with the very rare exception. That's it. Male/Female.

That's what we have CRISPR for.

Hate crimes and murder and suicide rates for trans people, and especially trans people of color, are egregiously worse than the general population. Hate violence against and murder of trans people is also likely to be vastly underreported. Hate violence against and murder of trans people is on the rise while violent crime in the general population continues to drop.
http://www.avp.org/storage/documents/Re ... Report.pdf

I care about global warming, refugees, gladio, the TPP, Mali, and trans rights simultaneously.

Agent Orange Cooper » Fri Nov 20, 2015 2:43 am wrote:I'm about as far as it could possibly get from a "science-fetishist." Certain facts are immutable. Next thing you'll be telling me the earth is flat. Actually, I'd say there's a better chance of the earth being flat than a man has of becoming a woman.

It's fetishism because "science" is being used as a cover for morality. You can have your judgment, but it doesn't belong in the DSM.

It's simple-minded because "XX = woman and XY = man" fails to account for the previously linked "Swyer syndrome" or other circumstances which clearly show that the biological component has significant complexity.

It's also reductionist and deterministic. Humans are surely much, much more than what 21st century science has managed to string together. Thank G*d.

I don't know if men can become women. It seems to me those are constructed concepts, not natural or biblical laws. If someone wants to try it, that's their choice. Somewhat surprised by the nannyism on display. Different crowd here than the odious white power thread, but the sentiment feels curiously similar.

Thank you Joao and Brekin.

I'm lost in all this... I'm just here to meet girls.

and the buffet, of course.

Elvis » Fri Nov 20, 2015 4:36 pm wrote:I'm lost in all this... I'm just here to meet girls.

and the buffet, of course.

I'll pay for the taxi if I can ride with you. I'm outta here....I have no idea how I got here in the first place. Every now and then I wake up with lipstick on my face and a pair of panties on my head and wonder how the hell I got here. Today is one of those days...

duplicate deleted

Luther Blissett » Fri Nov 20, 2015 4:24 pm wrote:Thank you Joao and Brekin.

Indeed.

Worth considering that, by the data gathered above, we're expounding at length about the very reality of at least seven people here at RI. It ain't abstract.

That said, I take a lot of the trad / reactionary / grumpy Catholic stuff here as bile related to a major media push, perhaps best satirized by the opening episode of the latest season of ... ach, God help me, but South Park. It's been a good season.

Also worth considering that we've got a major presidential candidate talking about special ID badges and mass exportations, so I always try to take the temperature here at RI with an eye towards the media we're all swimming in. Which is being heated rather vigorously right now, with a year or so left until Democracy Day.

That said, considered, and said again, though: transhumanism might be en vogue with some weird billionaires, but it's way more fringe than, say, gender studies. Conflating the two is definitely weird. There are certainly health risks attendant with these lifestyle choices, but I don't think that means they're worthy of contempt, any more than smokers (guilty) or alcoholics (guilty) or conspiracy theorist discussion board moderators (trifecta).

In conclusion, my intolerance for intolerance is so vast & deep it can only be understood as a paradox. Govern yourselves accordingly.

Oh why oh why do I get drawn into this black hole? I guess I'm a masochist....

Here's my perspective on the XX/XY thing, as someone who actually earns a living by thinking about biology. There are well established biological trajectories determined by the chromosomal makeup of a human (or mammal in general), leading under normal developmental circumstances to one or another anatomical pattern. The anatomical pattern drives physiology, in particular hormonal interactions. In particular, the uterus and ovaries produce one set of hormones, while the testes and related anatomy produce another. These hormones interact with others, forming part of the neuroendocrine system. In turn, the neuroendocrine system influences behavior. What this means is that the anatomical differences arising from chromosomal differences do lead to behavioral patterns whose distribution across the human population are largely bimodal (if not perfectly deterministic). In addition, the presence or absence of certain anatomical features drives certain social patterns, since one anatomical pattern will be valued over another pattern for specific purposes (e.g. since the uterus is the only means of bearing children, sexual dimorphism arising from chromosomal differences lead to social norms that favor biological females for certain roles related to childbearing). Over time, in an evolutionary sense, some of these social norms will become reinforced, and reinforce physical dimorphism related to these social norms, via a selection process whereby individuals who more close align to the norms will be be favored as reproductive partners. This leads to a clear, bimodal distribution of anatomical, physiological, psychological, behavioral, and sociological characteristics. It is true that it is merely a distribution, and does not absolutely dictate the set of characteristics possessed by one individual, but those who seek extreme positions on sexuality and gender within society would have us pretend that the distribution is perfectly uniform, without any modes that might be determined by processes in the physical world. I object to that kind of faith-based reasoning that clearly contradicts empirical evidence on a number of fronts.

Making superficial changes may enable one to alter ones role within society, to the extent that society accepts the idea that the superficial changes themselves are sufficient qualification for entry into those roles. That is really what is at stake here. I personally don't care, I'm not about ready to stop somebody from making the superficial changes they believe will allow them a greater array of options. However, it remains to be seen how far society will allow such individuals to force the issue, and I'm personally conflicted on how far I believe society should go in accommodating individuals who are, for the most part, extreme outliers (in a statistical sense).

In more concrete and personal terms: I would hire any transgendered person who met the qualifications of a job I were offering. I would have a beer with a transgendered person if they were interesting company, and I might even want to be friends with a transgendered individual if there were enough mutual interests to justify such a friendship. I would certainly use the existing, gendered pronoun of the person's choice, as long as there was some reasonable attempt on that person's part to conform minimal expectations associated with that pronoun (e.g. a person who expects to be called "she" should not have a full beard, and yes I've seen examples of this). I would not, however, allow such a person to coerce my use of English language to the degree that I consented to use silly made-up pronouns such as "xe" and "xer".

Call me paleoconservative if you must.

Joao wrote:I don't know if men can become women. It seems to me those are constructed concepts, not natural or biblical laws.

Then so must being human be seen as a constructed concept. Or the idea that you exist. It's relativism taken to the level of gobbledygook. Everything we have a word for is a constructed concept, if you want to go that route. But there the discussion ends because we're admitting defeat so far as using language to approach truth or reality.

Joao wrote:If someone wants to try it, that's their choice. Somewhat surprised by the nannyism on display. Different crowd here than the odious white power thread, but the sentiment feels curiously similar.

Nannyism is in the eye of the beholder. Since my last post wound up at the end of the page, I'm not sure if it's being included in some of the general expressions of, urm, moral superiority or "hipness"; but everyone has prejudices and we are all operating from skewed interpretation systems. Where there's a desire to understand, understanding is possible. Making noises about tolerance and openness is just making noises, it's not an expression of openness (and tolerance is really an intolerable thing to offer someone!).

Wombaticus Rex wrote:Worth considering that, by the data gathered above, we're expounding at length about the very reality of at least seven people here at RI. It ain't abstract.

Seven? How so?

Wombaticus Rex wrote:Also worth considering that we've got a major presidential candidate talking about special ID badges and mass exportations, so I always try to take the temperature here at RI with an eye towards the media we're all swimming in. Which is being heated rather vigorously right now, with a year or so left until Democracy Day.

Not the media I am swimming in. The closest I get to a news feed is this forum.

Wombaticus Rex wrote:That said, considered, and said again, though: transhumanism might be en vogue with some weird billionaires, but it's way more fringe than, say, gender studies

That depends if you are talking about manifest lifestyle choices or memes, patterns of thought, growing value-sets; if the former, OK, I only personally know one practicing transhumanist (and yes he is a millionaire); but if you are talking about the latter, then I think it's later than we know.

Wombaticus Rex wrote:There are certainly health risks attendant with these lifestyle choices, but I don't think that means they're worthy of contempt, any more than smokers (guilty) or alcoholics (guilty) or conspiracy theorist discussion board moderators (trifecta).

Was there an expression of contempt at this thread that I missed?

Wombaticus Rex wrote:In conclusion, my intolerance for intolerance is so vast & deep it can only be understood as a paradox. Govern yourselves accordingly.

I think intolerance is maybe due for a rethink, a la "discrimination." Or are you proposing blanket tolerance?

But also, and again, as an anomalous outlier myself (albeit a married white guy), I'd just as soon be spurned as tolerated, thanks.

guruilla » Fri Nov 20, 2015 3:51 pm wrote:Then so must being human be seen as a constructed concept. Or the idea that you exist. It's relativism taken to the level of gobbledygook. Everything we have a word for is a constructed concept, if you want to go that route.

Quite a slippery slope. If some things are constructed, all things are beyond comprehension? Logos necessarily implies hard rules about what men and women are? The onus is on you to tease out that Rube Goldberg-reasoning.

guruilla wrote:Nannyism is in the eye of the beholder.

As is "delusion." You're entitled to your opinion. Keep it out of the diagnosis criteria and we can agree to disagree. I prefer to err on the side of trusting people to make their own choices.

All sorts of gender agendas are constructed, but this only means there's more to discuss, it doesn't lead to a void of equivocation

Letting people make their own choices is all well and good, but in the progressive realm just as in conservative ones there's a significant amount of hostility to people making choices about their identity. Every two or three years there's a revision of acceptable labels, etc - and this is largely arbitrated and pushed by folks who aren't in the super-marginalized categories

I don't feel like characterizing trans people as trying to deal with "poison" really does them justice.

Then again, there IS a convergence between trans politics and transhumanism with someone like Martine Rothblatt

Joao » Fri Nov 20, 2015 7:23 pm wrote:

guruilla » Fri Nov 20, 2015 3:51 pm wrote:Then so must being human be seen as a constructed concept. Or the idea that you exist. It's relativism taken to the level of gobbledygook. Everything we have a word for is a constructed concept, if you want to go that route.

Quite a slippery slope. If some things are constructed, all things are beyond comprehension? Logos necessarily implies hard rules about what men and women are? The onus is on you to tease out that Rube Goldberg-reasoning.

guruilla wrote:Nannyism is in the eye of the beholder.

As is "delusion." You're entitled to your opinion. Keep it out of the diagnosis criteria and we can agree to disagree. I prefer to err on the side of trusting people to make their own choices.

Where did I use "delusion"?

I may be wrong, but it seems like you've done the thing you suggest I'm doing, here, by saying the onus is on me to disprove your own wild statement that male and female is merely a constructed concept. I practiced benefit of doubt by extending it further outward rather than shutting it down, because, sure, all we know for certain is that we are awareness perceiving something. So if you want to go there, by all means, let's ohm together.

What's being lost at this thread IMO (or hasn't been found, or even acknowledged) is the deep context; the idea that all that's being explored here is whether people have the right to make decisions they think will make them happy (which itself is based on a very dodgy ideology called the Pursuit of Happiness) is nonsensical at a board which is professedly all about deep background. Personal is political. Trusting people is one thing; assuming that they, or any of us, are free to make our own choices is another. If it were the case, there'd be nothing much to discuss at this forum, would there? We'd all just go live the dream.

My point is that so far there's been little or no discussion about the ideological constructs behind transgenderism (or transhumanism), even while throwing out the idea that biology itself is a conceptual construct. Isn't that a species of doublethink?

Anyway, I've made a load of ignored points at this thread so it's likely that my POV isn't being appreciated. In which case, I better conserve my energy.