Wednesday, October 08, 2008

Thoughtcrime of the Day: there is no such thing as "transsexualism"

In the world of reality, when a man thinks he was "born into a woman's body" it's called "being insane".

17 comments:

Chimera said...

I disagree. In these days of surgical possibilities, I call it "exercising one's options."

Having access to gender-altering techniques is a way of preventing insanity. I mean, if it makes someone happier than he was, and he's not hurting anyone in changing gender, what's the problem?

Hilary Jane Margaret White said...

So maybe if I really really believe I'm a unicorn, I can convince someone with advanced skills to surgically attach a horn to my head. Anything that makes me happy, right?

Chimera,

at this blog, we like to take things from the point of view that there is such a thing as objective reality.

Chimera said...

If having a horn surgically implanted in your own head is your idea of objective reality, and if it would make you happy, and if it's not hurting anyone else, then who would I or anyone else be to tell you that you're not allowed? Or that you're insane?

But never mind the obvious over-exaggeration of "becoming" a mythical creature that would be other-than-human if it were real...

...what is the real harm in someone's changing genders if he's not happy with the one into which he was born? It might not be your cuppa tea, and it isn't mine, so far; but do we really have the right to dictate that someone else must remain miserable the way he is, just because he was born that way?

Hilary Jane Margaret White said...

"is your idea of objective reality,"


Oooooookaaaaaay.

Life in your universe must be pretty nice hey?

Chimera said...

It's not bad. The scenery is nice and meals are served on time. ;)

Seriously. Where is the harm?

Anonymous said...

Amen, Hilary. If someone thinks he's Hitler, do we feed that delusion by encouraging him to grow the little moutache and don a swastika armband? Or do we get him psychological help?

You actually CAN'T change your gender, since gender is genetic.

Anonymous said...

we even think there is such a thing as a moral objective reality .....well there you have it ,we're nuts.No need to come back so.

Lucille said...

Sex is genetic. Gender, while it usually corresponds to sex, is not entirely the same concept.

Mark S. Abeln said...

Whereas 'sex' is a biological term, 'gender' is traditionally a grammatical term, which assigned 'masculine', 'feminine', or 'neuter' to nouns and adjectives. The concept of gender in the English language is almost non-existent, but is nearly universal in most of the worlds languages. No doubt this influences why gender activism is limited mainly to the English-speaking world. You can't mess with gender in other languages without the risk of being completely unintelligible.

Transsexualism does not lead to happiness, as the leading cause of death of such persons is tragically suicide. I doubt that greater social acceptance of this phenomena would reduce the death rate; rather I think that it would increase as individuals are increasingly encouraged to act out. Such acceptance would also negatively influence many individuals, youth mainly, who would be led into such a lifestyle due to social pressure.

Ethically, I have a problem with someone who externally presents themselves in a non-truthful material manner, despite what they 'feel' inside. It is materially dishonest, if not necessarily psychologically dishonest. Likewise, imagine the potential destructiveness of someone who presents themselves as a police officer when they in fact are not.

However, sex undoubtably has a spiritual as well as physical component, and has a universal significance beyond merely animal sexuality. We find this obviously in Eastern religion (yin and yang) but also in Christian Platonism. So any mismatch between spiritual sex and material sex is due to a fall from the source of all that is good.

Chimera said...

"Transsexualism does not lead to happiness, as the leading cause of death of such persons is tragically suicide."

Would you mind linking to those studies, Mark? I'd be interested in reading them.

Mark S. Abeln said...

chimera, this website has links to a huge number of studies: http://www.youth-suicide.com

Although interpretation of such studies is problematic, please note the the suicide rate has gone up as tolerance and openness to homosexuality has increased, and is particularly high in the most tolerant of countries. Now, suicide in general has increased, but suicide among homosexuals makes up much of the total.

"Acting out" is a severe risk factor. Note that unchastity among heterosexuals also increases risk dramatically, and for very common sense reasons. Chastity in general makes all people - gay or straight - happier.

Anonymous said...

But Chimera,

evidence, studies... facts...

don't really count do they?

Since reality is entirely subjective and you can decide what your own reality is supposed to be.

Not only is evidence not interesting to subjectivists, it is actually unsuable.

evidence has to do with empiricism, and that has to do with the idea that reality is objective. A "real" reality, that does not bow to preference.

Why would a subjectivist bother to read anything?

All you really need for "proof" of anything is your own ego. Right?

That's why it's such a popular philosophy.

Chimera said...

Mark, thank you. I appreciate that you actually took my request seriously.

"Why would a subjectivist bother to read anything?"

Not being a subjectivist (whatever the hell that is), I wouldn't know. I imagine that if they exist, you could find one and ask him.

Anonymous said...

I've found that it is normal for modern subjectivists, relativists and postmodernists to have no idea whatever that these are the theories they hold.

A person who can write a phrase (without irony, that is) like, "Whatever is real for you" cannot be fully aware of what he is saying. It must be frustrating, however, to have no idea why all of a sudden everyone has burst out laughing.

It is mostly just that they have made assumptions, gathered from the ether of modern communications and media, without examining them for logical contradictions. The fact that most people now do not know what a logical contradiction is can be a stumbling block to finding out the flaws in their assumptions.

You could try Google.

Chimera said...

"I've found that it is normal for modern subjectivists, relativists and postmodernists to have no idea whatever that these are the theories they hold."

I don't know anyone who fits those particular labels, so I'm afraid I can neither agree nor disagree with your assessment.

" A person who can write a phrase (without irony, that is) like, "Whatever is real for you" cannot be fully aware of what he is saying."

Would that not depend upon the context of the remark?

"You could try Google."

I could. But Google would not necessarily tell me what you mean when you use those terms. As far as I'm concerned, a postmodernist is simply an artist whose work I don't understand, but don't condemn as being trash simply because I have no use for it myself. Why would I want to deny it to someone else who might understand it and/or like it?

Anonymous said...

Hilary
Chimeras are not real. Therefore I think we are entitled to expel Anything that appears to be a chimera from reality.

Chimera said...

Chimerae are very real. Like the lady suggested, you could try Google.