Philosophical Contradictions of the Transgender Worldview

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I can try to dissect the article later, right now I need to take my grandmother to Costco.

My first impressions is that it reads like a polemic, not a work of philosophy. The argument is muddled and spread out there’s no brush clearing, he jumps around to different topics and points and then jumps back paragraphs later. It’s a shame because I think this could have made a ln interesting point if it was written in a more orderly fashion.
 
Yes, I was hesitant even to put it in the Philosophy category. But he starts with the premise that transgenderism has its own–faulty–metaphysics, which is not really recognized as such.

So take it as a philosophy, or as a polemic.
 
No I think this is the right category for exactly that reason. The author wants this to be a work of philosophy. It’s just badly written qua philosophy.

Which isn’t a dig against the man. It’s just part of how philosophers look at works of philosophy.
 
So my main concern is that it looks like the author has forgotten a few basic principles of philosophy.

The first is to do during diligence. He cites other people very sparingly without providing or explaining the context, and there are explanations for some of his concerns that he fails to address.

The second is that he forgets to apply the principle of charity. Charity requires a philosopher to give the benefit of the doubt to an opponent - that you understand their argument and you use the most plausible reading of their arguments in your work. This is so important that many philosophers will say “this person argues X. So they either mean A, B, C. Here’s what’s wrong with A, here’s what’s wrong with B, and here’s what’s wrong with C”.

These two problems lead to cherry picking, which leads to strawmen. Again I’ll probably make a closer examination later. I’m also concerned that the author seems more concerned about confirming his own beliefs than honestly exploring the subject.
 
Last edited:
Love it. We had another man visitor to our women’s bathroom at my gym the other evening while I was there. Not transgender, older (60s? 70s?) - in leggings but otherwise man’s clothes. Me and the other woman in the same locker area both went into the bathroom stalls to finish dressing. Awkward. Can’t complain though - it is Washington State law - intolerant to resist. Destiny is not easy to fight.

Paging #MeToo.
 
Last edited:
“The phrase “sex assigned at birth” is now favored because it makes room for “gender identity” as the real basis of a person’s sex.”

I suppose it’s now rather difficult for the physician assisting at the birth to answer the question, is it a boy or a girl? He will have to say, “I don’t know yet. We’ll have to wait till the child is old enough to speak and ask how they feel about it.”
 
It’s more so for intersexed children. Which would play out I imagine how you put it.
 
Yes, but intersex is a separate category. I’m talking about boys and girls who are born as normal boys and girls, physically and genetically. Transgenderism would say that’s not relevant. Their sex is what they feel like. So we’ll have to ask them. And what if they change their mind several times?
 
What does this have to with the linked article or the #metoo movement?
 
I am up against destiny, that’s all. Read the article. Destiny can sometimes also involve/justify mental disorders, threats to public safety of others, including women, it would appear.
 
Remember there are multiple theories of gender. Some are as simple as “Gender equals sex”.

That being said, what I have read about is that those outliers (which represents millions of people world-wild) show that a simple A=B reading isn’t adequate. Remember that in philosophy, a single instance found contrary proves the premise false. So trying gender up with genetics or body shape is philosophically problematic. We have to take it into consideration.

It’s also not correct to say that our modern whatevers have rejected metaphysics. Perhaps it can be said that classical ontology is rejected - but that’s one tiny sliver of the gamut of what is involved in metaphysics.

It’s my understanding that “sex assigned at birth” is for intersexed children, abiguous genitals, and children with atypical situations. I don’t know who Dr. Adkins is, or why she was consulted. I don’t even know her full argument (a flaw in the writing of the paper, which I already brought up) so I can’t really speak to that matter. I don’t know why she thinks sex depends on gender identity. Her only other quote is “It is counter to medical science to use chromosomes, hormones, internal reproductive organs, external genitalia, or secondary sex characteristics to override gender identity for purposes of classifying someone as male or female” which doesn’t mention sex at all. I’m rather puzzled why she would say that, and thinks these two statements are connected. I’ll look into it more. But it seems like the author has cherry-picked those quotes and set up a strawman - because I’ve never heard an argument like Dr. Adkins’. I could be wrong. Will have to look more into it.
 
We’ve just got to be good little women and put up and shut up because our feelings always come last.
 
One of the significant issues going on here is the term transgender, both as a noun and an adjective. It’s an umbrella term used (or hijacked) by agenda driven people to indicate drag queens, drag kings, cross dressers, all 3 degrees of Transsexuals, gender queer, gender questioning, shemales, androgynous, etc, stc, etc. Sometimes hermaphrodite and intersex is included, although most Intersex people I know do NOT wish to be considered part of that group.

The problem is that as a huge disparate group, trying to effect a cure, or even diagnosis, or even understanding of/for one of these is otter totally different than for another, and to lump them together makes it impossible to understand what’s going wrong. Thus any “general statement” as the title of the thread does to some extent, is pretty much doomed from the start.

Add to that the poor misguided souls who want to jump on the bandwagon just because it’s cool or trendy or popular and you have a recipe for disaster.

My 2 cents.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top