J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
At this forum when I try to find what people mean they shout that I’m arguing semantics, arguing what the meaning of is is and often claim that I’m trying to advance an agenda.
- Status
W
weller2
Guest
You are confused because your political typology is too limited; check out political compass. Specifically, your problem is that you see no difference between authoritatian leftists and libertarian leftists.
Radical feminists are typical authoritarian leftists, because they believe that the state enforce gender roles in the way they see as correct.
The Catholic Church also believes that the state should enforce the gender roles, except that the Church is a rightist organization, so its beliefs about proper gender roles are exactly opposite to those of radical feminists. However, both radfems and the Church are equally authoritarian.
On the other hand, the idea behind the trans rights is that the society (and the state) should respect your self-declared gender identity. This is of course a subset of a larger idea that the state should respect choices of an individual, and not enforce anything on the individual. That idea is, of course, libertarianism.
Therefore, trans supporters, as libertarian are in opposition to both rad-fems (left-authoritarian) and the Catholic Church (right-authoritarian).
Also, there is no logical conflict between being supportive of trans rights and traditional gender roles at the same time (see the status of transsexuals in Iran). This is the right-libertarian position.
B
Buck_Crosswhite
Guest
I’ve been thinking about moving to Russia.
The problem with the USA is that it has lost its moral compass and its moral fiber. The people who know right from wrong have lost the courage to speak up and speak the truth.
Now the people who have no morals are permitted to do whatever they want and weak willed people support them.
There are far too many people who say I’m not a homosexual but it’s okay if you are.
A
Arizona_Mike
Guest
The problem with that argument is that “trans supporters” insist on using the government’s power to oppose those who do not agree with the trans-agenda. Trans supporters are in no wise libertarian.
If we posit that the government must accept, or force the acceptance, of a man’s subjective belief that he is actually a woman (despite the presence of a Y chromosome in his genotype and the presence of a penis between his legs), why should the line be drawn there? If a government employee who is approaching mandatory retirement insists that he feels he is actually only 30, why should the government be allowed to force him into retirement? If a chalk-white college applicant with no perceivable ethnic or genetic ties to the African American community insists that he feels that he is actually black, and thus entitled to affirmative action benefits, who is to say otherwise?
For that matter, if someone suffers from species dysphoria (if you’re unfamiliar with the condition, see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_dysphoria) and insists that he is actually a wolf, or a cat, or a bee trapped in a human’s body…well, aren’t his feelings more important than facts? The argument that the government should step in to force us to accept any of these pathologies as real is hardly a libertarian one.
J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
The way the brain is wired isn’t the result of genetics, it is the result of hormonal exposure in utero as such it is entirely possible for gender dysphoria to be biological in origin, after all a female brain is fairly common in the human population as it occurs in ~1/2 humans ditto for a male brain.
Would you deny the womanhood of that woman who looks like a woman, acts like a woman, identifies as a woman, gave birth and has a predominantly 46,XY karyotype?
C
clintonm
Guest
Please provide a source for this claim.
S
Sarcelle
Guest
I have heard about this phenomenon. A woman who has lived her whole life as a woman, finds out that she actually has a XY instead of a XX. This is a lot more common than you think.This has led scientists to think that there is a gene for maleness,which is usually present in the Y chromosome. For some reason,if the male.gene is not present in the Y chromosome, the developing embryo defaults to female.
We also have to factor in the intrauterine horomonal environment which definitely affects the developing fetus.
J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2190741/
It’s the result of the body being unable to respond to androgens resulting in development similar to that of a woman. Due to the presence of the SRY gene they develop testes, but the lack of androgen response results in them failing to descend. Usually discovered when a girl fails to attain menarche. What is extremely special about the case I linked is that that woman has a functioning female reproductive system and gave birth to a 46,XY girl.
M
manualman
Guest
Feminists spend time worrying about what to call a woman who has a sex-change operation to become a man, decides to have sex with men, and gets pregnant?
If you made this stuff up, people would just scoff.
If you made this stuff up, people would just scoff.
A
Arizona_Mike
Guest
I would note that this is hardly a common condition, but apparently a mutation. The article you cited refers to the the case both as “remarkable” and “extraordinary.”
To reply to the question that was raised, do you believe that this condition affects all, or even a majority, of those who identify as “transgendered” and in re the post to which you are replying, is it a libertarian stance that the government should force others to accept “feelings”-based self-identification for individuals based on gender, age, race, or even species?
If you insist that you are a different gender, age, or race, or you feel that you are actually a wolf trapped in a human’s body, should the force at the government’s disposal be used to force others to accommodate your pathological belief, or should charity suggest that you be gently directed towards a behavioral clinic?
P
PutresOmega
Guest
Often, there is agreement between fringes on the far right and far left as per horshoe theory. See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory.
Radical feminists (far left) who are transphobic often state that they are transphobic because they believe transgender male to female women are becoming women in order to invade female spaces. Hinged upon this irrational belief is the view that there are men so obsessed with destroying and subjugating women that they would go through comprehensive surgery and hormone treatments and face the abuses of society at large in order to destroy women and feminism. It is a childish, self centered belief that transforms all men into an easily hated “out group” hive mind.
Fundementalist Christians (far right) in the Evangelical movement and Eastern Orthodox both have insinuated that gay people are insisting on visibility because they are using that visibility to recruit children for molestation into the gay lifestyle. Hinged upon this irrational belief is the view that the only reason a gay person might put a picture of himself and his life partner up at work in his cubicle is in order to try and warp your mind with propaganda so that you lose sight of what a pervert he is. It is a childish, self centered belief that transforms all gays into an easily hated “out group” hive mind.
In the book “The Authoritarians” by Bob Altemeyer, this sort of mentality is known as Right Wing Authoritarianism and has been studied for over thirty years. While commonly associated with the right by popular media, this mindset is quite common in the left as well as is evidenced by stories like these. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism
Some argue that, because of their novel approach and rebellious nature liberals can’t be RWAs but I would argue that, often, there is a conventionalism that RWA lefties build for themselves. In the case of Rad Fems, it is the view that women are generally better than men and that, in our natural state, women should even be in charge of things (citing small tribes of more egalitarian peoples and what not to make their case). Radical environmentalists believe that mother nature is on their side and that humanity is the foul component messing things up. And the aforementioned Evangelicals believe God, who predates existence, is on their side and that everything else is Satan, hedonism, etc. In all cases, they have built a case for themselves where they are not merely in disagreement with the “out group” they focus on but at war with them in a battle between good and evil.
Radical feminists (far left) who are transphobic often state that they are transphobic because they believe transgender male to female women are becoming women in order to invade female spaces. Hinged upon this irrational belief is the view that there are men so obsessed with destroying and subjugating women that they would go through comprehensive surgery and hormone treatments and face the abuses of society at large in order to destroy women and feminism. It is a childish, self centered belief that transforms all men into an easily hated “out group” hive mind.
Fundementalist Christians (far right) in the Evangelical movement and Eastern Orthodox both have insinuated that gay people are insisting on visibility because they are using that visibility to recruit children for molestation into the gay lifestyle. Hinged upon this irrational belief is the view that the only reason a gay person might put a picture of himself and his life partner up at work in his cubicle is in order to try and warp your mind with propaganda so that you lose sight of what a pervert he is. It is a childish, self centered belief that transforms all gays into an easily hated “out group” hive mind.
In the book “The Authoritarians” by Bob Altemeyer, this sort of mentality is known as Right Wing Authoritarianism and has been studied for over thirty years. While commonly associated with the right by popular media, this mindset is quite common in the left as well as is evidenced by stories like these. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism
Some argue that, because of their novel approach and rebellious nature liberals can’t be RWAs but I would argue that, often, there is a conventionalism that RWA lefties build for themselves. In the case of Rad Fems, it is the view that women are generally better than men and that, in our natural state, women should even be in charge of things (citing small tribes of more egalitarian peoples and what not to make their case). Radical environmentalists believe that mother nature is on their side and that humanity is the foul component messing things up. And the aforementioned Evangelicals believe God, who predates existence, is on their side and that everything else is Satan, hedonism, etc. In all cases, they have built a case for themselves where they are not merely in disagreement with the “out group” they focus on but at war with them in a battle between good and evil.
W
weller2
Guest
First off, transsexualism is not subjective. Transsexualism can be diagnosed objectively by looking at certain brain structures. To use a computer analogy, this is hardware problem, not a software problem which can be solved by reprogramming.
But why should the state even care if someone is white or black? (Where I live it is actually illegal for the state to know your race.) All people are equal and should be judged on their ability to perform a job. If you fit objective criteria, you’re in, if you can’t, you’re out. (Yes, that means no artificial lowering of standards just to have females in the army. Either you can do N pushups or you can’t.)
Likewise, why should the state even care what I have between my legs? That’s my business, not state’s.
What you may be getting at here is the recent event when the enlightened state of California decided to allow males with doctor’s note of transsexualism to use women’s toilets. This is not libertarianism, but authoritarism at its finest: there’s no better indicator of the state’s overreach then when the state legislates on the use of toilets in private buildings.
Indeed, we could say that the entire “problem” of trans rights is artificial: it stems from the fact that the state wants to know your gender, and then assigns you specific duties and privileges based on this. If the state were not to care about your gender, then changing gender would be no more problematic than changing your hair color. (In the legal sense of course.)
Again, where I live it is actually illegal for the state to know your genotype. This is because some 80 years ago a group of madmen decided to purge carriers of certain genes from the gene pool. In retrospect we have found this to be a bad idea, so, we’ve decided that the government simply should not have this information – it has no legitimate use for it anyway.
Since having civil rights is contingent on being human, then by declaring yourself as non-human you have just waived your rights. Whether you now belong in the zoo or psychiatric hospital is secondary.
M
manualman
Guest
If a woman declares herself to be a spotted owl would abortion be illegal for her?
This is the territory we are now in.
J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
It is remarkable, extraordinary and quite possibly unique to this family, my point is that saying “XY makes the person a male, XX makes the person a female” is too simplistic.
With regards to gender there is strong evidence that it is biologically caused and not mere “‘feelings’”, as to the others there is no biological evidence. As to whether it is libertarian it doesn’t matter all that much as libertarianism would say that prohibiting twins from copulating on their front lawn is wrong.
Those are separate issues.
J
JimG
Guest
If spotted owls are a protected species, probably abortion would be illegal for her. A woman who decides she is a protected species might be providing some protection to her unborn children which would be opposed by Planned Parenthood.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Maybe to introduce a bit of utterly irrelevant light heartedness into this serious discussion, Mark Twain’s answer was:
“A woman is only a woman. But a good cigar is a smoke.”
“A woman is only a woman. But a good cigar is a smoke.”
A
Arizona_Mike
Guest
Rudyard Kipling, actually, in his poem “The Betrothed”.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
You’re right.
Twain did have some good things to say about cigars, but this wasn’t one of them.
J
JimG
Guest
I must be more illiterate than I thought. I never read the poem, but I always thought it was George Burns who made the saying well known.
“A woman is only a woman. But a good cigar is a smoke.”
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
The Kipling poem is a hoot, I’ll admit. Just for fun, here it is, a bit misgynistic though it is.
“You must choose between me and your cigar.” Breach of Promise Case, circa, 1885
OPEN the old cigar-box, get me a Cuba stout,
For things are running crossways, and Maggie and I are out.
We quarrelled about Havanas—we fought o’er a good cheroot,
And I know she is exacting, and she says I am a brute.
Open the old cigar-box—let me consider a space; 5
In the soft blue veil of the vapour musing on Maggie’s face.
Maggie is pretty to look at—Maggie’s a loving lass,
But the prettiest cheeks must wrinkle, the truest of loves must pass.
There’s peace in a Laranaga, there’s calm in a Henry Clay;
But the best cigar in an hour is finished and thrown away— 10
Thrown away for another as perfect and ripe and brown—
But I could not throw away Maggie for fear o’ the talk o’ the town!
Maggie, my wife at fifty—grey and dour and old—
With never another Maggie to purchase for love or gold!
And the light of Days that have Been the dark of the Days that Are, 15
And Love’s torch stinking and stale, like the butt of a dead cigar—
The butt of a dead cigar you are bound to keep in your pocket—
With never a new one to light tho’ it’s charred and black to the socket!
Open the old cigar-box—let me consider a while.
Here is a mild Manilla—there is a wifely smile. 20
Which is the better portion—bondage bought with a ring,
Or a harem of dusky beauties fifty tied in a string?
Counsellors cunning and silent—comforters true and tried,
And never a one of the fifty to sneer at a rival bride?
Thought in the early morning, solace in time of woes, 25
Peace in the hush of the twilight, balm ere my eyelids close,
This will the fifty give me, asking nought in return,
With only a Suttee’s passion—to do their duty and burn.
This will the fifty give me. When they are spent and dead,
Five times other fifties shall be my servants instead. 30
The furrows of far-off Java, the isles of the Spanish Main,
When they hear my harem is empty will send me my brides again.
I will take no heed to their raiment, nor food for their mouths withal,
So long as the gulls are nesting, so long as the showers fall.
I will scent ’em with best vanilla, with tea will I temper their hides, 35
And the Moor and the Mormon shall envy who read of the tale of my brides.
For Maggie has written a letter to give me my choice between
The wee little whimpering Love and the great god Nick o’ Teen.
And I have been servant of Love for barely a twelvemonth clear,
But I have been Priest of Cabanas a matter of seven year; 40
And the gloom of my bachelor days is flecked with the cheery light
Of stumps that I burned to Friendship and Pleasure and Work and Fight.
And I turn my eyes to the future that Maggie and I must prove,
But the only light on the marshes is the Will-o’-the-Wisp of Love.
Will it see me safe through my journey or leave me bogged in the mire? 45
Since a puff of tobacco can cloud it, shall I follow the fitful fire?
Open the old cigar-box—let me consider anew—
Old friends, and who is Maggie that I should abandon you?
A million surplus Maggies are willing to bear the yoke;
And a woman is only a woman, but a good Cigar is a Smoke. 50
Light me another Cuba—I hold to my first-sworn vows.
If Maggie will have no rival, I’ll have no Maggie for Spouse!
“You must choose between me and your cigar.” Breach of Promise Case, circa, 1885
OPEN the old cigar-box, get me a Cuba stout,
For things are running crossways, and Maggie and I are out.
We quarrelled about Havanas—we fought o’er a good cheroot,
And I know she is exacting, and she says I am a brute.
Open the old cigar-box—let me consider a space; 5
In the soft blue veil of the vapour musing on Maggie’s face.
Maggie is pretty to look at—Maggie’s a loving lass,
But the prettiest cheeks must wrinkle, the truest of loves must pass.
There’s peace in a Laranaga, there’s calm in a Henry Clay;
But the best cigar in an hour is finished and thrown away— 10
Thrown away for another as perfect and ripe and brown—
But I could not throw away Maggie for fear o’ the talk o’ the town!
Maggie, my wife at fifty—grey and dour and old—
With never another Maggie to purchase for love or gold!
And the light of Days that have Been the dark of the Days that Are, 15
And Love’s torch stinking and stale, like the butt of a dead cigar—
The butt of a dead cigar you are bound to keep in your pocket—
With never a new one to light tho’ it’s charred and black to the socket!
Open the old cigar-box—let me consider a while.
Here is a mild Manilla—there is a wifely smile. 20
Which is the better portion—bondage bought with a ring,
Or a harem of dusky beauties fifty tied in a string?
Counsellors cunning and silent—comforters true and tried,
And never a one of the fifty to sneer at a rival bride?
Thought in the early morning, solace in time of woes, 25
Peace in the hush of the twilight, balm ere my eyelids close,
This will the fifty give me, asking nought in return,
With only a Suttee’s passion—to do their duty and burn.
This will the fifty give me. When they are spent and dead,
Five times other fifties shall be my servants instead. 30
The furrows of far-off Java, the isles of the Spanish Main,
When they hear my harem is empty will send me my brides again.
I will take no heed to their raiment, nor food for their mouths withal,
So long as the gulls are nesting, so long as the showers fall.
I will scent ’em with best vanilla, with tea will I temper their hides, 35
And the Moor and the Mormon shall envy who read of the tale of my brides.
For Maggie has written a letter to give me my choice between
The wee little whimpering Love and the great god Nick o’ Teen.
And I have been servant of Love for barely a twelvemonth clear,
But I have been Priest of Cabanas a matter of seven year; 40
And the gloom of my bachelor days is flecked with the cheery light
Of stumps that I burned to Friendship and Pleasure and Work and Fight.
And I turn my eyes to the future that Maggie and I must prove,
But the only light on the marshes is the Will-o’-the-Wisp of Love.
Will it see me safe through my journey or leave me bogged in the mire? 45
Since a puff of tobacco can cloud it, shall I follow the fitful fire?
Open the old cigar-box—let me consider anew—
Old friends, and who is Maggie that I should abandon you?
A million surplus Maggies are willing to bear the yoke;
And a woman is only a woman, but a good Cigar is a Smoke. 50
Light me another Cuba—I hold to my first-sworn vows.
If Maggie will have no rival, I’ll have no Maggie for Spouse!
- Status