All things Transgender related

ecdanc said:

mcgruff10 said:

ecdanc said:

brianlux said:

amethgr8 said:

I am 53, female.  Raised very traditionally, married to a male.  And maybe a little bit of wanting to be married with children like a good wife.  But four of us raised the same environment, but two boys and two girls,boys got motor cycles and we got horses. They had to shovel the do lawn and we cleaned and cook.

I hated wearing dresses and have never worn make up.  There may have been a little envy, boys could do so much different.  But now I see maybe they could have looked at us the same, who knows.  I don't think it matters much, kids grow and do what they want as adults, there has to be a baseline.  

I think 50 years from now, all the labels will be gone, people will have little pretense about what they or their parts "should" look like as they all deliver intimatcy, love and organism.  It will just be people that can carry babies and people that don't.

IDK, I got thru 6pages of this post and had to give my 2cents.

On the other hand (and I know I will get clawed by some cat for saying this), but on the other hand, some of this reminds me of the way some of my generation thought back in the sixties- all that age of Aquarius bullshit and living on communes etc.  Many of my peers thought they were "enlightened" and shoved these ideas onto their kids, gave then weird names like Wavy Gravy did (who also did some fine work, so I'm not saying it was all b.s.), or brought them up in squalor and that that was groovy.  But then a lot of these kids grew up and rejected theirs parents notions a far fetched, and some (and I know some of these people well, so this is not conjecture), some even hated their parents for a time for raising them under conditions that they later considered  questionable at best.  Young parents would do well to consider that not everything they believe will be seen as gold by their kids as they grow up. 

It's true. I'm still miffed that my parents raised me with such strict and antiquated notions of gender. 

Why? Do you think you would have turned out different or maybe think you missed out on something?

Yes. I think the toxic masculinity of my upbringing (I had only a brother and my mother was largely absent; my parents were vey traditional with their sense of gender; my church reinforced that, as did my school)--along with a number of other factors--has contributed to my depression and anxiety from adolescence to now. I work to change where I can, but even at 40 I find myself reverting back to the hypermasculine competitiveness of my youth. 

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

Like do you take pleasure in denying that others might know more about something than you?

Like no.  Who could possibly deny that but Trump?  I deny that you've made your case with any efficacy whatsoever.  You move goalposts and cherry pick sentences.  You disparage the motives of others, call them bigots, tell them to go fuck themselves, and everything in between.  Yet you can't understand why people just...won't....buy...your arguments.  It's because they are weak and ineffectual, not because we aren't 'scholars' like you.  And by the way, several of us have advanced degrees.  

The ground of the argument has shifted slightly, as I've adapted to the various statements thrown at me (e.g., appeals to science as a sort of infallible arbiter required us to go down the rabbit hole we now find ourselves). But it's you who have actually tried to shift not so much the grounds of the argument, but it's rules: you assert that since mine is the less common position, I bear the burden of convincing you. When I say, "that's not true amongst scholars," I'm not making an argument; I'm stating a fact. It is not convincing or unconvincing; it is true or false. To clarify the exact nature of my factual statement, I'd like to be precise about what I'm saying. We find ourselves right now primarily discussing whether science is a social construction. That is not a scientific question; it is a philosophical one. More exactly, it's a question explored by philosophers of science. Science does not consider it's own nature--that's largely outside the scope of it's epistemology. All I can tell you, then, is that quite certainly mine is the dominant position amongst scholars who consider this question. I can't speak for what is more common amongst all people, and will not try to do so, but I find it absurd to defer to "common" understanding (as that which must be overturned) rather than the general understanding of people who study the topic. 

You made the statement,  so yeah it's up to you to make the case.  That's kind of how arguments work. 

I don't even know to what statement you're referring here. 

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

Like do you take pleasure in denying that others might know more about something than you?

Like no.  Who could possibly deny that but Trump?  I deny that you've made your case with any efficacy whatsoever.  You move goalposts and cherry pick sentences.  You disparage the motives of others, call them bigots, tell them to go fuck themselves, and everything in between.  Yet you can't understand why people just...won't....buy...your arguments.  It's because they are weak and ineffectual, not because we aren't 'scholars' like you.  And by the way, several of us have advanced degrees.  

The ground of the argument has shifted slightly, as I've adapted to the various statements thrown at me (e.g., appeals to science as a sort of infallible arbiter required us to go down the rabbit hole we now find ourselves). But it's you who have actually tried to shift not so much the grounds of the argument, but it's rules: you assert that since mine is the less common position, I bear the burden of convincing you. When I say, "that's not true amongst scholars," I'm not making an argument; I'm stating a fact. It is not convincing or unconvincing; it is true or false. To clarify the exact nature of my factual statement, I'd like to be precise about what I'm saying. We find ourselves right now primarily discussing whether science is a social construction. That is not a scientific question; it is a philosophical one. More exactly, it's a question explored by philosophers of science. Science does not consider it's own nature--that's largely outside the scope of it's epistemology. All I can tell you, then, is that quite certainly mine is the dominant position amongst scholars who consider this question. I can't speak for what is more common amongst all people, and will not try to do so, but I find it absurd to defer to "common" understanding (as that which must be overturned) rather than the general understanding of people who study the topic. 

You made the statement,  so yeah it's up to you to make the case.  That's kind of how arguments work. 

I don't even know to what statement you're referring here. 

About the fucking science is a social construct bs... you know..what we've been arguing about for 5 hours?  

As I already told you, that's a statement of fact. There is no "case" to be made. I can try to disabuse you of your erroneous knowledge in the area, but I can't convince you (because it's not an argument). But, I do encourage you to go confirm the fact (note "confirm," not "convince"" for yourself. I suggest you start with some basic reading in the philosophy of science. A quick Google search brings up some useful primers with reading lists. For instance, this site might offer a starting point--it includes a lengthy syllabus of reading for your pleasure. 

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

Like do you take pleasure in denying that others might know more about something than you?

Like no.  Who could possibly deny that but Trump?  I deny that you've made your case with any efficacy whatsoever.  You move goalposts and cherry pick sentences.  You disparage the motives of others, call them bigots, tell them to go fuck themselves, and everything in between.  Yet you can't understand why people just...won't....buy...your arguments.  It's because they are weak and ineffectual, not because we aren't 'scholars' like you.  And by the way, several of us have advanced degrees.  

The ground of the argument has shifted slightly, as I've adapted to the various statements thrown at me (e.g., appeals to science as a sort of infallible arbiter required us to go down the rabbit hole we now find ourselves). But it's you who have actually tried to shift not so much the grounds of the argument, but it's rules: you assert that since mine is the less common position, I bear the burden of convincing you. When I say, "that's not true amongst scholars," I'm not making an argument; I'm stating a fact. It is not convincing or unconvincing; it is true or false. To clarify the exact nature of my factual statement, I'd like to be precise about what I'm saying. We find ourselves right now primarily discussing whether science is a social construction. That is not a scientific question; it is a philosophical one. More exactly, it's a question explored by philosophers of science. Science does not consider it's own nature--that's largely outside the scope of it's epistemology. All I can tell you, then, is that quite certainly mine is the dominant position amongst scholars who consider this question. I can't speak for what is more common amongst all people, and will not try to do so, but I find it absurd to defer to "common" understanding (as that which must be overturned) rather than the general understanding of people who study the topic. 

You made the statement,  so yeah it's up to you to make the case.  That's kind of how arguments work. 

I don't even know to what statement you're referring here. 

About the fucking science is a social construct bs... you know..what we've been arguing about for 5 hours?  

As I already told you, that's a statement of fact. There is no "case" to be made. I can try to disabuse you of your erroneous knowledge in the area, but I can't convince you (because it's not an argument). But, I do encourage you to go confirm the fact (note "confirm," not "convince"" for yourself. I suggest you start with some basic reading in the philosophy of science. A quick Google search brings up some useful primers with reading lists. For instance, this site might offer a starting point--it includes a lengthy syllabus of reading for your pleasure. 

So weird.. you say you're a philosophy scholar, and yet you are making unassailable statements of fact.  That seems to be quite the contradiction.  I'm sure Plato thought he had it all figured out too.  

I have never said I’m a philosophy scholar. And saying “most scholars agree” is not a philosophical statement. 

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

Like do you take pleasure in denying that others might know more about something than you?

Like no.  Who could possibly deny that but Trump?  I deny that you've made your case with any efficacy whatsoever.  You move goalposts and cherry pick sentences.  You disparage the motives of others, call them bigots, tell them to go fuck themselves, and everything in between.  Yet you can't understand why people just...won't....buy...your arguments.  It's because they are weak and ineffectual, not because we aren't 'scholars' like you.  And by the way, several of us have advanced degrees.  

The ground of the argument has shifted slightly, as I've adapted to the various statements thrown at me (e.g., appeals to science as a sort of infallible arbiter required us to go down the rabbit hole we now find ourselves). But it's you who have actually tried to shift not so much the grounds of the argument, but it's rules: you assert that since mine is the less common position, I bear the burden of convincing you. When I say, "that's not true amongst scholars," I'm not making an argument; I'm stating a fact. It is not convincing or unconvincing; it is true or false. To clarify the exact nature of my factual statement, I'd like to be precise about what I'm saying. We find ourselves right now primarily discussing whether science is a social construction. That is not a scientific question; it is a philosophical one. More exactly, it's a question explored by philosophers of science. Science does not consider it's own nature--that's largely outside the scope of it's epistemology. All I can tell you, then, is that quite certainly mine is the dominant position amongst scholars who consider this question. I can't speak for what is more common amongst all people, and will not try to do so, but I find it absurd to defer to "common" understanding (as that which must be overturned) rather than the general understanding of people who study the topic. 

You made the statement,  so yeah it's up to you to make the case.  That's kind of how arguments work. 

I don't even know to what statement you're referring here. 

About the fucking science is a social construct bs... you know..what we've been arguing about for 5 hours?  

As I already told you, that's a statement of fact. There is no "case" to be made. I can try to disabuse you of your erroneous knowledge in the area, but I can't convince you (because it's not an argument). But, I do encourage you to go confirm the fact (note "confirm," not "convince"" for yourself. I suggest you start with some basic reading in the philosophy of science. A quick Google search brings up some useful primers with reading lists. For instance, this site might offer a starting point--it includes a lengthy syllabus of reading for your pleasure. 

So weird.. you say you're a philosophy scholar, and yet you are making unassailable statements of fact.  That seems to be quite the contradiction.  I'm sure Plato thought he had it all figured out too.  

I have never said I’m a philosophy scholar. And saying “most scholars agree” is not a philosophical statement. 

So if you're not a philosophy scholar and you don't work in that field, then how the hell do you know what "most scholars" think?  Did you take a survey?  And it's just freakin' hilarious that someone that acts as if they're steeped in philosophy doesn't understand that one of the four pillars is essentially "can anything be certain"?  Yet you make statements of certitude.  
Ugh.. 

I know because what I’m telling you doesn’t require expertise. It’s a really basic thing. See there’s a big distance between “scholar” and knowing nothing. I read. My expertise is philosophy adjacent, so it’s not a stretch for me. 

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

amethgr8 said:

I am 53, female.  Raised very traditionally, married to a male.  And maybe a little bit of wanting to be married with children like a good wife.  But four of us raised the same environment, but two boys and two girls,boys got motor cycles and we got horses. They had to shovel the do lawn and we cleaned and cook.

I hated wearing dresses and have never worn make up.  There may have been a little envy, boys could do so much different.  But now I see maybe they could have looked at us the same, who knows.  I don't think it matters much, kids grow and do what they want as adults, there has to be a baseline.  

I think 50 years from now, all the labels will be gone, people will have little pretense about what they or their parts "should" look like as they all deliver intimatcy, love and organism.  It will just be people that can carry babies and people that don't.

IDK, I got thru 6pages of this post and had to give my 2cents.

On the other hand (and I know I will get clawed by some cat for saying this), but on the other hand, some of this reminds me of the way some of my generation thought back in the sixties- all that age of Aquarius bullshit and living on communes etc.  Many of my peers thought they were "enlightened" and shoved these ideas onto their kids, gave then weird names like Wavy Gravy did (who also did some fine work, so I'm not saying it was all b.s.), or brought them up in squalor and that that was groovy.  But then a lot of these kids grew up and rejected theirs parents notions a far fetched, and some (and I know some of these people well, so this is not conjecture), some even hated their parents for a time for raising them under conditions that they later considered  questionable at best.  Young parents would do well to consider that not everything they believe will be seen as gold by their kids as they grow up. 

This is a really good analogy.  Perhaps the woke culture of today will create a reactionary one with their children.