Mr. Krinkle
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2005
- Messages
- 29,424
Social Justice Transgender and gender identity discussion
- Thread starter Draven26
- Start date
LandsUnknown
Bluelighter
The most perplexing aspect of gender identity is the fact that some people "identify as nonbinary". I can understand the concept of someone being transgender, but the nonbinary idea changes a lot of really fundamental concepts. Transgender doesn't negate the idea of gender's existence. It just effectively is someone switching their position within the binary. However, the nonbinary concept is more like the anywhere and everywhere at the same time mindset and understanding. There's no clearly tangible and definable reality to it whatsoever, especially with the "they/them" pronouns. Because that almost implies that one can be two things at once, which is basically like Schrodinger's cat.
Also, there's something else I wonder about this whole nonbinary concept. Today, most people who identify as nonbinary are fairly young, but will they continue to when they get older? Will it be a lifelong thing like transgender is or will most of them simply be feminine men and masculine women? Especially since most nonbinary people do not actually take steps to change their physical body. It's usually just a matter of presenting differently. A better approach would be to simply not judge people for doing things "atypical for their gender" and simply let people be themselves. Labeling it as "in between genders" doesn't seem necessary. But I wouldn't not call someone by their "preferred pronouns".
Look at it this way. I think that people fucking suck, and would rather not have to identify as part of the human race. Because most of them are idiots. I kind do feel that way to an extent these days honestly lol. I honestly feel like I'm in a completely different category of species and don't fall into any category, and I am not human or any other species. Oh and because I am so different than everyone else, please call me "the one" or something like that. It's my preferred pronoun now, and admittedly it does sound kind of cool. Would anyone go along with that? That's fucking absurd, but where do you draw the line? At what point does it become just making up words and concepts with no reality?
Though, the more you think about it, what would happen if people went along with this whole calling me "the one" instead of he/him (please don't, because this is absolutely fucking stupid, I'm just explaining a point)? Well, not really anything. What if everyone came up with some ridiculous "preferred pronoun" like "the one". Well, then you could just use people's names and just throw out the concept of pronouns entirely. There would be absolutely nothing wrong with that honestly. However, what if I did start asking people to call me "the one", because I don't identify as human or any other species. I simply don't fall into any type of "species binaries", because I feel so different than everyone else.
What would everyone think about that? Well, hopefully everyone would think that was absolutely fucking stupid and insane. Because it would be. The nonbinary gender thing is obviously somewhat different, but how different? At what point do we draw the line when it comes to snowflake-ism? Or do we even draw the line at all? Maybe not. A friend of mine who was dropping acid and mushrooms multiple times a week for months or perhaps even years on end thought that you could "fly if you really believed it enough". Fuck knows though, how do we really know that there's not some truth to this concept? We don't. Given some of the things that I have researched, it might be honestly. Maybe. Somehow.
So, then why use pronouns at all? It does kind of seem like the they/them thing as a form of "Look at me, I'm different" basically. Though, there is one major exception to this. Intersex. Because there is clear physical reality to it. That is a physical reality there, and people who are intersex really do not need to fit into any binary in terms of gender. However, I don't get how that applies to someone who was born as a biological male or female. Basically, the idea is that pronouns are simply a way of expressing oneself. There's nothing really wrong with that, but what is the point exactly? Pronouns are used for talking about someone, not to them. So, you could just use people's names instead. That being said, I would go along with the they/them thing if I had to, rather than knowingly being offensive to someone for no reason.
Also, there's something else I wonder about this whole nonbinary concept. Today, most people who identify as nonbinary are fairly young, but will they continue to when they get older? Will it be a lifelong thing like transgender is or will most of them simply be feminine men and masculine women? Especially since most nonbinary people do not actually take steps to change their physical body. It's usually just a matter of presenting differently. A better approach would be to simply not judge people for doing things "atypical for their gender" and simply let people be themselves. Labeling it as "in between genders" doesn't seem necessary. But I wouldn't not call someone by their "preferred pronouns".
Look at it this way. I think that people fucking suck, and would rather not have to identify as part of the human race. Because most of them are idiots. I kind do feel that way to an extent these days honestly lol. I honestly feel like I'm in a completely different category of species and don't fall into any category, and I am not human or any other species. Oh and because I am so different than everyone else, please call me "the one" or something like that. It's my preferred pronoun now, and admittedly it does sound kind of cool. Would anyone go along with that? That's fucking absurd, but where do you draw the line? At what point does it become just making up words and concepts with no reality?
Though, the more you think about it, what would happen if people went along with this whole calling me "the one" instead of he/him (please don't, because this is absolutely fucking stupid, I'm just explaining a point)? Well, not really anything. What if everyone came up with some ridiculous "preferred pronoun" like "the one". Well, then you could just use people's names and just throw out the concept of pronouns entirely. There would be absolutely nothing wrong with that honestly. However, what if I did start asking people to call me "the one", because I don't identify as human or any other species. I simply don't fall into any type of "species binaries", because I feel so different than everyone else.
What would everyone think about that? Well, hopefully everyone would think that was absolutely fucking stupid and insane. Because it would be. The nonbinary gender thing is obviously somewhat different, but how different? At what point do we draw the line when it comes to snowflake-ism? Or do we even draw the line at all? Maybe not. A friend of mine who was dropping acid and mushrooms multiple times a week for months or perhaps even years on end thought that you could "fly if you really believed it enough". Fuck knows though, how do we really know that there's not some truth to this concept? We don't. Given some of the things that I have researched, it might be honestly. Maybe. Somehow.
So, then why use pronouns at all? It does kind of seem like the they/them thing as a form of "Look at me, I'm different" basically. Though, there is one major exception to this. Intersex. Because there is clear physical reality to it. That is a physical reality there, and people who are intersex really do not need to fit into any binary in terms of gender. However, I don't get how that applies to someone who was born as a biological male or female. Basically, the idea is that pronouns are simply a way of expressing oneself. There's nothing really wrong with that, but what is the point exactly? Pronouns are used for talking about someone, not to them. So, you could just use people's names instead. That being said, I would go along with the they/them thing if I had to, rather than knowingly being offensive to someone for no reason.
Mr. Krinkle
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2005
- Messages
- 29,424
well them/they doesn't always work
and if they/them want you to call them him or her, he or she, you can't just do it? you gotta hold out because you don't like it....personally....
none of what any of you say, justifies it - im sorry it just doesn't
it's still disrespectful no matter what
and if they/them want you to call them him or her, he or she, you can't just do it? you gotta hold out because you don't like it....personally....
none of what any of you say, justifies it - im sorry it just doesn't
it's still disrespectful no matter what
cduggles
Bluelight Crew
Please don’t use personal insults.
LandsUnknown
Bluelighter
I'm not quite sure I get what you're saying. But like I said, I would call someone whatever they asked to be called. I wouldn't refuse to call someone they/them if that's what they wanted. I wouldn't knowingly offend someone for no reason like that. I was simply saying that I don't understand the concept and reason behind they/them.
thegreenhand
Bluelight Crew
what would you expect a nonbinary person to do? why is that a necessary condition for it to be real?
Mr. Krinkle
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2005
- Messages
- 29,424
all good....it was a long post and i kinda got lost in it and then i woke up during the last paragraph
i apologize if that's not what you were really saying
Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
^^ Very nice post @LandsUnknown. Actually the non-binary gender thing makes more sense to me than anything else in this kind of position taking.
I feel very strongly that sex is effectively binary at any level of analysis that has any utility but I’d accept that the science may change on that. However having grown up in multiple cultures I feel equally strongly that gender is a social construct built atop the defining characteristics of that binary. Physiological aspects of men vs women have informed the way social roles are defined.
But here’s the thing, there is as much difference in masculine identities across cultures (and through time) as there is similarity. For example, what it meant to be a man in Victorian England was incredibly different to what it meant in the Ottoman Empire. It varied again between classes in those societies. Working class masculinity was an entirely different thing to bourgeois masculinity.
I often wonder whether the would-be defenders of ‘traditional masculinity’ against the forces of wokeness realise just how historically transitory and contingent their model of the masculine really is. Enough to have many of the characteristics of myth.
The sheer breadth and diversity in how different cultures and times have constructed masculinity is matched only by the countervailing process of defining femininity. It also points to the fact that all we really have is a whole panoply of particular traits that have continually been organised, contested, reorganised to map out social roles from which people took their identities.
It doesn’t even really work to say that gender is a continuum as some are wont to do. This is because a continuum requires two opposite poles. In actual fact, the contemporary manifestation of gender would look more like a spider graph / radar chart with varying degrees of dozens of attributes working with and against each other on combination.
So to return to the non-binaries, they are the closest to recognising the multivariate components that only stand for masculinity and femininity at given point in time and at a given place. They then say, since these categories are transparently fluid (for anyone with a historical and anthropological perspective) I can mix and match individual traits to cultivate an identity that is an advance on or alternative to the norms surrounding them. They see through the construct and have the chutzpah to reconstruct it on their own terms.
Now is this an admirable thing that is good for society? That really depends on whether you are conservative or progressive.
I feel very strongly that sex is effectively binary at any level of analysis that has any utility but I’d accept that the science may change on that. However having grown up in multiple cultures I feel equally strongly that gender is a social construct built atop the defining characteristics of that binary. Physiological aspects of men vs women have informed the way social roles are defined.
But here’s the thing, there is as much difference in masculine identities across cultures (and through time) as there is similarity. For example, what it meant to be a man in Victorian England was incredibly different to what it meant in the Ottoman Empire. It varied again between classes in those societies. Working class masculinity was an entirely different thing to bourgeois masculinity.
I often wonder whether the would-be defenders of ‘traditional masculinity’ against the forces of wokeness realise just how historically transitory and contingent their model of the masculine really is. Enough to have many of the characteristics of myth.
The sheer breadth and diversity in how different cultures and times have constructed masculinity is matched only by the countervailing process of defining femininity. It also points to the fact that all we really have is a whole panoply of particular traits that have continually been organised, contested, reorganised to map out social roles from which people took their identities.
It doesn’t even really work to say that gender is a continuum as some are wont to do. This is because a continuum requires two opposite poles. In actual fact, the contemporary manifestation of gender would look more like a spider graph / radar chart with varying degrees of dozens of attributes working with and against each other on combination.
So to return to the non-binaries, they are the closest to recognising the multivariate components that only stand for masculinity and femininity at given point in time and at a given place. They then say, since these categories are transparently fluid (for anyone with a historical and anthropological perspective) I can mix and match individual traits to cultivate an identity that is an advance on or alternative to the norms surrounding them. They see through the construct and have the chutzpah to reconstruct it on their own terms.
Now is this an admirable thing that is good for society? That really depends on whether you are conservative or progressive.
Nonbinary is a lot shorter of a word the conversation "I am a guy who likes to wear makeup and dresses when I am in places where that is a sufficiently low risk activity. I am not transgender, nor do I plan on transitioning."
Berevity is the soul of wit.
Believe me I am most comfortable dressing femme around people who make me feel like there is no real difference between wearing a dress or a suit jacket. I don't like being the center of attention because of how I dress, and will stay dressed masculine to be lower profile.
HatingThisLife
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2020
- Messages
- 164
I will gladly debate anyone who actually comes with facts. Its not a mental illness and anyone that shortsighted isnt even worth my time in a debate bc there is, in fact, science that influences transgenderism. But dont worry honey Ill go back and read allll your posts and let you know if I think you are ignorant as well! Lmfao!!! Like I said I used to think just like him and then educated myself. I didnt just "buy in" to some ideology. I spewed the same hurtful bullshit that its a mental illness in the past until I learned how wrong, rude, and ignorant I was being. You're coming for the wrong one bc all of my opinions are based on fact, extensive research and thoughtfulness.
Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
74 pages in and we still don’t seem to have nailed the essentially constructionist character of both mental illness and science more generally.
Even if transgenderism was deemed a mental illness it would not matter to anyone who understood how we end up having the categories of normalcy and deviancy that we do.
And as a university employee who has written quite a few grant proposals, I can assure you that outside the physical sciences scientific research is starting to only doing research and presenting results that skew towards ideologically influenced narratives.
The last place you’ll find heterodox thought is in academia, though there are a few promising developments like journals that allow papers to be published anonymously.
Even if transgenderism was deemed a mental illness it would not matter to anyone who understood how we end up having the categories of normalcy and deviancy that we do.
And as a university employee who has written quite a few grant proposals, I can assure you that outside the physical sciences scientific research is starting to only doing research and presenting results that skew towards ideologically influenced narratives.
The last place you’ll find heterodox thought is in academia, though there are a few promising developments like journals that allow papers to be published anonymously.
SKL
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2007
- Messages
- 14,632
Exactly.
What @Atelier3 said. What's more, I never said per se that trans-identification was a mental illness, although I did discuss Gender Dysphoria and Transvestic Fetishism as they are laid out in the DSM. Both require "causing clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning" to rise to the level of diagnosability under those criteria. I also discussed personality disorders and autistic spectrum disorders (among others) as those are present in significantly higher proportions in trans-identifying people.
But as for mental illness, what is mental illness to you in order that you can say with confidence that transgenderism is not one? I don't say this necessarily to claim that it is, I don't find that a useful or interesting question, but to highlight the fact that to claim that it isn't, just as much as the opposite, you have to be confident in the definition of the term. If you are going strictly on DSM criteria (which I deal with for a living) then I have some bad news for you: the diagnoses laid out in the DSM have descriptive utility but not necessarily ontological existence as such, nor are they an exhaustive listing of what might be called "mental illness" (or else homosexuality would have formerly been a mental illness, but no longer). The DSM exists only as a guide. And mostly a guide for billing purposes at that. The only people who believe those "little boxes" are the be-all and end-all are insurance companies and the laziest of psychiatrists (and it is necessary to have GD as a billable diagnosis in order for insurance providers to pay for medical intervention for "transition"—which, if it is medical treatment, must be treatment for some disorder).
What I mean to say is that whether or not transgenderism is a mental illness is not even a debate worth having. Mental illness or not, it is a phenomenon with consequences for the trans-identifying person, for those around them, and for society at large. Gender dysphoria is a cause of significant distress for the person experiencing it. Co-occuring psychiatric issues are a huge issue. The rate of people experiencing it and trans-identifying in general is skyrocketing particularly in certain populations (particularly, but not only, natal females with certain psychiatric and developmental conditions.) All of these are topics worthy of discussion which are done a disservice by simply dropping a cliché about all self-identifications being valid and all critical discussion being "ignorant" or "bigoted." Otherwise you are very much trafficking in ideology.
I would also particularly like to know what sources your "education" on these matters came from in order to have such a radical change in perspective. Even generally speaking (was it friends? Social media? News? Academia?) I'm not asking you to throw out specific chapter-and-verse citations at this point. My own perspective has broadened and changed as well from doing research with both academic sources and from observing both trans-positive and gender-critical social media spaces.
Last edited:
thegreenhand
Bluelight Crew
what your thoughts on how to fix this? i see it too. i'm not an employee but i've spent some time as an undergrad assistant in a psychology lab, which is probably the worst offending field of this sort of thing.
aemetha
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 7, 2017
- Messages
- 199
I think there may be some misunderstanding about the DSM diagnosis of gender dysphoria by some in this thread. For the purpose of clarity I would like to explain a bit. The DSM-5 differs from previous diagnosis as it relates to the issue. In previous revisions "Gender Identity Disorder" was considered pathological. That is to say, feeling like you were a different gender to your biological assignment was considered disordered. With the DSM-5 shift to "Gender Dysphoria" it was made clear that the feeling of being a difference gender to biological assignment was not pathological. Instead the diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria is solely related to psychological distress or impairment related to those feelings. In other words, if you have the feelings but you're not overly upset or disabled by those feelings - that's not pathological, clinically.
Posters should take a care to separate the issue of gender identity and the diagnosis of gender dysphoria. The two terms are not synonyms. The DSM-5 is explicitly clear on this matter and any suggestion otherwise is simply factually incorrect.
Posters should take a care to separate the issue of gender identity and the diagnosis of gender dysphoria. The two terms are not synonyms. The DSM-5 is explicitly clear on this matter and any suggestion otherwise is simply factually incorrect.
thegreenhand
Bluelight Crew
so we're assuming the DSM is actually good science... bold move
aemetha
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 7, 2017
- Messages
- 199
Nope, just assuming that the DSM is the source of the term and is what is used to categorize clinical diagnoses. Criticisms of the DSM are irrelevant in that respect.
SKL
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2007
- Messages
- 14,632
Interestingly this caused some mixed feelings among transgender advocates. Some welcomed the change as depathologizing their situations, others worried that the removal of GID might make it harder for trans-identifying people without significant GD to access medical intervention. The latter concern does not seem to have come to fruition although I assume that for billing purposes everyone getting cross-sex hormones or surgery gets GD entered as a diagnosis, which is necessary for reimbursement.
This discussion leads to another interesting and rather confusing controversy among in the trans community—whether a feeling of gender incongruence without marked feelings of gender dysphoria "counts as being trans." This was a major topic of controversy not at all that long ago but much of the community, mainstream advocacy groups, and healthcare providers in many places including the US, seem mostly to have settled on the idea that self-identification is always valid.
I don't know where to come down in this controversy: I don't doubt that the phenomenon of nondysphoric trans-identification exists but on the other hand, as I've discussed at some length above, having cross-sex hormones and surgery available to all comers has some troubling implications as well. The difference between dysphoric and nondysphoric trans-identification, like many topics in this arena, are under-studied: certainly some nondysphoric trans-identifiers will fall under the AGP grouping (although some AGP complain of dysphoria and I hardly would say they are all lying, even if they come to their dysphoria by a different psychological route.) HSTS type presentations seem to necessarily involve dysphoria at least per Blanchard (perhaps secondary to internalized homophobia) most if not all the time. ROGD by definition involves gender dysphoria or at least experiences that are interpreted and articulated as gender dysphoria, but much of the concern about it rests on that very point—that other dysphorias are attribured to gender, if you will, leading to a number of detransitioners beyond what can be reasonably tolerated. Meanwhile, some of the more radical online trans communities have been known to share "tips" on getting past "gatekeeping" up to and including the "right" answers to screening questions which test for dysphoria.
But what of the balance of cases, which is probably substantial, that don't fall into one of these typologies? What about cases that resemble one of these categories except for the presence (or degree) of dysphoria? And perhaps the most important question of all, does it matter? Should we be treating dysphoric and nondysphoric trans-identification differently? If we don't, how do we conceptualize the involvement of the medical profession in "transition?" After all, the most frequently deployed arguments for such interventions and their funding, especially in the young, revolve explicitly around the treatment of dysphoria. The whole business looks like a hall of mirrors at times.
Last edited:
Mr. Krinkle
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2005
- Messages
- 29,424
alright...so there's no transsexuals even actually in this thread...and that sucks because that's really why i came here...
so i have a question: has anybody here ever actually banged a transsexual or been banged by one?
so i have a question: has anybody here ever actually banged a transsexual or been banged by one?
Last edited by a moderator:
birdup.snaildown
Greenlighter
HatingThisLife said:
There's nothing hateful about what I said. Mental illness is not an insult.
Your argument that science is on your side is something people do all the time on the internet. The truth is: there isn't a consensus in the scientific world about this... or anything, really.
Depression is a form of mental illness. Anxiety is a form of mental illness. These terms aren't slurs. I don't mean anyone any offense.
The left is coming from a good place. The fact that the world is catering to people who claim to be transgender is a testament to the progress we've made. I admire the good natured motivation behind something that I ultimately believe is misguided. That doesn't make me a bigot.
Fundamentally: I don't think it's good for people to blow smoke up their ass.
We pretty much universally recognize typical bad parenting tropes. There is an obvious cause and effect when you lie to a child and tell them what they want to hear too much. It's not healthy, psychologically. We recognize this in children.
It's often hard to tell people truths that they don't want to hear. To lie to people is to be selfish, is to not care. It is easier than having to deal with someone being upset all over the place. The fact that people virtue signal because are they are lying to people just makes it worse.
Keep in mind, there's a lot of right and wrong in these CEPS discussions, but everything is just a matter of perspective. There is no right and wrong in politics.
You mentioned that you used to share my ignorant perspective. I would think (in that case) you'd be less outraged and more sympathetic in the way you approach me... unless you also hate yourself for being in my position?
If you do hate yourself, you shouldn't.
I'm happy to have a look at your sources, but I assure you that there is no scientific consensus. We haven't been studying it (scientifically) for very long. It is far too early to make any rock solid conclusions. You can argue that the evidence leans towards supporting your beliefs, but that's not something I'm going to just take your word for. You need to explain it further.
Keep in mind, I'm coming from a place of scepticism. My default position is to not believe something extraordinary until there is sufficient proof. I maintain some scepticism about published, peer-reviewed climate change science.
Like Chauvin's trial, there are certain fields of study that are destined to be biased.
Buzz Lightbeer
Bluelight Crew
Hubbard closer to Olympic qualification
Transgender weightlifter Laurel Hubbard takes a step closer to qualifying for the Tokyo Olympics after a change in rules.
www.bbc.com
Thoughts?
I thought it had been proven that after transitioning several major physical 'advantages' remain and those can't be removed by hormone treatment. There was another athlete but I can't recall her at the moment.