I'm trans-racial.

[swilow]

Couldn't you say this to any trans-gender person?
What's the difference?

Transgender has a biological basis. There is a difference between men and women that is objective. There is no known mechanism for a human to be born with the non-biological, virtually non-hereditary cultural characteristics of another 'race'. You've said several times that you don't exhibit any physical traits of 'Asian's', so it must be the cultural attributes you are referring to, though you've been oddly unwilling to explain just what it is you identify with.Note that, having not been raised in that culture, you can only respond with steretypes and not true experiential knowledge of it.

There is very little morphological difference between humans born in differing geographical locations, but there can be massive, sometimes insurmountable cultural differences. For you to have been born an "asian" (from where- India, Sri Lanka, China, Indonesia, etc.) would mean that there existed an objective, biological asianess that could be quantified and described, that was present in human populations from our inception and was divorced from geography. But it literally never happens that Asians are born without input from asian genes. This is because the whole idea of "asian' is a human invention (a cartographers whimsy or whatever 1000words said) and only began existing quite recently. Furthermore, we know that, unlike gender, arbitrary race distinctions evolved relatively recently. The nuances of gender expression have taken millions of years across species to coalesce. Human racial distinctions simply haven't.

Or are you identifying as the "Greek asian" or an Asia-minorian of Roman times?

You don't need to answer anyones questions, but if you are unwilling to, then you know people will just speculate. Its really hard, with your unwillingness to expand on your definition of this quality you hold so dear, to not assume you are actually just trivialsing the situation of transgender people. You've mentioned that you don't wish to be mocked, and I understand that completely and would not want to do that, but it actually sounds a bit like you might be doing the mocking. Are you able to explain this a bit?

 

[Journyman16]

In a world where people are just body/brain amalgams, you'd be correct Willow, but the evidence suggests that is not a real world but one we are 'encouraged' to believe in by... um... others. Evidence says we are something more. And yes, I know Science has a problem with such evidence but that says more about science than it does about those who experience such things.

Past lives are something that has been accepted by more people and for longer times than it has been disbelieved. You can even go check them out for yourself. Astral travel is another thing you can try for yourself.

But they require you actually go look with a non-closed mind and try them out.

And in such situations it is not a big stretch to think maybe somebody has spent time in a different society and finds themselves feeling 'alien' to the one they are born into.

 

[methamaniac]

I don't believe this thread to be anything more than attempt to engage in debate, but
I like to debate so I willingly continue.

Willow, I think your post very nicely articulates why the OP is confused at the very least.


The idea of past lives could possibly be argued, but it really doen't help premise.
If OP defines Asian as something other than
genetics , he then has to explain why it is he feels he should have been born with the genetics associated with Asian.
Having physical characteristics of an Asian doesn't have anything to do with what the people indigenous to Asia do culturally.

The OP's arguement is self defeating.
This card house is built out of semantics and is easily knocked over.

 

[ForEverAfter]

If (a transgender person) defines (gender) as something other than (our chromosomal / genetic make-up), he (or she) then has to explain why it is he (or she) feels he (or she) should have been born with the (chromosomal / genetic make-up) associated with (said gender).

...

Having physical characteristics of an Asian doesn't have anything to do with what the people indigenous to Asia do culturally.

Having feminine physical attributes doesn't have anything to do with what it means, emotionally / spiritually, to be a woman.

The OP's arguement is self defeating.
It's built on a card house of semantics that is easily knocked over.

There is no argument.
I am Asian.

...

Your definition of what a man is, beyond physicality, was incomplete - but the fact that you attempted to define man, means that you admit that being a man has an impact on how you feel and how you behave. You can't objectively define what it is to be a man. Your attempt was seriously lacking. Infertile men, gay men and men with particular tastes in film don't fit into your definition... So, although you keep insisting that I objectively define what it is to be Asian, you can only subjectively define what it means to be a man.

Transgender has a biological basis. There is a difference between men and women that is objective.

What is it? (Beyond physicality.) Or is just physical?
Define man. Define woman. (Without resorting to stereo-types.)

You've said several times that you don't exhibit any physical traits of 'Asian's', so it must be the cultural attributes you are referring to...

Transgender people don't necessarily look like the sex they believe themselves to be.
I don't look Asian, but that doesn't mean I'm not on the inside.
Obviously I'm not talking about culture. I've already said that.

Note that, having not been raised in that culture, you can only respond with steretypes and not true experiential knowledge of it.

While I feel detached, somewhat, from the culture of my country of birth, that is unrelated to this issue.
I don't particularly admire Laotian culture, simply because I am Laotian.

...though you've been oddly unwilling to explain just what it is you identify with.

Until you - or someone on here - define what it means to be a man or a woman, I don't see why I'm expected to encapsulate what it means to be trans-racial. I imagine that it's quite difficult for some trans-gendered people to explain - beyond the obvious physical anomalies - how they knew that they weren't in the right body.

Its really hard, with your unwillingness to expand on your definition of this quality you hold so dear, to not assume you are actually just trivialsing the situation of transgender people. You've mentioned that you don't wish to be mocked, and I understand that completely and would not want to do that, but it actually sounds a bit like you might be doing the mocking. Are you able to explain this a bit?

I have to say I find it a bit offensive that you assume that I'm joking.
What does that say? That being trans-racial is so horrible, that I can't possibly be serious?
Would you, honestly, treat a trans-gendered person like this? Or, do they deserve your respect?

 

[ForEverAfter]

Journyman and Ninae,

I've considered the idea of past-lives being cross-wired, but wouldn't that mean that - in a past life - I was a full-sized Caucasian trapped in the body of a Laotian midget? And, would that imply transgender people have cross-wired past-life also? If so, who's playing this cruel prank? What's the point of all this? Does God make mistakes? Am I a mistake?

The biological differences between males and females are often reflected in the biology of transgender individuals. For example, male transgender individuals tend to possess genes that cause weaker binding at androgen receptor sites, tend to possess neuroanatomical substructural volumes comparable to females, possess finger “digit length ratios” of females, etc. That is, there are objective reasons they feel like they're of the opposite gender, and those differences have direct developmental and behavioral consequences.

Often, perhaps, (source?) but certainly not always.
If a trans-gendered person don't have a "biological basis" to justify their disorder are they just making it up?

...

How do you know you're a man?
How do you know you're a person, at all?
Is being a person anything more than chemistry?
If not: are slugs, people in slug bodies; and people, slugs in people bodies?
If people are the same as - say - chickens, shouldn't we all be vegan?
Unless fruits and vegetables are slugs / people / chickens, too...
Which means we're all - what - just a bunch of cannibals?

If there's no difference between gender or species beyond the obvious/ the physical, then aren't we just fucking ourselves and talking to ourselves?
Is gender an illusion, like race? (And species?)

 

[Ninae]

FEA, I think you're using your debating techniques to argue something that can't really be argued. At least when you say you share neither any genetic or cultural background with Asians, as that's what matters to other people. How you feel inside isn't really relvant to anyone else until it becomes visible.

Like, a man can have some neurological issues that make him feel like a woman, but until he starts to dress or look like a woman that is more like his problem and he's a man to everyone else. In the same way, someone like Michael Jackson might have "felt like" a white man all his life, but no one would really have thought about it before he began looking like one.

It's more of a subjective issue that you can't really expect many people to understand (unless they happen to feel the same way).

 

[Journyman16]

Um... why would you have to have been a Caucasian trapped in a Laotian body?

And yes, maybe transgenders ARE cross-wired because of past lives - if you had spent the last 15 lives as a woman and get born as a male, don't you think there may be some confusion?

And you'd also have to take into account the odd genetics for transgenders - XXY's are not that uncommon and XY's with a female body can happen for a variety of reasons - it's one reason why Genesis is wrong - the default human body is female, not male. It takes testosterone to make a male and if that fails you get an XY that has females attributes. And not incidentally it explains why males have nipples. :D

So... given your response about past lives, maybe you ARE just sparking debate. Your argument against it seems specious at best. :D

 

[Ninae]

I feel like I'm really Perez Hilton's wife. In my mind, he's not gay, and we ARE married.

 

[One Thousand Words]

The problem with the argument of past lives is the fact that our population has grown exponentially over the past 300 years, meaning there are too few human vessels in our past to accomodate the humans that exist today. Where do the new humans come from?

 

[Blue_Phlame]

Empty soul-less vesicles, or robots.

 

[Birc0014]

 

[methamaniac]

...



Having feminine physical attributes doesn't have anything to do with what it means, emotionally / spiritually, to be a woman.

What does this have to do with being Asian?
Is this all an attempt to tell us you want to be a woman?
And from what little you have told us I believe you are saying you do feel what it is to be physically Asian even though you are not.
Congratulations, You're now arguing agaisnt yourself.

There is no argument.
I am Asia

sure thing bro, you're "Asian".
Whaterever it is you even mean by that ?

Your definition of what a man is, beyond physicality, was incomplete - but the fact that you attempted to define man, means that you admit that being a man has an impact on how you feel and how you behave. You can't objectively define what it is to be a man. Your attempt was seriously lacking. Infertile men, gay men and men with particular tastes in film don't fit into your definition... So, although you keep insisting that I objectively define what it is to be Asian, you can only subjectively define what it means to be a man.

Stop saying I don't know what it is to be a man because you are utterly incapable of defining what you mean when you say you are Asian.
FFS, (for foreverafter's sake) define what you mean by being Asian . You made the intial positive statement.....at least attempt to SUPPORT it!

When you say "man" you can mean 3 different things:
1. What defines a man physically
2. What defines a man chemically
3. What defines a man behaviorally
I top the charts in all three so I can say I am categorically a man beyond all reasonable doubt.
Now, two of those three can be faked.
But if you are honest with yourself it's an easy test.


You keep comparing trans-racial and trans-gender
as if they mean the same thing in respect.
Trans-genderism stems from a chemical or psychological condition.
Is there something in particular chemically that would make one "Asian"?
Behaviorally?

What is it? (Beyond physicality.) Or is just physical?
Define man. Define woman. (Without resorting to stereo-types.)

You keep trying to blurr the lines between male and female as if gender doesn't even exist.
Maybe in make believe world they don't but in real life there are differences physically, chemically, and psychologically.
And if there isn't a difference between male and female, then than idea of being trans-gender
disappears into the aether of meaninglessness along with your tran-racial comparison.
Again, self deafeating arguement.

Transgender people don't necessarily look like the sex they believe themselves to be.
I don't look Asian, but that doesn't mean I'm not on the inside.
Obviously I'm not talking about culture. I've already said that.

Then just what is it specifically you are you talking about then?

While I feel detached, somewhat, from the culture of my country of birth, that is unrelated to this issue.
I don't particularly admire Laotian culture, simply because I am Laotian.

We are no longer just in the ball park of absurdity,
we're now playing a proper game of it.
Defne what it means to you to be Laotion kind sir.

Until you - or someone on here - define what it means to be a man or a woman, I don't see why I'm expected to encapsulate what it means to be trans-racial. I imagine that it's quite difficult for some trans-gendered people to explain - beyond the obvious physical anomalies - how they knew that they weren't in the right body.

I have defined what it is to be a man you just don't accept the definition.
Even if you don't except it I attempted.
So here is where you attempt to define what it is you mean by being Asain/Laotion.

I have to say I find it a bit offensive that you assume that I'm joking.
What does that say? That being trans-racial is so horrible, that I can't possibly be serious?
Would you, honestly, treat a trans-gendered person like this? Or, do they deserve your respect?

I do my best to treat everyone the same regardless of sex or race. I base my opinions on what people do and say.

 

[ForEverAfter]

The problem with the argument of past lives is the fact that our population has grown exponentially over the past 300 years, meaning there are too few human vessels in our past to accomodate the humans that exist today. Where do the new humans come from?

That criticism relies on a literal interpretation (or, at least, a limited understanding) of re-incarnation. The past life system is not (necessarily) linear...
Buddhist re-incarnation applies to all life in the universe (not just the human race) and it doesn't imply that there is a limited number of "souls".
It's easy to point out the flaw in any mythological allegory if you interpret it literally. The universe is vast. There are no "new humans".
Perhaps God is a fragmented infinite consciousness that co-exists in different "vessels" simultaneously and re-incarnation is not linear.

there are too few human vessels in our past to accomodate the humans that exist today

This is silly. There is no "human" beyond the human vessel, according to re-incarnation.
A human that exists today may have been a cockroach, or an amoeba, in a past life.

"Disproving" the past-life system by oversimplifying it (or literally interpreting it) is as clever/valuable as disproving Noah's Ark.
It's a little smug to think that this age-old mythological concept can be negated, via simple (rather obvious) logic.
The flaw you perceive is just the limitation of re-incarnation being interpreted literally and represented allegorically.
It is better to think of re-incarnation outside of time (or, in an infinite non-linear space).

 

[ForEverAfter]

3. What defines a man behaviorally
I top the charts in all three so I can say I am categorically a man beyond all reasonable doubt.

...Is there something in particular chemically that would make one "Asian"?
Behaviorally?

Hold on a second.
You haven't defined objectively what it means to be a man, in terms of behavior.
Your attempted definition, if objective, is seriously limited and potentially offensive.
Is a gay man less of a man then you are?

Please define objectively what it means to be a man, in terms of behavior, and I will define objectively what it means to be Laotian in terms of behavior... If you can't do it, then how can you expect me to?

(We're going in circles, here, buddy.)

You're now arguing agaisnt yourself.

No, I'm not.

You keep trying to blurr the lines between male and female as if gender doesn't even exist.
Maybe in make believe world they don't, but in real life there are differences physically, chemically, and psychologically.

What are the psychological differences?
Are they the same as the behavioral differences?

If not, define them both please.

I'm not attempting to "blur the lines between male and female".
You're already doing that for me, however, by being - evidently - incapable of objectively defining them beyond physicality/chemistry...

Even if we're limited to the physical / biological / chemical, trans-gender people (more often than not) do not have the basic chromosomal make-up of the gender that they believe they truly are... So, I don't really see the difference (on a physical / biological / chemical level) between being trans-gender and being trans-racial... If anything there is more of a physical difference between people born as men / women than there is between people born Asian / Caucasian... We are incapable of making a man into a functional woman, or vice-versa... The anatomical differences between genders is so vast that we'd have to entirely re-write their genetic code... Whereas the differences between races are (by comparison) largely superficial, right?

 

[One Thousand Words]

The math still doesn't add up. There were a billion people in 1800, now we have 7 billion.

There is no coincidence that those people who believe they have lived a previous life are usually lonely marginalised members of society who are desperate to validate they are more special than their current pathetic existence.

 

[Ninae]

There are few bodies to incarnate into compared to the number of souls. There can never be too many bodies on Earth. Souls line up for it.

 

[ForEverAfter]

The math still doesn't add up. There were a billion people in 1800, now we have 7 billion.

1. Assuming a linear system with a finite number of human souls that cycle through human vessels, you're right, it doesn't add up.
2. Assuming a linear system with a finite number of (non species specific) souls that cycle through (non species specific) vessels, you'd have to find and compare the populations of all species across the universe to disprove it.
3. Assuming a linear system with an infinitely fragmented higher consciousness, there is no issue.
4. Assuming a non-linear system with a finite number of human souls that cycle through human vessels, there is no issue.
5. Assuming a non-linear system with a finite number of (non species specific) souls that cycle through (non species specific) vessels, there is no issue.
6. Assuming a non-linear system with an infinitely fragmented higher consciousness (which is what I'm suggesting), there is no issue.

You can only disprove it, if you make a very specific assumption that lends itself towards disproving it.
You cannot disprove (2), (3), (4), (5) or (6)... Only (1)... And (1) doesn't reflect re-incarnation, according to traditional Buddhism.

There is no coincidence that those people who believe they have lived a previous life are usually lonely marginalised members of society who are desperate to validate they are more special than their current pathetic existence.

So all traditional Buddhists are lonely marginalised members of society, looking to validate their worth beyond their "pathetic" existence?
I think what you're talking about is the Western misinterpretation of re-incarnation...?

...

Attempting to disprove re-incarnation through logical (or scientific) processes is akin to pointing out the inaccuracies of Dumbo.
I'm quite sure the fact that elephants are incapable of flight isn't news to the screenwriter/s... and, maybe, you're missing the point?

Allegories aren't scientific, by nature, so why should they be treated as such?
Should we also treat scientific theory as allegory?

The story of Eden, if you treat it as a literal historical account, doesn't hold up.
But the point of the story remains, doesn't it?

Why are scientifically-oriented people intent on applying literal / real world standards to the mythological?
Are you incapable of suspending disbelief when watching a film or reading a novel?
Or, as I suspect, is your tendency to render narratives absurd (by over-simplification) selective?

There are few bodies to incarnate into compared to the number of souls.

God is infinite and the number of bodies, in any given universe, is finite.
There aren't a bunch of souls on a "waiting list".
(You have a tendency to anthropomorphize God.)

 

[Ninae]

You can't insult someone out of believing in re-incarnation (or into believing in anything else).

Of course it doesn't immediately make sense. That's the point of it. It's a way of being separate from God and the Whole to see what you'll do. When you're in unity-consciousness you always do the right thing but there's not much free will in the sense we have here. It's a chance to evolve much more quickly.

There are so many goals to reach. To realise God is one. To feel one with other points of consciousness is another.

 

[ForEverAfter]

Let's not insult each other.
Words like pathetic are divisive and unnecessary.

There are so many goals to reach. To realise God is one. To feel one with other points of consciousness is another.

People have a tendency to associate themselves with positive "points of consciousness" and dissociate themselves from the negative. You mentioned your past life as a dancer, for example, whereas it's relatively uncommon for (Western) people to refer to past lives as murderers or rapists or cockroaches.

There's no point in adhering partially to re-incarnation, as it suits you. The system implies that you are one with God / the universe... And, although you feel a connection to a particular event in the infinite non-linear timeline, you are actually everyone and everything... Aren't you?

 

[methamaniac]

You haven't defined objectively what it means to be a man, in terms of behavior.
Please do, and I will define objectively what it means to be Laotian in terms of behavior.

If you can't do it, then how can you expect me to?

I'm not asking for a strictly objective definition.
I'm just asking for a description at the very least.

Men tend to behave more agressively than females. The have a much quicker tendency to physically fight. Men tend to be less compasionate than women. They are less likely to talk about their feelings. They are more competitive. They typically place a higher value on physical strength. Etc etc

Ok,
Now....
do not let your definition/description of Asian/Laotion be an a critique of my examples of behaviors of a man.
I will be very disappointed if it is.
It's time to unveil your definition of what it means to you to be Asian.
You have him-hawed around long enough.

No, I'm not.

yeah, yeah you are.
You say physical attributes don't make a woman a woman.
So physical traits shouldn't make an Asian an Asian according to your comparison.

I'm not attempting to "blur the lines between male and female".
You're already doing that for me, however, by being - evidently - incapable of objectively defining them beyond physicality/chemistry.

Buddy, if you feel male and female doesn't exist
where does that leave you with your trans-racial trans-gender comparison? ?
If you do believe they exist what are the differences in your opinion?

We are incapable of making a man into a functional woman, or vice-versa... The anatomical differences between genders is so vast that we'd have to entirely re-write their genetic code.

I agree.
On a side note,
random accumulated mutations are incapable as well☺