The 'trans' question.

[andrew]

The subject of 'transgenderism' or simply 'trans' is one that interests me a lot and I've talked about it a lot lately, mostly because it relates directly to the question... 'what is the nature of self?'

It often strikes me that the dysphoria that trans folks experience, which is essentially a severe and unpleasant identity crisis, is an invitation to the existential question of 'who/what am I?' Sadly, without spiritual background, or even philosophical education, most folks that experience this crisis end up in a very serious game of identity poker, and once the stakes are high, it can be very difficult to 'fold'.

To clarify, I would describe being 'trans' as having an inner experience that is incongruent with a biological/empirical category. Being 'trans' is only limited by the limits of 'mind' (and in one sense, there is limitless potential). Someone can be middle aged and experience themselves as much younger, and announce to the world that they are 'trans-20'. And there are people out there now identifying as cats and dogs, based on their inner experience....in this sense, 'trans-cat' or 'trans-dog'. But it can apply to any experience we have. One could be physically healthy, but 'feel' sick and be 'trans-sick'. One could be British, and experience themselves as American, and be 'trans-American'.

As said, the concept of 'trans'...in its simplest form, simply describes experience that is in contrast to our empirical or biological category.

The point at which trans-ideology gets very tricky, is the point at which a trans-person posits an actual 'inner identity'. You will hear folks speak of their 'authentic male self' or their 'inner female identity', or their 'true gender identity'. They accept the idea of a 'self/identity' as a concrete physical 'thing' (I often ask these folks if they can find this self/identity under a microscope), but they go further, and believe this 'self/identity' has actual quality. It could be sexed-gendered, racial, it could have an age. As said, the only limits are the ideas we create.

Today, a message caught my attention. Written by an articulate and mature 'trans-man', this person is someone I pay attention to because there is clarity in their use of language, even if they misunderstand the deeper existential issues. This person was explaining that they felt like a 'boy' from a very young age. I suggested that one could only feel like they are a 'boy', if they ALSO had a comparative reference for what it felt like to be a 'girl'. All dysphoria is dualistic and comparative in this regard. One must feel old, in order to also feel young. One must feel fat, in order to also feel thin. One must feel black, in order to also feel white.

And a humorous question arose within me, which I didn't ask (I aim to be tactful and sensitive in my communications with folks).....As both feelings must exist (one feeling of being a 'girl' and one feeling of being a 'boy), does this mean there are 2 inner selves fighting with each other to be the 'true' and 'authentic' one?

Anyway, the forum is quiet, and so I thought I'd share some random thoughts that I'd rather share here than on twitter.

Today's world is really where the spiritual rubber meets the road. The invitations to ask the existential questions seem so abundant these days.

[laughter]

Mu!

[lolly]

It's internal with personal identity, external what others think of you, social regarding gendered sentiment and behaviour, and it's biological.

If we separate inevitable reality from more ambiguous contingencies, only biology is completely immutable. Social realities carry some weight, but straying from convention is certainly possible, and society changes shape with shifting narratives, so it's powerful, but not real and observable to the degree that male and female are the way nature works. The perspective of others plays a huge role, mainly insofar as an identity is formed by approval and requires frequent 'affirmation'.

Ideology is mindless and doesn't consider or categorise confounding factors. Ideology is largely sloganistic: "Trans-women are women", "Transrights are human rights" etc. and when those truisms are questioned, there's hyperbole such as, "You deny I exist", "the genocide" and so forth. The conversation is mostly like, "Agree with our vacuous sloganism, or Bigot".

There has to a bit of real, a bit of symbolism/representation and a bit of imagination, but reality is the foundation, and the symbolic can't enter the purely imagined realm. Gender, the way we think of males and females, is the interface between culture and nature. Culture can't be reproduced without physical reproduction. To ensure its own survival, culture has traditional practices to ensure reproduction, marriage, be that in love-lock or arranged couplings. You can't reasonably say sex and gender are two different things when gender is the social positioning which ensures the continuation of sex, and therefore genetic, survival.

Sex was observed and described at birth, and this is the start of the social gender: "It's a boy". That infants path is largely written according to social norms that will afford him arenas of courtship, engagement, marriage, and children who by normative repetition, carry culture into the next generation.

The fact that sex and gender cannot be disentangled doesn't distract from the fact that it's only social symbolism's essential role in society makes them inseparable. Gender exists in the symbolic realm as sexual representation.

[andrew]

Apr 5, 2024 4:37:37 GMT -5 lolly said:

It's internal with personal identity, external what others think of you, social regarding gendered sentiment and behaviour, and it's biological.

If we separate inevitable reality from more ambiguous contingencies, only biology is completely immutable. Social realities carry some weight, but straying from convention is certainly possible, and society changes shape with shifting narratives, so it's powerful, but not real and observable to the degree that male and female are the way nature works. The perspective of others plays a huge role, mainly insofar as an identity is formed by approval and requires frequent 'affirmation'.

Ideology is mindless and doesn't consider or categorise confounding factors. Ideology is largely sloganistic: "Trans-women are women", "Transrights are human rights" etc. and when those truisms are questioned, there's hyperbole such as, "You deny I exist", "the genocide" and so forth. The conversation is mostly like, "Agree with our vacuous sloganism, or Bigot".

There has to a bit of real, a bit of symbolism/representation and a bit of imagination, but reality is the foundation, and the symbolic can't enter the purely imagined realm. Gender, the way we think of males and females, is the interface between culture and nature. Culture can't be reproduced without physical reproduction. To ensure its own survival, culture has traditional practices to ensure reproduction, marriage, be that in love-lock or arranged couplings. You can't reasonably say sex and gender are two different things when gender is the social positioning which ensures the continuation of sex, and therefore genetic, survival.

Sex was observed and described at birth, and this is the start of the social gender: "It's a boy". That infants path is largely written according to social norms that will afford him arenas of courtship, engagement, marriage, and children who by normative repetition, carry culture into the next generation.

The fact that sex and gender cannot be disentangled doesn't distract from the fact that it's only social symbolism's essential role in society makes them inseparable. Gender exists in the symbolic realm as sexual representation.

largely agree, yeah.

One of the difficulties with conversation these days is that 'gender' has changed meaning. In the 90s, at college, 'gender' was explained similar to the way you described. In simplest terms, it's the way that maleness and femaleness diversely expresses itself ('masculinity' and femininity'). And as biology can never be outside of culture...as you say.....sex and gender cannot be disentangled. Where there is 'sex' there is always 'gender', but whereas 'transgender ideology' would like folks to believe that this is a 'chicken and egg' situation....it's not. 'Sex' is fundamental...by definition, it's immutable (to use your word). First we define 'sex'...immutably, and then 'gender' comes with it.

In the old days, 'gender' made sense, but it's changed meaning now, such that it doesn't indicate 'cultural expression' as much as it does pronouns and identity. There are now dozens and dozens of pronouns and identities

www.lgbtqnation.com/2022/08/incomplete-list-gender-pronouns/

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gender_identities

I see expanding cultural norms as a good thing, but I see this more as a new narcissistic youthful fashion, more than anything. I don't really see this as expanding cultural norms.

Were you aware that under the umbrella of 'transgenderism' is the 'transsexual' branch (identity with the opposite sex), AND the 'non-binary/gender fluid/demi boy/girl/+100 identities' branch? It makes conversation incredibly confusing, because the 2 branches really have little to do with each other, in fact I think they undermine each other.

[tenka]

I genuinely feel sorry for folks that don't feel okay in themselves for whatever reason. Trans 'stuff' in my opinion is a difficult one. I mean I can accept for myself that I can identify as being a male in this lifetime, but it's no biggie. I don't tend to feel male or female in a way most of the time, I am just myself if peeps get me. I am sure many feel the same, but when there is a strong sway from one identity to another that goes against the grain of one's biological make up then there is something not quite right at play here.

There may well be a perfect reason for why peeps do, it certainly seems rife at the moment, butt maybe that's because it's a little bit more acceptable nowadays like being gay is.

I think personally that chopping your nuts off and undertaking hormone therapy won't solve what is at the heart of the issue. Changing your name from Aaron to Sharon won't help either.

[andrew]

Apr 5, 2024 14:17:19 GMT -5 tenka said:

I genuinely feel sorry for folks that don't feel okay in themselves for whatever reason. Trans 'stuff' in my opinion is a difficult one. I mean I can accept for myself that I can identify as being a male in this lifetime, but it's no biggie. I don't tend to feel male or female in a way most of the time, I am just myself if peeps get me. I am sure many feel the same, but when there is a strong sway from one identity to another that goes against the grain of one's biological make up then there is something not quite right at play here.

There may well be a perfect reason for why peeps do, it certainly seems rife at the moment, butt maybe that's because it's a little bit more acceptable nowadays like being gay is.

I think personally that chopping your nuts off and undertaking hormone therapy won't solve what is at the heart of the issue. Changing your name from Aaron to Sharon won't help either.

Based on what trans folks have told me, there's a 'relative' peace to be found in the medical surgeries and hormones, which could be taken as an indication of how unpleasant their experience is before. So I think it 'works' for some folks. But not others. And it's very drastic. And I believe it's born out of a fundamental misconception, that pretty much everyone in society has. Simply, that 'I' am a category.

I don't have any discernible sense of being 'male' or 'female', but that's largely because I've dug through the layers of identities and feelings around them. I remember what it was to like to have those feeling, and I know they are comparative. One can only 'feel' male, if they also 'feel' female. I also don't have a discernible sense of being '50', of being 'white', of being 'British'. But on the basis that any 'identity' has a felt component, one can be trans 'anything'. Look at all the Hollywood people with tons of plastic surgery, it's basically a 'trans' situation. They want their body to match how they feel.

I do believe that what is happening in schools is dangerous. My friend has a 5 year old daughter. Out of the blue she came home one day and said, 'I want to be a boy'. They had had a 'gender lesson' in class. My friend told her that she'd have to throw away her 'girl' toys and get 'boy' toys, and that seemed to resolve the matter very quickly. But that's the other problematic aspect here. In the last 60 years, we've come a long way in challenging gender norms, but now there is a regression happening. Rather than saying....'it's fine for boys to wear pink', it's becoming more like 'oh, if you want to wear pink, maybe you are ''actually'' a girl'.

If they are going to teach 'gender' in schools, then they should also go deeper into the subject of 'what is identity?....what is the self?....how we know who/what we are?' None of that is touched on...it's more like....'you can be who/what you want to be, based on how you feel'. Problematic.

[lolly]

I don't agree with the 'feel' because just stop for a moment and feel, and there's nothing but sensations. People think they want to be this or that and make emotional attachments to the idea, and if that becomes obsessive, they say "I feel like a ...", and do a Bruce to Caitlyn Jenner, as anyone is free to do, but Caitlyn is male, and is not a woman.

[andrew]

Apr 5, 2024 17:33:51 GMT -5 lolly said:

I don't agree with the 'feel' because just stop for a moment and feel, and there's nothing but sensations. People think they want to be this or that and make emotional attachments to the idea, and if that becomes obsessive, they say "I feel like a ...", and do a Bruce to Caitlyn Jenner, as anyone is free to do, but Caitlyn is male, and is not a woman.

Well, to give a simple example. 30 years ago, a bloke would go to a football game, and part of that experience would be feeling like a 'man'. One can feel manly. And in contrast one can feel feminine, or feel like a 'woman'.

The way we do this is first identifying with a category, and then associating that category with particular ideas, behaviors and feelings. So one then acts a certain way, or feels a certain sensation, and feels like a 'man'.

But this can apply to anything. One can feel like an old person or a young person. One can feel like a good person or a bad person. One can feel like a British person or an Aussie person. And in order to feel like one person, one must also feel like the other person.

So in the case of gender dysphoria, a baby is born, and given a category (based on observation). Culture associates the category with ideas, behaviors and feelings, and then one can potentially feel the 'opposite' of their biological category. And based on my conversations, this dysphoria can run very deep, I've had people tell me they felt dysphoric from their earliest memories.

When a trans person tells me about their experience, I generally believe them. But I disagree with the ideology of there being an essential 'gendered-sexed' identity that dictates how they feel. It's the idea of a 'true gendered self', or an 'inner gendered self'.

[lolly]

I don't think we can say feeling is the same as thinking, and if there are social rites like a footy match, then it's a nod to sex segregation, which I think there needs to be more of in Western society.

The categories male and female are truth categories, as opposed to arbitrary classifications, because in nature reproduction is sexual, and if you want to breed rats, you know what to do.

If people want to present and live as the other sex, they can, but they can't change sex regardless of how well they mimic it. The desire to change sex is impossible to sate, so a reasonable trans-sexual will say "I'm trans" or "I'm a ladyboy" or something that means they are male, but mimic being female. There's no reasonable moral claim against that in principle as long as women are not conflated with males. If we conflate 'women' with men it's an ethical minefield because the premise "I am a woman" is untrue - not only as a biological falsehood, but also as a symbolic fallacy.

The symbolic is all inclusive, but internally it is mutually exclusive. For example, male and female are included, but if male then not female. Good and bad are included, but if good then not bad. That's why IRL we accept there are men and women, there is good and bad, and so on, but we don't conflate them. Hence, for a male to say 'I am a woman' can't exist in the symbolic order because it has no regard for the real, and escapes to the purely imagined.

[andrew]

Apr 5, 2024 21:41:52 GMT -5 lolly said:

I don't think we can say feeling is the same as thinking, and if there are social rites like a footy match, then it's a nod to sex segregation, which I think there needs to be more of in Western society.

The categories male and female are truth categories, as opposed to arbitrary classifications, because in nature reproduction is sexual, and if you want to breed rats, you know what to do.

If people want to present and live as the other sex, they can, but they can't change sex regardless of how well they mimic it. The desire to change sex is impossible to sate, so a reasonable trans-sexual will say "I'm trans" or "I'm a ladyboy" or something that means they are male, but mimic being female. There's no reasonable moral claim against that in principle as long as women are not conflated with males. If we conflate 'women' with men it's an ethical minefield because the premise "I am a woman" is untrue - not only as a biological falsehood, but also as a symbolic fallacy.

The symbolic is all inclusive, but internally it is mutually exclusive. For example, male and female are included, but if male then not female. Good and bad are included, but if good then not bad. That's why IRL we accept there are men and women, there is good and bad, and so on, but we don't conflate them. Hence, for a male to say 'I am a woman' can't exist in the symbolic order because it has no regard for the real, and escapes to the purely imagined.

I agree with 90% of that. The technology isn't available for someone to change sex (I don't know if the technology ever could be available either). And I agree that what is empirically true, shouldn't be merged with what is subjectively true i.e there's a clear and significant distinction between 'feeling' like a man, and having the biology of a man. And that distinction matters. If I had a friend that was 'trans man' and they asked me to call them a 'man', I probably would.... informally and personally....but internally, I would still be honoring the formal/impersonal too i.e the empirical.

The only bit I disagree with is ''the categories male and female are truth categories''. I couldn't say that any categories are ''truth categories''. I would more likely say that sexual reproduction, procreation and birth are deeply and persistently meaningful throughout life. And it makes perfect sense that we have dualistic categories to talk about a dualistic process. I could potentially see value in having more than 2 sex categories though i.e creating more nuanced categories ('intersex' is already a legitimate concept). If the world decided it wanted to talk about alpha males and delta males and omega females and gamma females (for example), there might be room for that. I see more reason for having greater nuance in our sex categories than I do in having hundreds of gender categories.

[lolly]

Apr 5, 2024 22:28:14 GMT -5 andrew said:

Apr 5, 2024 21:41:52 GMT -5 lolly said:

I don't think we can say feeling is the same as thinking, and if there are social rites like a footy match, then it's a nod to sex segregation, which I think there needs to be more of in Western society.

The categories male and female are truth categories, as opposed to arbitrary classifications, because in nature reproduction is sexual, and if you want to breed rats, you know what to do.

If people want to present and live as the other sex, they can, but they can't change sex regardless of how well they mimic it. The desire to change sex is impossible to sate, so a reasonable trans-sexual will say "I'm trans" or "I'm a ladyboy" or something that means they are male, but mimic being female. There's no reasonable moral claim against that in principle as long as women are not conflated with males. If we conflate 'women' with men it's an ethical minefield because the premise "I am a woman" is untrue - not only as a biological falsehood, but also as a symbolic fallacy.

The symbolic is all inclusive, but internally it is mutually exclusive. For example, male and female are included, but if male then not female. Good and bad are included, but if good then not bad. That's why IRL we accept there are men and women, there is good and bad, and so on, but we don't conflate them. Hence, for a male to say 'I am a woman' can't exist in the symbolic order because it has no regard for the real, and escapes to the purely imagined.

I agree with 90% of that. The technology isn't available for someone to change sex (I don't know if the technology ever could be available either). And I agree that what is empirically true, shouldn't be merged with what is subjectively true i.e there's a clear and significant distinction between 'feeling' like a man, and having the biology of a man. And that distinction matters. If I had a friend that was 'trans man' and they asked me to call them a 'man', I probably would.... informally and personally....but internally, I would still be honoring the formal/impersonal too i.e the empirical.

The only bit I disagree with is ''the categories male and female are truth categories''. I couldn't say that any categories are ''truth categories''. I would more likely say that sexual reproduction, procreation and birth are deeply and persistently meaningful throughout life. And it makes perfect sense that we have dualistic categories to talk about a dualistic process. I could potentially see value in having more than 2 sex categories though i.e creating more nuanced categories ('intersex' is already a legitimate concept). If the world decided it wanted to talk about alpha males and delta males and omega females and gamma females (for example), there might be room for that. I see more reason for having greater nuance in our sex categories than I do in having hundreds of gender categories.

It's awkward when you have to deal with it personally, because you know it's not a man, but they want a boys' name and he/him etc. so you play along knowing you are affirming some bullshit - and when push comes to shove, she's not 'one of the boys'.

If male/female categories are not true, then you don't know what needs to be done to breed rats, so I ain't buying it. Intersex people are either male or female. There are malformations as is the case with any biological system, but it's rare enough to be statistically insignificant, and in all cases, sex can be determined with a simple cheek swab.

Once we depart from the pure objectivity of biological reality, we enter the symbolic, and we can and do categorise additional genders such as trans-woman and trans-man. There's no rule to say a person has to conform to conventional archetypes, and there are trans people in every culture, so trans-gender is a reasonable social category. If adult people want to transition, they're free - but a woman is not a man and a man is not a woman. If p then not q.

The symbolic has to pertain to the real, and is necessarily dualistic, so transgenderism will resolve to transitioned from what to what? That answer returns to the sexual duality which pertains to the actualities of biological reality. If we stray from the order of the symbolic, we drift into the imaginary where anything you might say is fine, but it has no reference to truth.

[tenka]

Apr 5, 2024 15:07:29 GMT -5 andrew said:

Apr 5, 2024 14:17:19 GMT -5 tenka said:

I genuinely feel sorry for folks that don't feel okay in themselves for whatever reason. Trans 'stuff' in my opinion is a difficult one. I mean I can accept for myself that I can identify as being a male in this lifetime, but it's no biggie. I don't tend to feel male or female in a way most of the time, I am just myself if peeps get me. I am sure many feel the same, but when there is a strong sway from one identity to another that goes against the grain of one's biological make up then there is something not quite right at play here.

There may well be a perfect reason for why peeps do, it certainly seems rife at the moment, butt maybe that's because it's a little bit more acceptable nowadays like being gay is.

I think personally that chopping your nuts off and undertaking hormone therapy won't solve what is at the heart of the issue. Changing your name from Aaron to Sharon won't help either.

Based on what trans folks have told me, there's a 'relative' peace to be found in the medical surgeries and hormones, which could be taken as an indication of how unpleasant their experience is before. So I think it 'works' for some folks. But not others. And it's very drastic. And I believe it's born out of a fundamental misconception, that pretty much everyone in society has. Simply, that 'I' am a category.

I am sure there is some peace attained for some butt it's never going to hit the actual mark is it. No matter what is done kant change how things actually are and were intended through the natural process.

It's each to their own I dare say, many I believe would come to the earth plane to go through this soul searching type of thing on this level just like being gay does. There is nothing wrong with going against the grain and expressing one selves as one see's fit, but there is a foundation in place that can't be changed no matter how much one wishes or desires for it not to be.

I wonder what makes a male want to be a female, it's not even some kind of non identified thing going on it's a deep mind set held within identity that wants to be turned on it's head. We can't even put it down to some spiritual awakening beyond the gender identity.

From peeps that you have talked with that are trans have they come up with a reason for why they don't want to be the gender they were born with?

[zendancer]

Apr 6, 2024 6:59:42 GMT -5 tenka said:

Apr 5, 2024 15:07:29 GMT -5 andrew said:

Based on what trans folks have told me, there's a 'relative' peace to be found in the medical surgeries and hormones, which could be taken as an indication of how unpleasant their experience is before. So I think it 'works' for some folks. But not others. And it's very drastic. And I believe it's born out of a fundamental misconception, that pretty much everyone in society has. Simply, that 'I' am a category.

I am sure there is some peace attained for some butt it's never going to hit the actual mark is it. No matter what is done kant change how things actually are and were intended through the natural process.

It's each to their own I dare say, many I believe would come to the earth plane to go through this soul searching type of thing on this level just like being gay does. There is nothing wrong with going against the grain and expressing one selves as one see's fit, but there is a foundation in place that can't be changed no matter how much one wishes or desires for it not to be.

I wonder what makes a male want to be a female, it's not even some kind of non identified thing going on it's a deep mind set held within identity that wants to be turned on it's head. We can't even put it down to some spiritual awakening beyond the gender identity.

From peeps that you have talked with that are trans have they come up with a reason for why they don't want to be the gender they were born with?

When my wife taught 6th grade students, she had a girl in one class who always wore boy's clothes, cut her hair short, and carried a string of keys on her belt like a night watchman. Carol liked her and got to know her. The girl told Carol that from the earliest age she knew that although she was biologically born as a girl, she had felt like a male, and she couldn't wait until she was old enough to transition to being male via surgery or whatever else was required. Her mother had offered her $200 just to wear a dress one single time, but the girl had always refused and had no interest in anything "girlish." All of the kids in her class who had known her for many years accepted that she was a "he" in a girl's body. This was fifty years ago, and it was the first human that my wife had ever met who was what we now call "trans." Carol was convinced that although her student was biologically a girl, something in her genetic makeup prevented her from feeling female in any sense.

I suspect that it's the same sort of biological phenomenon that makes people of the same sex attractive to one another rather than to members of the opposite sex. In the world of ballroom dance about half of all the male dancers are gay, and we've known many of them personally. They've all told us that they were attracted to men from the earliest age and never had any interest in, or attraction to, females, so culture does not seem to be a factor in those cases. We now know that homosexuality occurs in other animals, so this, too, indicates that something is biologically/genetically different in at least some percentage of people and animals attracted to the same sex.

In some recent studies it appears that female humans are more gender fluid than males, so cultural attitudes probably play a part in those attitudes, and we know lesbians who have been married to men, but later divorced and gave up on male relationships because of either overt mistreatment/abuse or a failure to communicate with men who had "a feminine side" to their personality. I have no idea what the actual percentages are, but clearly some percentage of humans identify with a different gender than how they are born, and culture does not seem to be a factor in that group of people.

[andrew]

Apr 6, 2024 6:41:59 GMT -5 lolly said:

Apr 5, 2024 22:28:14 GMT -5 andrew said:

I agree with 90% of that. The technology isn't available for someone to change sex (I don't know if the technology ever could be available either). And I agree that what is empirically true, shouldn't be merged with what is subjectively true i.e there's a clear and significant distinction between 'feeling' like a man, and having the biology of a man. And that distinction matters. If I had a friend that was 'trans man' and they asked me to call them a 'man', I probably would.... informally and personally....but internally, I would still be honoring the formal/impersonal too i.e the empirical.

The only bit I disagree with is ''the categories male and female are truth categories''. I couldn't say that any categories are ''truth categories''. I would more likely say that sexual reproduction, procreation and birth are deeply and persistently meaningful throughout life. And it makes perfect sense that we have dualistic categories to talk about a dualistic process. I could potentially see value in having more than 2 sex categories though i.e creating more nuanced categories ('intersex' is already a legitimate concept). If the world decided it wanted to talk about alpha males and delta males and omega females and gamma females (for example), there might be room for that. I see more reason for having greater nuance in our sex categories than I do in having hundreds of gender categories.

It's awkward when you have to deal with it personally, because you know it's not a man, but they want a boys' name and he/him etc. so you play along knowing you are affirming some bullshit - and when push comes to shove, she's not 'one of the boys'.

If male/female categories are not true, then you don't know what needs to be done to breed rats, so I ain't buying it. Intersex people are either male or female. There are malformations as is the case with any biological system, but it's rare enough to be statistically insignificant, and in all cases, sex can be determined with a simple cheek swab.

Once we depart from the pure objectivity of biological reality, we enter the symbolic, and we can and do categorise additional genders such as trans-woman and trans-man. There's no rule to say a person has to conform to conventional archetypes, and there are trans people in every culture, so trans-gender is a reasonable social category. If adult people want to transition, they're free - but a woman is not a man and a man is not a woman. If p then not q.

The symbolic has to pertain to the real, and is necessarily dualistic, so transgenderism will resolve to transitioned from what to what? That answer returns to the sexual duality which pertains to the actualities of biological reality. If we stray from the order of the symbolic, we drift into the imaginary where anything you might say is fine, but it has no reference to truth.

I know what needs to be done to breed rats, but I still wouldn't say that male/female categories are 'true', on the basis that we create them. Just as we could create different categories for different shapes and sizes of noses if we want to. We could lump half of all humans into one 'nose' category, and half in the other category, and then could identify with those categories.

I'm happy to say that 'male/female' refer to the empirical (rather than subjective/symbolic), but could not say they are 'true'.

Otherwise, I agree with your reasoning there.

[andrew]

Apr 6, 2024 6:59:42 GMT -5 tenka said:

Apr 5, 2024 15:07:29 GMT -5 andrew said:

Based on what trans folks have told me, there's a 'relative' peace to be found in the medical surgeries and hormones, which could be taken as an indication of how unpleasant their experience is before. So I think it 'works' for some folks. But not others. And it's very drastic. And I believe it's born out of a fundamental misconception, that pretty much everyone in society has. Simply, that 'I' am a category.

I am sure there is some peace attained for some butt it's never going to hit the actual mark is it. No matter what is done kant change how things actually are and were intended through the natural process.

It's each to their own I dare say, many I believe would come to the earth plane to go through this soul searching type of thing on this level just like being gay does. There is nothing wrong with going against the grain and expressing one selves as one see's fit, but there is a foundation in place that can't be changed no matter how much one wishes or desires for it not to be.

I wonder what makes a male want to be a female, it's not even some kind of non identified thing going on it's a deep mind set held within identity that wants to be turned on it's head. We can't even put it down to some spiritual awakening beyond the gender identity.

From peeps that you have talked with that are trans have they come up with a reason for why they don't want to be the gender they were born with?

Yeah, I agree there's a limit to the peace that can be attained, partly for the reason you gave, but also partly because the path they have chosen has deepened their grip on the falsely perceived/experienced nature of identity i.e trans folks 'objectify' identity. I mean, there's also no peace for me in trying to assert my sense of being a 'man', or being '50', or being 'British'....in simple terms, it's ego. I would say that ultimately, the greater peace is found in loosening our grip on identity.

The trans folks I have spoken to offer different reasons for why they don't want to live as the sex they were born with. Some say they don't know and don't care. Some say it is a cultural issue (which I agree with). Some say that they have the brain of the opposite sex (science shows there is an element of fact to this, but there are lots of problems with it). And some say they have an essential 'gendered-sexed' self i.e a male baby in the womb can have an inner female self. This last one is the one I find to be the most problematic.