|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 6, 2024 11:39:43 GMT -5
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. That story matches many that I have read too. There's no doubting that the condition of gender dysphoria is a real condition. I'd say a 'self' is experienced, and as part of that, a 'self' can be experienced as 'male' or 'female' (or anything else), but there's no 'self' beyond the experience of it. So any 'form' of self that is experienced would be conditioned/cultural/subjective. I believe the practical potential for gender dysphoria begins when the doctor says 'It's a boy!'....Or....'It's a girl!'. The doctors aren't wrong in their biological categorization, but as you well know....'what we are' is NOT a boy or a girl. So gender dysphoria (or age dysphoria or racial dysphoria) rests on the philosophical belief that there are 'actual' boys and girls, and that what we are is an 'actual' category. In the absence of categories....what then? 'Identity' is far less objective than trans folks (and most other folks too) have been lead to believe. Sexuality is different because there's no necessity for 'identity' in sexual orientation/attraction. One's sexual orientation precedes identity (hence why animals also demonstrate homosexuality too)...just as hunger and thirst precedes identity. In our world, people often do create an identity out of their sexual orientation (and there was value to that 50 years ago), but it's not as deeply culturally ingrained as the identity of 'boy/man/male' and 'girl/woman/female'. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 6, 2024 13:49:36 GMT -5
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. Some of the best 19th Century British literature is written by women and based at least in part on the exploration of a feeling of limitation because of gender roles. House of Mirth, Jane Eyre, Sense and Sensibilities, etc .. That line of original Victorian feminist thought is just one example of why, to my eye, the cultural aspect of the trans phenomenon is just as influential as the genetic. And that's not to say I disagree with anything you've written there. But the question of nature/nurture is about as distilled as any relative form of the existential question can get. And, at present, there is a very dark, flip-side to the trans movement in counterpoint to the positivity of individual liberty. It's also equally true that this dark side is being exploited by people who are genuine bigots. The richness of texture of social discourse, and the depth of the nuance to it is of a profound magnitude, but passion often leaves no room for allowance of this. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Apr 6, 2024 18:59:50 GMT -5
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. Some of the best 19th Century British literature is written by women and based at least in part on the exploration of a feeling of limitation because of gender roles. House of Mirth, Jane Eyre, Sense and Sensibilities, etc .. That line of original Victorian feminist thought is just one example of why, to my eye, the cultural aspect of the trans phenomenon is just as influential as the genetic. And that's not to say I disagree with anything you've written there. But the question of nature/nurture is about as distilled as any relative form of the existential question can get. And, at present, there is a very dark, flip-side to the trans movement in counterpoint to the positivity of individual liberty. It's also equally true that this dark side is being exploited by people who are genuine bigots. The richness of texture of social discourse, and the depth of the nuance to it is of a profound magnitude, but passion often leaves no room for allowance of this. People get worked up, and from what I see, it's the trans-movement side that is more hateful, but one would reasonably expect a greater incidence of negative emotional reactivity from a group that is characterised by comorbid psychological conditions (which largely explains why the narrative is so nonsensical). In this case you're a bigot if you say trans-women are men, or trans in sports isn't fair, puberty blockers harm children or that it's generally a harmful ideology. 'Bigot', 'transphobe' and 'hateful' simply refer to anyone who questions the vacuous slogans of the movement, and as such, they too become vacuous terms.
My point is, the narrative is convoluted and we can't mistake convolution for nuance.
I has a problem with feminine literature yesterday because I found out Beyonce covered Jolene - but changed the original "I'm begging you, please don't take my man," to, "I'm warning you. Don't come for my man". Since Beyonce's version changes the entire sentiment of the song, the verses were also changed, so it ended up being the old iconic tune, but about something else entirely. Dolly's Jolene was expressed from a humble and pleading position whereas Beyonce's is jealous and threatening. I felt enamoured by Dolly's expression, but I felt repulsed by Beyonce's message. I urge you to check the lyrics of Beyonce's version, because in direct contrast to the artistry of the original, they are vain, threatening and completely devoid of poetic nuance.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 7, 2024 16:37:33 GMT -5
Little thought I had today.
Many of the conversations and arguments we've had over the last 12 years here have centered on context, definitions, and pinpointing distinctions, for example, the difference between 'impersonal' and 'personal', Or for example, what it means to say that emptiness is form and form is emptiness. Or for example, the difference between 1st, 2nd and 3rd mountains. Or for example, the definition of 'mind', and the boundary between 'mind' and 'cognition'. Or for example, the distinction between 'SVP' and 'P'. Or the distinction between 'person' and 'self'. There's hundreds of examples, and I believe there has been value in these discussions (for me at least).
And it's fascinating that SO much of the arguments I now see happening in the world today are also centered on context, definitions and pinpointing distinctions. The content of the discussions is a little different (i.e there's no spiritual focus to speak of), but the arguments are very much of the same nature.
|
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Apr 7, 2024 18:28:12 GMT -5
Little thought I had today. Many of the conversations and arguments we've had over the last 12 years here have centered on context, definitions, and pinpointing distinctions, for example, the difference between 'impersonal' and 'personal', Or for example, what it means to say that emptiness is form and form is emptiness. Or for example, the difference between 1st, 2nd and 3rd mountains. Or for example, the definition of 'mind', and the boundary between 'mind' and 'cognition'. Or for example, the distinction between 'SVP' and 'P'. Or the distinction between 'person' and 'self'. There's hundreds of examples, and I believe there has been value in these discussions (for me at least). And it's fascinating that SO much of the arguments I now see happening in the world today are also centered on context, definitions and pinpointing distinctions. The content of the discussions is a little different (i.e there's no spiritual focus to speak of), but the arguments are very much of the same nature. To me that's not a thing because a woman is born with organs for childbirth and a man with impregnating organs. That's the way nature works. Other gender stories become convoluted because they are trying to skirt around what is true. There are also other physical differences such as body size, bone structures, musculature, heart and lung size, making males considerably bigger, stronger, faster and more powerful. Since they can't circumvent any of that, the trans movement goes after kids to prevent them from going through puberty, but their attempts to transition minors are extremely harmful to children. Firstly, children cannot consent and the parents are lied to and coerced into it, and children are being groomed from the time they start school.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 7, 2024 18:39:17 GMT -5
Little thought I had today. Many of the conversations and arguments we've had over the last 12 years here have centered on context, definitions, and pinpointing distinctions, for example, the difference between 'impersonal' and 'personal', Or for example, what it means to say that emptiness is form and form is emptiness. Or for example, the difference between 1st, 2nd and 3rd mountains. Or for example, the definition of 'mind', and the boundary between 'mind' and 'cognition'. Or for example, the distinction between 'SVP' and 'P'. Or the distinction between 'person' and 'self'. There's hundreds of examples, and I believe there has been value in these discussions (for me at least). And it's fascinating that SO much of the arguments I now see happening in the world today are also centered on context, definitions and pinpointing distinctions. The content of the discussions is a little different (i.e there's no spiritual focus to speak of), but the arguments are very much of the same nature. To me that's not a thing because a woman is born with organs for childbirth and a man with impregnating organs. That's the way nature works. Other gender stories become convoluted because they are trying to skirt around what is true. There are also other physical differences such as body size, bone structures, musculature, heart and lung size, making males considerably bigger, stronger, faster and more powerful. Since they can't circumvent any of that, the trans movement goes after kids to prevent them from going through puberty, but their attempts to transition minors are extremely harmful to children. Firstly, children cannot consent and the parents are lied to and coerced into it, and children are being groomed from the time they start school.
I'm not clear what point you are addressing in what I said, but I have the same concerns as you. In fact, my thoughts today are partly a result of a conversation I have had today with a 'trans woman'. I argued that a third 'gender inclusive' sports category might be a good practical compromise. Females get to keep their category, males get to keep their category, and those that identify as 'non-binary/gender fluid etc' would definitely like a third category. So it makes reasonable sense for a person that acknowledges that they are 'trans', to compete in a 'trans' (gender inclusive) category. But to the trans woman I am talking to, a 3rd category is unacceptable. This person wants to compete with 'females'. Quite remarkable really. In practical terms, the concept of 'trans' is entirely irrelevant to this person, even though it's pretty much the first word in their twitter bio. Ontologically, it's a mess. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 7, 2024 18:52:09 GMT -5
In non-dual terms (Tenka, please turn a blind eye haha)
Who/what we are is fundamentally beyond ideas, meaning and categories...and these are always shifting and changing.
But as humans, we do something odd. We create empirical categories that express what is meaningful to us, and then we identify with these categories. It's not enough for us to say, 'The biology of this body is empirically male'. We go further and say, 'I AM male'.
And therein lies the crux of trans-ideology confusion (whether it's gender, race, age, or anything else).
First folks believe that it's possible for us to be 'something'. Then they say, 'I'm not that something. I'm REALLY this something instead'. Thereby reinforcing the delusion/illusion that we are a category. It's doubling down on what is already false. It's double-trouble.
And I wonder about the therapists and counsellors that trans folk see. Do they ever explore the nature of identification? Certainly my counsellor did, 25 years ago. Doesn't seem like it's happening much.
|
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Apr 7, 2024 22:52:44 GMT -5
To me that's not a thing because a woman is born with organs for childbirth and a man with impregnating organs. That's the way nature works. Other gender stories become convoluted because they are trying to skirt around what is true. There are also other physical differences such as body size, bone structures, musculature, heart and lung size, making males considerably bigger, stronger, faster and more powerful. Since they can't circumvent any of that, the trans movement goes after kids to prevent them from going through puberty, but their attempts to transition minors are extremely harmful to children. Firstly, children cannot consent and the parents are lied to and coerced into it, and children are being groomed from the time they start school.
I'm not clear what point you are addressing in what I said, but I have the same concerns as you. In fact, my thoughts today are partly a result of a conversation I have had today with a 'trans woman'. I argued that a third 'gender inclusive' sports category might be a good practical compromise. Females get to keep their category, males get to keep their category, and those that identify as 'non-binary/gender fluid etc' would definitely like a third category. So it makes reasonable sense for a person that acknowledges that they are 'trans', to compete in a 'trans' (gender inclusive) category. But to the trans woman I am talking to, a 3rd category is unacceptable. This person wants to compete with 'females'. Quite remarkable really. In practical terms, the concept of 'trans' is entirely irrelevant to this person, even though it's pretty much the first word in their twitter bio. Ontologically, it's a mess. They just have to tell trans women that they are not eligible for women's teams (because they are not female), but they are eligible for either the male or open categories. It's that simple, but the powers that be pretend 'trans women are women', which everyone knows isn't true, but everyone pretends it is because everyone else pretends it is. Our responsibility is only to be truthful, but they will call you hateful, transphobic and bigot, and if you are a female athlete, you can shut your mouth or get kicked off the team. The way they are treating female athletes is appalling, so you can either support the lie and be pro trans athletes or uphold the truth and protect women and girls.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 8, 2024 0:27:52 GMT -5
I'm not clear what point you are addressing in what I said, but I have the same concerns as you. In fact, my thoughts today are partly a result of a conversation I have had today with a 'trans woman'. I argued that a third 'gender inclusive' sports category might be a good practical compromise. Females get to keep their category, males get to keep their category, and those that identify as 'non-binary/gender fluid etc' would definitely like a third category. So it makes reasonable sense for a person that acknowledges that they are 'trans', to compete in a 'trans' (gender inclusive) category. But to the trans woman I am talking to, a 3rd category is unacceptable. This person wants to compete with 'females'. Quite remarkable really. In practical terms, the concept of 'trans' is entirely irrelevant to this person, even though it's pretty much the first word in their twitter bio. Ontologically, it's a mess. They just have to tell trans women that they are not eligible for women's teams (because they are not female), but they are eligible for either the male or open categories. It's that simple, but the powers that be pretend 'trans women are women', which everyone knows isn't true, but everyone pretends it is because everyone else pretends it is. Our responsibility is only to be truthful, but they will call you hateful, transphobic and bigot, and if you are a female athlete, you can shut your mouth or get kicked off the team. The way they are treating female athletes is appalling, so you can either support the lie and be pro trans athletes or uphold the truth and protect women and girls.
yep agree! I believe an 'open' category would be a good solution (and would certainly suit the non-binary, gender fluid, ambigender, demiboys/girls etc etc etc!) But as said, some of the trans women would not want to participate in an 'open' category, which really illustrates the stubbornness of their position. I am tempted to throw the word 'narcissism' in there too. With that said, I've talked to some old school transsexuals that actually reject modern transgender ideology and believe it is not serving them. They see the growing animosity towards them and understand that it's not a good thing. Just like everywhere else, there is diversity of perspective among the overall group. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 8, 2024 1:17:34 GMT -5
anyway, I think I've splurged enough on the subject, so I'll probably let it go now.
|
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Apr 8, 2024 1:59:57 GMT -5
They just have to tell trans women that they are not eligible for women's teams (because they are not female), but they are eligible for either the male or open categories. It's that simple, but the powers that be pretend 'trans women are women', which everyone knows isn't true, but everyone pretends it is because everyone else pretends it is. Our responsibility is only to be truthful, but they will call you hateful, transphobic and bigot, and if you are a female athlete, you can shut your mouth or get kicked off the team. The way they are treating female athletes is appalling, so you can either support the lie and be pro trans athletes or uphold the truth and protect women and girls.
yep agree! I believe an 'open' category would be a good solution (and would certainly suit the non-binary, gender fluid, ambigender, demiboys/girls etc etc etc!) But as said, some of the trans women would not want to participate in an 'open' category, which really illustrates the stubbornness of their position. I am tempted to throw the word 'narcissism' in there too. With that said, I've talked to some old school transsexuals that actually reject modern transgender ideology and believe it is not serving them. They see the growing animosity towards them and understand that it's not a good thing. Just like everywhere else, there is diversity of perspective among the overall group. I personally would exclude trans athletes from competitive sports for these reasons. Males have a biological advantage, and trans men take performance enhancing drugs. Trans men therefore are excluded from any competition that is drug tested. Trans women can compete in their sex category (male). The solution would be to have an open category, but the problem is, to include trans-folk, it would have to be untested, and males on steroids will win all the games.
If a trans women wants to compete with females, the simple answer is, 'No, you are not eligible,' and if they in consider that to be unfair, cry me a river.
The underlying problem is the fallacy that there is gender identity. Like I'm a male, no doubt, and I even have blokey personality traits, but is there a 'man' in here? I don't think so. If I said there is a man in here, that's gender ideology - the whole idea of a gendered soul that is born into the right or the wrong body.
Before puberty I wasn't clearly a boy. It was hard to tell, so people would ask me all the time. 'are you a boy or a girl?' I told them I was a boy, but to my child-like mind, that meant I am male. Then I hit 13 and grew into a man, by which I mean an adult male.
The gender narrative is make believe. I mean there are roles to play and social norms that promote reproduction and the thriving of offspring, but it has to be imagined initially, and that construct has to be tested against what's true in the natural world. Then we have symbolic gender or that coheres with sex . I mean the whole world of status and positions is basically relations between symbolic people, which live people occupy and fulfill. For example, a President is a symbolic person which a series of living people step into and play - generation after generation. The president is powerful not because the living person has power, but because the symbolic position has that socially sanctioned narrative.
Identity can only exist if we confuse the living person with the symbolic archetype, but actually, we're just passing through and changing positions. Sometimes I'm a brother, and sometimes I'm an uncle, a friend and so on, and even though I am male, I never think about that, and it's not like I want everyone to affirm what a man I am.
We cannot separate the real world from the symbolic because society is symbolic, and the symbolic is inherently imaginary, but when checked against reality, it has to create a definitive duality. The story cannot be whatever you want it to be and also be a true story, so when a man plays woman that's as true as me-as-a-child playing cowboys and Indians. Can I now be affirmed as a native American because I wanted to be that as a child, or are there real world criteria I have to meet, like real ancestry? How come the same isn't being applied to gender, where sure you can play men and woman, but what's the criteria which makes the imagined gender a true story?
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 8, 2024 2:43:10 GMT -5
yep agree! I believe an 'open' category would be a good solution (and would certainly suit the non-binary, gender fluid, ambigender, demiboys/girls etc etc etc!) But as said, some of the trans women would not want to participate in an 'open' category, which really illustrates the stubbornness of their position. I am tempted to throw the word 'narcissism' in there too. With that said, I've talked to some old school transsexuals that actually reject modern transgender ideology and believe it is not serving them. They see the growing animosity towards them and understand that it's not a good thing. Just like everywhere else, there is diversity of perspective among the overall group. I personally would exclude trans athletes from competitive sports for these reasons. Males have a biological advantage, and trans men take performance enhancing drugs. Trans men therefore are excluded from any competition that is drug tested. Trans women can compete in their sex category (male). The solution would be to have an open category, but the problem is, to include trans-folk, it would have to be untested, and males on steroids will win all the games. If a trans women wants to compete with females, the simple answer is, 'No, you are not eligible,' and if they in consider that to be unfair, cry me a river. The underlying problem is the fallacy that there is gender identity. Like I'm a male, no doubt, and I even have blokey personality traits, but is there a 'man' in here? I don't think so. If I said there is a man in here, that's gender ideology - the whole idea of a gendered soul that is born into the right or the wrong body. Before puberty I wasn't clearly a boy. It was hard to tell, so people would ask me all the time. 'are you a boy or a girl?' I told them I was a boy, but to my child-like mind, that meant I am male. Then I hit 13 and grew into a man, by which I mean an adult male. The gender narrative is make believe. I mean there are roles to play and social norms that promote reproduction and the thriving of offspring, but it has to be imagined initially, and that construct has to be tested against what's true in the natural world. Then we have symbolic gender or that coheres with sex . I mean the whole world of status and positions is basically relations between symbolic people, which live people occupy and fulfill. For example, a President is a symbolic person which a series of living people step into and play - generation after generation. The president is powerful not because the living person has power, but because the symbolic position has that socially sanctioned narrative. Identity can only exist if we confuse the living person with the symbolic archetype, but actually, we're just passing through and changing positions. Sometimes I'm a brother, and sometimes I'm an uncle, a friend and so on, and even though I am male, I never think about that, and it's not like I want everyone to affirm what a man I am.
We cannot separate the real world from the symbolic because society is symbolic, and the symbolic is inherently imaginary, but when checked against reality, it has to create a definitive duality. The story cannot be whatever you want it to be and also be a true story, so when a man plays woman that's as true as me-as-a-child playing cowboys and Indians. Can I now be affirmed as a native American because I wanted to be that as a child, or are there real world criteria I have to meet, like real ancestry? How come the same isn't being applied to gender, where sure you can play men and woman, but what's the criteria which makes the imagined gender a true story?
yeah, a lot of that I agree with (and have expressed in my own way). There's a lot to comment on, but I think I'm talked out. Cheers for the chat. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Apr 12, 2024 14:06:07 GMT -5
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. In a way yer, butt in a way it's more about being at peace with what we are that is in experience of a male or female experience. We can't change that for the life of Reilly. Identity poker as some might say refers to swapping over one identity to another while trying to bypass an identity lol I just see an overwhelming association needed to be reversed or swapped from male to female or female to male. If one was at peace for instance at feeling more feminine whilst entertaining a male biological make up then perhaps there would be more peace doing that than chopping all your bits off and trying to change the natural order of things. I hope America is treating you well if you are still there. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Apr 13, 2024 0:18:41 GMT -5
Two interesting things to lookup:
The Cass report
Tickle vs. Giggle
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 21, 2024 14:48:08 GMT -5
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.
We can't change that for the life of Reilly. Identity poker as some might say refers to swapping over one identity to another while trying to bypass an identity lol I just see an overwhelming association needed to be reversed or swapped from male to female or female to male. If one was at peace for instance at feeling more feminine whilst entertaining a male biological make up then perhaps there would be more peace doing that than chopping all your bits off and trying to change the natural order of things. I hope America is treating you well if you are still there. yep, good choice of words. Putting it in terms of 'experience', rather than 'identity' is sensible. And yep, I agree that accepting any senses or feelings of 'femininity' would be the healthy approach. These senses/feelings are born out of cultural norms. If one feels 'strong' and 'aggressive', then one might associate that with maleness and then have a sense of 'being male'. If one feels 'gentle' and 'soft', then one might associate that with femaleness and then have a sense of 'being female'. It's just cultural stuff, and in different cultures, there might be completely different association. Our feelings tell us nothing about about an 'inner identity', because there is no 'inner identity' in the way that today's gender ideologists suggest. And with that said, as I think you suggested once, it might relate to past life issues, or perhaps other experiences on other timelines. |
|
