Gender Identity

[AntaresVII]

Can we clear something up? What on earth do we mean by "gender"?
Before relatively recently, it was defined as synonymous with sex (cit. older edition of OED) and now it seems we're including social ideas about gender in the definition of gender while we're simultaneously claiming that gender should not be determined by social factors, but also still maintaining that it's not just biological sex.
So what it is then? If it's not either of the things used to commonly define it, what is it? It seems like the word is being used duplicitously and engendering (dare I use that word in this context) confusion as to what we're talking about, and on what grounds we agree.

*If gender is the vague or intuitive sense we have as to which sex-based archetype we more closely emulate, then it becomes a very different thing to say "my gender is female" than "my sex is female". "my gender is female" essentially means the same as "my nature vis-á-vis cognitive emulation is predominately feminine".
If that were how it were thought of, I think I'd have no objection to it, or to what would now be meant by "cross-gender identification".
As long as it's actually divorced from reference to biological sex I think it's perfectly acceptable to have a term for describing your cognitive lean.

* This is what is being referred to below as gender def. 3.

 

[Hadoblado]

Ah, nice looks like things are cleared up

With gender, there is a fight happening here and elsewhere about the terms, and imo that fight it stupid. It has become a political issue and that means you can predict people's response to a scientific/taxonomical question by their political lean. This happens with a lot of things in psychology and it's duuuuuumb.

Also, this area is very sensitive for a lot of people who have been treated poorly on an extended timescale as a result of their gender identity conflicting with societal prescriptions. Please proceed gently and respectfully.

Questions that people are going to have different answers to (my answers provided):
Is gender equivalent to sex, how you are perceived, or how you perceive yourself? Both how you perceive yourself and how you are perceived by others
Do you believe gender is binary, gradual, or a spectrum? Spectrum
How much does your sex at birth matter to your gender as an adult? Other than certain biological limitations such as giving birth, it shouldn't
Is it ethical for children to use puberty blockers? Yes
Is it ethical not to let them? No
Do transgender athletes have an unfair advantage? They can
If so, does such an advantage matter at a statistical level? Not that I've seen
Are we putting women at danger by allowing mtf women use women's bathrooms? Not that I've seen statistically substantiated.
Are we putting mtf women at risk by making them use men's bathrooms? Yes
Is transgenderism mental illness? No
Is gender dysphoria a mental health condition? Yes

I very like this channel as an entertaining point from which to explore the issue:

 

[Hadoblado]

Please delete me I am a double post

 

[AntaresVII]

Please proceed gently and respectfully.

^^

Questions that people are going to have different answers to:
Do you believe sex equals gender?

This is essentially a question of the definition of the word gender.
If we use the historical definition, yes.
If we use the current definition, not at all clear.
If we use the definition of gender as one's cognitive lean in regards to the archetypes of the masculine and feminine, no.

Do you believe gender is binary, gradual, or a spectrum?

Assuming definition 3, spectrum, as lean is based on overview of the balance of archetype emulation.

How much does your sex at birth matter to your gender as an adult?

Since sex and gender (by def. 3) are independent (though related overall), not at all.

Is it ethical for children to use puberty blockers?

If gender dysphoria is a mental illness and is a prerequisite for using them then maybe.

Is it ethical not to let them?

Without strong evidence that it has a high likelihood of significantly mitigating gender dysphoria as a mental illness, then (for parents/guardians) sure (as long as it's not shown to be harmful, doctors should be allowed to offer the option).

Do trans athletes have an unfair advantage?

I think there are two underlying questions here:
1. Should athletic competitions that have previously grouped participants by sex consider gender to be equivalent to sex? Which under gender def. 3 is a no.
2. Should athletic competitions that have previously grouped participants by sex group by gender instead? Since gender by def. 3 is no more sports related than whether you like D&D, I think it doesn't make sense.

As for the question itself, it's certainly the case that men overall tend to be physically stronger than women and in most strength-based athletic events the world champions are consistently male, so unless there's a direct correlation to lesser or greater strength based on cross-gender identification a physical advantage is the necessary implication.

If so, does such an advantage matter at a statistical level?

Since under the current state of things most men, including those who might cross-gender identify (under gender def. 3), are not willing to claim right to compete in women's athletic events — in part I'm sure because of societal pressures, but quite possibly for many because they have a sense that the point of these competitions is to discriminate by sex to make the competitions more fair/enjoyable for women by accounting for their overall biological disadvantages in these areas to men — I think we have a lack of statistical data, and that the data would bear out the advantage unless there's a direct correlation between gender identification and correspondingly higher or lower physical strength.

Are we putting women at danger by allowing mtf women use women's bathrooms?

In terms of more danger, general lack of data here I think is inhibitive of conclusion, though danger overall I think would remain low.
We might do better to ask outright if bathroom segregation should be based on sex or gender or possibly neither and make just make stalls more private.

Are we putting mtf women at risk by making them use men's bathrooms?

If unfounded social prejudice is removed, I think not.

 

[Daddy]

Forget gender, there should just be 2 bathrooms, one for number 2 and one for number 1. cause we shouldn't need a gas mask to use the bathroom. God damn commies, poop at home.

 

[Hadoblado]

Regarding the definition of gender, when I looked into it a while back it looked like when psychologists were polled about it, a decent proportion did not think sex and gender were different. However, when the polling was more specific to psychologists that deal with this area, the overwhelming majority saw it as necessary to separate the two.

I think that dictionary definitions deal with a lay understanding, and when you're talking about specifics then dictionaries aren't the best source (similar to Wikipedia basically). I would trust psychologist interpretation more than wikipedia or dictionary, and specialised psychologists more than a more general pool. Optimally we should understand why they believe the things they do, but I have not dug that far.

Regarding all these questions, I basically see the answers as following from what is statistically verifiable. My opinion will change with the evidence. To my knowledge:

Mtf women are not over-represented in women's brackets although there are individual cases in which they excel. There are people that push this narrative ignorantly or dishonestly such as Blair White (who I think dishonest), but such a pattern is not represented in the data. Some of the examples cited are complete farce where they have fabricated an entire scenario (again see Blair White).

MtF women are not over-represented in assaults or anything else that could happen in a women's bathroom to endanger other occupants. In fact, the opposite is true, with transgendered people being disproportionately the victims of all sorts of abuse, assault, rape, and murder.

Transgendered people are not involved in sending people to jail for harmless comments as a result of PC C16 abuse in Canada. This bill just made them a protected class in the same way people are protected from racial discrimination.

The existence of transgender people has become a political football. People (mostly conservatives that I'm aware of) fear-monger about the transgender threat using cherry-picked incidents or even complete hypotheticals, but these narratives propose patterns that to my knowledge do not exist.

 

[AntaresVII]

Regarding the definition of gender, when I looked into it a while back it looked like when psychologists were polled about it, a decent proportion did not think sex and gender were different. However, when the polling was more specific to psychologists that deal with this area, the overwhelming majority saw it as necessary to separate the two.

I think that dictionary definitions deal with a lay understanding, and when you're talking about specifics then dictionaries aren't the best source (similar to Wikipedia basically). I would trust psychologist interpretation more than wikipedia or dictionary, and specialised psychologists more than a more general pool. Optimally we should understand why they believe the things they do, but I have not dug that far.

I purposely cited the historical definition of gender, which I know has recently changed, and I did so for the purpose of showing that it had.
The current lay definition is unclear because of contradictory usage, as I explained.
If there is an existing technical definition of gender, as you say there seems to be, I would of course love to know what it is.
Since we don't have it, though, we need a clear, non-contradictory definition of gender that we can agree on to clarify our discussion. I introduced def. 3 of gender as a proposition for the definition that seems to be consistent with the general sense held as to what it is, but which is also non-contradictory.

Mtf women are not over-represented in women's brackets

My point was that they're hardly represented at all, and that we can expect their presence to increase if social pressures are removed and gender (as per def. 3) is still used to group contestants, potentially bearing out differently then the limited current data does.
But if def. 3 of gender is what becomes widely accepted, there isn't any reason to group athletics by gender, while the same reasons persist for grouping by sex unless men become physically weaker or women physically stronger overall.

 

[Hadoblado]

I can live with that.

Honestly, I think people should go with a new word because politicised language wars are predictable and a waste of time. But for the purposes of this conversation, I'm happy to use anything you want - and I think that fits the Cog's intention behind the thread but can't speak for him.

Here is an article proposing a mediation model between views on the definition of 'transgender' and attitudes towards people given that label. People who defined transgender in terms of gender identity were found to be less prejudiced, while definitions that included changing sex or gender were associated with more prejudiced attitudes. I found the article interesting but honestly can't remember how to interpret beta values in mediation models and don't really have more time to commit to this. I assume it's equivalent to the correlation coefficient indicating what proportion of variance in one variable is predicted by another but take it with a grain of salt.

 

[Muteki]

 

[AntaresVII]

MtF women are not over-represented in assaults or anything else that could happen in a women's bathroom to endanger other occupants. In fact, the opposite is true, with transgendered people being disproportionately the victims of all sorts of abuse, assault, rape, and murder.

Reading the article, the claim "refuted" was not that transgender people are more likely to assault people, but that segregating bathrooms by gender opens an opportunity for men who are likely to assault women to abuse the system to put themselves in a position of advantage without suspicion, which is definitely a fair concern. (also a support for the compromise of neutral bathrooms with private stalls)
It's a rather careless misrepresentation.

 

[AntaresVII]

@Muteki
Ah, but you see, water is symbolic of chaos (just look at those waves) and chaos of course is is symbolically tied to the feminine (yin yang), so BOTH images are equally feminine. Leaving only the frames as reference, and thus the left door for males.

 

[Hadoblado]

Oh, the article linked was more a point of interest than something in specific support of my views on all the aforementioned questions. I read the article after making the questions post. I can see why you thought it was though, so my bad.

The reason I supplied the article was more to highlight the importance of how you define things, since this could potentially indicate or translate into prejudice (hence the summary underneath).

 

[Black Rose]

Pink brains and Blue brains makes a lot of sense.
That would be how I define gender initially.

 

[AntaresVII]

Solid argument in line w/ this discussion, rap is nice bonus.

 

[onesteptwostep]

This whole gender problem and the transgender issues is more of a problem that stems from the commericalization and extreme liberation of sexuality when society at large is not ready for it. The more we normalize sexuality as a commodity, the more disorder society will face regarding gender or issues of sexuality. People back then weren't prude because they were backwards, they had a reason for being it so strict. Humans are too dumb and distracted by sex to really have a more liberal culture of sexuality.

In other words, unless people are well educated enough about sexuality, there are going to be dumb debates about this crap, and the politicians will chase after this political kite until they fall off the metaphorical cliff, along with the lemmings.

Sex should be about intimacy and commitment, not about quenching the sex drive. I find it odd that people would do one night stands to fill that lust, but then to go through that shame process.

I blame the 2nd wave feminists. Attacking the institution of marriage is an attack on humanity- without heterosexual intercourse, we would literally not exist.

 

[AntaresVII]

without heterosexual intercourse, we would literally not exist.

ArE yOu ChalLeNgInG hOMosExUaLs RiGht nOt tO eXisT
Also, nicely said.

Sex should be about intimacy and commitment, not about quenching the sex drive.

A major part of Jung's split with Freud was that Jung disagreed with him that libido alone was responsible for the formation of the core personality.
If you think in terms of our psyche's purpose being to drive the propagation of ourselves and our I think it makes sense, since raising children and improving the lives of everyone is definitely necessary for long-term and large-scale human survival, but has little to recommend it in the way of satisfying sexual drive.

My sense is that acting in support of long term survival of all people is what causes us to experience "meaning" and that this includes morality (hurting others to selfishly survive yourself hurts the overall survival and so is non-meaningful and wrong), and for that reason means that saying the point of life is propagation doesn't go against the near-universal fundamental religious beliefs, which suggests the possibility that religion is playing an important but ill-recognized (and to be fair probably imperfect) part in our natural existence.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Freud was an idiot who had a fetish and Jung was just a mystic monk of the West.

Those two aren't particularly bright. Freud might have gotten the psychological, psychiatry ball rolling, but he was an idiot for the most part.

 

[Black Rose]

transgender and transsexual can be a corollary. but transgender is not necessarily related to transsexual. I can simply be a boy or girl regardless of sex or sex drive. It is not about if society is sexually liberated or not. A tomboy is a tomboy in any time period. There have always been trans individuals but they have not always been free to be themselves. Saying that trans issues stem from recent sexual liberation is just inaccurate. The trans issues have always been there, the point is trans people only were able to express them until recently, sexual liberation did not create the issues but brought them to light.

 

[AntaresVII]

Freud was an idiot who had a fetish and Jung was just a mystic monk of the West.

Well, ok, but forgive me if I don't take just your word for it.

Actually, I was mainly interested in your thoughts on the idea that the meaning of human existence is found (i.e. experienced) in optimally serving self and special propagation, specifically as a consequence of our psyches' design, and that this doesn't conflict with the basic shared concepts of most religion.

 

[AntaresVII]

transgender is not necessarily related to transsexual.

On an official level this is true, and if using gender def. 3 "transgender" equates to what I've been referring to as "cross-gender identification".
However, lay usage, in part because of many trans activists still claiming that biological sex is arbitrary, transitive with gender identity, or nonexistent, remains as I see it still charged with the issues of transsexuality, and thus not (at this point at least) a good way to refer to cross-gender identification, as it exists under gender def. 3.

I can simply be a boy or girl regardless of sex or sex drive.

It's also an issue of confusion if you can say "I'm a boy/girl" and it can mean either of "I'm male/female" or "my gender (def. 3) is male/female".
It would be nice to have separate terms for each.

Also, everyone, I would like to stop having to add "(def. 3)" to every mention of gender, so if we agree on that definition for the purposes of this discussion it would be nice if everyone could say so.
The definition and the reasons for using it are here (post #51) if you want to review them.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Freud was an idiot who had a fetish and Jung was just a mystic monk of the West.

Well, ok, but forgive me if I don't take just your word for it.

Actually, I was mainly interested in your thoughts on the idea that the meaning of human existence is found (i.e. experienced) in optimally serving self and special propagation, specifically as a consequence of our psyches' design, and that this doesn't conflict with the basic shared concepts of most religion.

Well if you want to be called an animal (a subspecies of an primate), you can believe in the evolutionary propagation of the best genes or memes or whatever, but humans, (i.e. person imbued with a sense of the transcendence), our meaning extends beyond just species propagation. Humans strive for knowledge, truth, and transcendence. We find a lot of that in emotional, spiritual, or judicial fulfillment. Those things were called honor, glory and power back in the day.

Now a lot of that devolved into finding happiness in helping others, like the family, the community, the country, or literally the world (various activisms, i.e. climate change, nuclear non-proliferation, pacifism, fighting disease and poverty, the things the UN does).

There really is no meaning in having an offspring and leaving a "legacy" for yourself when you yourself don't really even understand why you're doing it in the first place. That's just conformity, doing what others do, which is ironic because people don't even know why *others* do it in the first place. People are social lemmings. Not much different from animals in that sense. But the Christian sense of the word human, is someone who is made in, or to reflect the, image of God.

 

[AntaresVII]

Well if you want to be called an animal (a subspecies of an primate), you can believe in the evolutionary propagation of the best genes or memes or whatever, but humans, (i.e. person imbued with a sense of the transcendence), our meaning extends beyond just species propagation.

I think I failed to make clear an important part of the idea: that our existence is meaningful as such, that the aim of existing things is to feel themselves alive, (both on the individual and collective level) and that our experience of meaning is derived from acting such as benefits our individual and collective existence.
In short, the purpose or "meaning" of our existence is to take joy in existence itself.

Humans strive for knowledge, truth, and transcendence. We find a lot of that in emotional, spiritual, or judicial fulfillment. Those things were called honor, glory and power back in the day.

Knowledge (of truth) is a major necessity for our continued existence. Truth is reality and to know truth is to see clearly the world in which we live.
Transcendence need not be any more complicated than being in union with truth and the purpose of existence: Seeing clearly that we might not walk into walls or holes and holding sight of our aim of enjoying being as well as possible. If God is in harmony with truth (and thus reality) then God isn't cut out of the picture either.
Emotions at least appear to exist to help us live, so proper emotional fulfillment should align with promoting existence.
Spirituality basically boils down to experiencing meaning (again, this does not mean it excludes the concept of God) and the practice of religion tends towards promoting optimal existence as well, which makes sense if their goal is to help us understand greater truths of existence that we haven't "proven" but that are necessary to understand for a meaningful existence nonetheless.
Justice is a product of morality which exists to protect and promote meaningful existence so it fits right in with everything else.
Honor is the fulfillment of morality, glory the joy in conquering our own weakness, allowing us to better live, and power the capability to live more fully, which is again the purpose of existence.

Now a lot of that devolved into finding happiness in helping others, like the family, the community, the country, or literally the world (various activisms, i.e. climate change, nuclear non-proliferation, pacifism, fighting disease and poverty, the things the UN does).

I think the issue here is that, in consequence of the devaluation of the individual, collective existence had been practiced to the detriment of individual existence (which is really stupid since the collective only exists as long as the individuals do), leading to weaker, and thus less meaningful and joyful human existence.
Thus, the issue is simply that we need to regain proper balance in our respect for the individual's existence in relation to the collective.

the Christian sense of the word human, is someone who is made in, or to reflect the, image of God.

I think the Christian sense of God is also one in which God's existence is at least not contradictory with our or God's existing for the sake of the inherent joy and value of existence, and possibly including the exact aim of leading mankind to be able to maintain meaningful existence.

So, again, and to end, I think the idea that existence is inherently meaningful and valuable is one that is non-contradictory to, and even harmonious with, religious belief.

 

[AntaresVII]

Back on topic w/ the thread:

If we agree to define gender as the male/female archetype one most closely emulates (or seeks to), then it seems to me that transsexuality becomes clear as being at best a foolish denial of reality, at worst the mental-disorder side of what is currently called gender dysphoria.

Under our definition of gender, "gender dysphoria" loses meaning since it's not possible to be "stuck in the wrong gender". The closest to it would be feeling pressured into a gender role you don't identify with.
The mental disorder, being about feeling uncomfortable in your own skin, becomes an issue of sexuality.

If atypical gender identification is freely accepted while it is also made clear that gender and sex are distinct and that sex unlike gender is fixed, it should be clear to all that atypical gender identification is not a mark of not belonging in one's sex group, and thus "sexual dysphoria" as I'll call it, should not occur in relation to gender identification.

But since total acception of atypical gender identity is not going to occur overnight or probably ever, sexual dysphoria in relation to atypical gender identity is likely a given, which brings up the question of how sexual dysphoria should be treated if it is incurred by a person's being inculcated with prejudice against their own gender identity (that being the case because to believe that one must be a certain sex to identify with a certain gender is the very nature of gender-based prejudice).

I would think that therapy, not surgery (or puberty blockers, but that doesn't rhyme), should be the recommended course of treatment for such a person.


Also, now, another question: Gender thus defined, should bathrooms be segregated by sex or gender? Personally I'm all for unisex with private stalls, but between the two I don't see that it makes any sense to segregate by gender since bathrooms aren't a social gathering place (cue jokes about women using the bathroom in groups thousands strong) and without prejudice, and with the distinction between sex and gender, there's no reason to feel out of place using a bathroom with people of your same sex simply because of differing gender identification.

I would apply this reasoning equally to locker rooms, sports, and any segregation by sex that has sex-based reasons for being so.

 

[Hadoblado]

Back on topic w/ the thread:

If we agree to define gender as the male/female archetype one most closely emulates (or seeks to), then it seems to me that transsexuality becomes clear as being at best a foolish denial of reality, at worst the mental-disorder side of what is currently called gender dysphoria.

Under our definition of gender, "gender dysphoria" loses meaning since it's not possible to be "stuck in the wrong gender". The closest to it would be feeling pressured into a gender role you don't identify with.
The mental disorder, being about feeling uncomfortable in your own skin, becomes an issue of sexuality.

If atypical gender identification is freely accepted while it is also made clear that gender and sex are distinct and that sex unlike gender is fixed, it should be clear to all that atypical gender identification is not a mark of not belonging in one's sex group, and thus "sexual dysphoria" as I'll call it, should not occur in relation to gender identification.

But since total acception of atypical gender identity is not going to occur overnight or probably ever, sexual dysphoria in relation to atypical gender identity is likely a given, which brings up the question of how sexual dysphoria should be treated if it is incurred by a person's being inculcated with prejudice against their own gender identity (that being the case because to believe that one must be a certain sex to identify with a certain gender is the very nature of gender-based prejudice).

I would think that therapy, not surgery (or puberty blockers, but that doesn't rhyme), should be the recommended course of treatment for such a person.


Also, now, another question: Gender thus defined, should bathrooms be segregated by sex or gender? Personally I'm all for unisex with private stalls, but between the two I don't see that it makes any sense to segregate by gender since bathrooms aren't a social gathering place (cue jokes about women using the bathroom in groups thousands strong) and without prejudice, and with the distinction between sex and gender, there's no reason to feel out of place using a bathroom with people of your same sex simply because of differing gender identification.

I would apply this reasoning equally to locker rooms, sports, and any segregation by sex that has sex-based reasons for being so.

Male/female archetype? I thought we went with option 3 which is a spectrum? It sounds like we're again not on the same page.

Also I thought we were being gentle/respectful? Equating transsexuality with a foolish denial of reality, or a mental illness, does not seem gentle or respectful or even understanding.

//wokescold
I will send someone over to start counting your body hair shortly.

I don't think gender dysphoria loses meaning.
Transexual =/= transgender =/= gender dysphoric.

Gender dysphoria (GD) is the distress a person feels due to a mismatch between their gender identity and their sex assigned at birth. People with gender dysphoria are typically transgender.

Transgender people have a gender identity or gender expression that differs from the sex that they were assigned at birth. Some transgender people who desire medical assistance to transition from one sex to another identify as transsexual. Transgender, often shortened as trans, is also an umbrella term.

Transexual: a transgender person whose bodily characteristics have been altered, sometimes through surgery or hormone treatment, to bring them into alignment with their gender identity.

So if you feel like a male when you were born with female sex organs, but you're not unhappy about it, you are transgender but you don't have gender dysphoria. If you then have a surgery or other alteration to align your biology closer with your gender identity, you are transgender and transexual.

I don't think total acceptance is realistic or important. You can't please everyone. I think the goal should be to overall improve attitudes and reduce prejudice and discrimination and make it so that it's no longer the norm. It'll still probably happen, but it should be the shark not the ocean.

I would think that therapy, not surgery (or puberty blockers, but that doesn't rhyme), should be the recommended course of treatment for such a person.

I understand why you might think this, but I would encourage you to recognise that this opinion is unsubstantiated. The reason these treatments are still used is because the evidence supports their efficacy (albeit, the evidence is not rock solid, there definitely needs to be more research). These recommendations are not given lightly. Doctors and shrinks should recommend what has been shown to work, not what they think sounds like it will work.

2010 metastudy cited 200 times: Here
2018 metastudy cited 20 times: Here

So we might eventually find that the evidence suggests that we shouldn't recommend gender affirming surgery or hormones. When that happens I will change my view and doctors probably (read: should) too.

 

[AntaresVII]

Male/female archetype? I thought we went with option 3 which is a spectrum? It sounds like we're again not on the same page.

Spectrum is variance in balance between the two. The point being that we are all capable of both sides.

Also I thought we were being gentle/respectful? Equating transsexuality with a foolish denial of reality, or a mental illness, does not seem gentle or respectful or even understanding.

Alright, fair enough, strike foolish, and since it doesn't come up here cut out disorder.

I don't think gender dysphoria loses meaning.
Transexual =/= transgender =/= gender dysphoric.

I go over this again below

Gender dysphoria (GD) is the distress a person feels due to a mismatch between their gender identity and their sex assigned at birth.

My point is that if people in general accept atypical gender identification there shouldn't be that distress, because they should know that the mismatch is normal, natural (though atypical), and not a problem.
Also, this definition is using the self-conflicting definition of gender.
Also, just since I'm looking so much at definitions, could I get the source?

Transgender people have a gender identity or gender expression that differs from the sex that they were assigned at birth.

Yes. Though bc of the current lack of consistency with the definition of gender, transgenderism is still linked in lay usage to transsexuality, thus my preference of "atypical/cross- gender identification".

Some transgender people who desire medical assistance to transition from one sex to another identify as transsexual.

Even if you don't identify as transsexual, if you do this, you are by definition transsexual.

Transexual: a transgender person whose bodily characteristics have been altered, sometimes through surgery or hormone treatment, to bring them into alignment with their gender identity.

To "bring alignment" between sex and gender under gender def. 3 is to imply the prejudice that gender is determined by sex and thus that your gender can be "misaligned" with your sex, whereas without prejudice there is no "correct" gender-sex correspondence. That's why I'm claiming ground to say transsexuality is an issue.

So if you feel like a male

Gender or sex? If we're talking about "feeling like a different sex" being valid as a legitimate claim of reality, we're back to conflicting with science, except now we're straight up saying that biological sex is variable.

when you were born with female sex organs, but you're not unhappy about it,

If you display masculine traits as a sexual female, and if you weren't told (indirectly or directly) all your life that you're less of or not a real woman bc of it, and were in fact directly told that this disparity is normal natural and not a problem, why would you care what your sex is in relation to your gender identity? As I said before, the vary nature of gender-based prejudice is the idea that you have to be a certain sex to identify with a certain gender, which is exactly the motivation of transsexuality.

you are transgender but you don't have gender dysphoria. If you then have a surgery or other alteration to align your biology closer with your gender identity, you are transgender and transexual.

Again, there is no possibility of alignment or misalignment if prejudice is removed.

I don't think total acceptance is realistic or important.

I used totality for purpose of demonstration, not claim of realistic or needful goal

You can't please everyone.

And for that reason we should of course be considerate and understanding towards transsexual people. We should not, however, indulge anyone in the fantasy that they can change reality by not liking it. Life freaking sucks, and not being able to experience being actually and fully a member of the opposite sex even though you primarily emulate their archetype is pretty low on the list of awful things you have to endure. So if someone wants to pretend they aren't the sex they are, be nice to them regardless, and where appropriate (God forbid you think they might benefit by confronting reality), maybe refer them to professional help.
But if someone wants to make legal claims of its legitimacy there is drawn the line.

I think the goal should be to overall improve attitudes and reduce prejudice and discrimination and make it so that it's no longer the norm. It'll still probably happen, but it should be the shark not the ocean.

Yes, of course.

I would think that therapy, not surgery (or puberty blockers, but that doesn't rhyme), should be the recommended course of treatment for such a person.

I understand why you might think this, but I would encourage you to recognise that this opinion is unsubstantiated.

Since the underlying motivation for the people we're talking about to do this is internal prejudice against the very cross-gender identification they participate in, I really don't see how we could possibly justify ignoring the cause to treat the symptoms by fabricating a falsehood.

The reason these treatments are still used is because

of the issue of the definition of gender. The same people are at once claiming that gender is not fixed to biological sex and can thus be changed, and that such a change then constitutes a biological fact. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If gender indicates sex, gender must be fixed, because sex is fixed. If gender is not fixed, it cannot indicate sex, because sex is fixed. The only way around the issue is to deny science or logic.

the evidence supports their efficacy.

Because it fulfills the misconception. If your stress is a result of internal gender prejudice as fixed-to-sex conflicting with your own atypical identification and you fabricate the illusion for yourself that your sex has changed, then of course it would be a comfort to you, since according to your prejudice you are now the "right" sex for exhibiting that gender. Even this cannot succeed completely though, since the illusion of sex change will never be complete. But even if it were flawless, the real issue would still be being ignored.

These recommendations are not given lightly.

But they are given wrongly, treating the symptoms not the source.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Well if you want to be called an animal (a subspecies of an primate), you can believe in the evolutionary propagation of the best genes or memes or whatever, but humans, (i.e. person imbued with a sense of the transcendence), our meaning extends beyond just species propagation.

I think I failed to make clear an important part of the idea: that our existence is meaningful as such, that the aim of existing things is to feel themselves alive, (both on the individual and collective level) and that our experience of meaning is derived from acting such as benefits our individual and collective existence.
In short, the purpose or "meaning" of our existence is to take joy in existence itself.

Humans strive for knowledge, truth, and transcendence. We find a lot of that in emotional, spiritual, or judicial fulfillment. Those things were called honor, glory and power back in the day.

Knowledge (of truth) is a major necessity for our continued existence. Truth is reality and to know truth is to see clearly the world in which we live.
Transcendence need not be any more complicated than being in union with truth and the purpose of existence: Seeing clearly that we might not walk into walls or holes and holding sight of our aim of enjoying being as well as possible. If God is in harmony with truth (and thus reality) then God isn't cut out of the picture either.
Emotions at least appear to exist to help us live, so proper emotional fulfillment should align with promoting existence.
Spirituality basically boils down to experiencing meaning (again, this does not mean it excludes the concept of God) and the practice of religion tends towards promoting optimal existence as well, which makes sense if their goal is to help us understand greater truths of existence that we haven't "proven" but that are necessary to understand for a meaningful existence nonetheless.
Justice is a product of morality which exists to protect and promote meaningful existence so it fits right in with everything else.
Honor is the fulfillment of morality, glory the joy in conquering our own weakness, allowing us to better live, and power the capability to live more fully, which is again the purpose of existence.

Now a lot of that devolved into finding happiness in helping others, like the family, the community, the country, or literally the world (various activisms, i.e. climate change, nuclear non-proliferation, pacifism, fighting disease and poverty, the things the UN does).

I think the issue here is that, in consequence of the devaluation of the individual, collective existence had been practiced to the detriment of individual existence (which is really stupid since the collective only exists as long as the individuals do), leading to weaker, and thus less meaningful and joyful human existence.
Thus, the issue is simply that we need to regain proper balance in our respect for the individual's existence in relation to the collective.

the Christian sense of the word human, is someone who is made in, or to reflect the, image of God.

I think the Christian sense of God is also one in which God's existence is at least not contradictory with our or God's existing for the sake of the inherent joy and value of existence, and possibly including the exact aim of leading mankind to be able to maintain meaningful existence.

So, again, and to end, I think the idea that existence is inherently meaningful and valuable is one that is non-contradictory to, and even harmonious with, religious belief.

First off, you're a hedonist. Secondly, Christian values and hedonism are incompatible. "Finding joy in life" is just flowery language to say that the point of life is to experience pleasure. There is a difference between living for God and living for your own.

Lastly, you do not seem to understand what transcendence is. Transcendence is something that goes beyond our natural world; beyond reason, beyond life, beyond our experiences. What you're talking about is immanence.

 

[AntaresVII]

First off, you're a hedonist.

No, I'm not, because

Secondly, Christian values and hedonism are incompatible. "Finding joy in life" is just flowery language to say that the point of life is to experience pleasure.

meaningful existence is not pleasure. The joy of life is not pleasing yourself. My claim is that the joy in life is living. One does not live for joy. One joys for life.
Life itself is the end and aim, and

There is a difference between living for God and living for your own.

my claim is that it is the aim of all existing things, including God.

Lastly, you do not seem to understand what transcendence is.

That may be

Transcendence is something that goes beyond our natural world; beyond reason, beyond life, beyond our experiences.

but our "natural" (which really just means 'understood') world is simply the part of the whole that we currently know. Transcendence then is moving into the unknown, but not outside the world itself, as the world is defined as all that is, and thus whatever might be transcended to is already part of the world. So transcendence is based on coming to know things, as once they are know they are no longer transcendent.
Beyond life meaning mortal life, sure, but if we don't assume that existence ends at mortal death then there is nothing that is beyond life.
Beyond our experiences either means simply that the experience is new to us, or that it is beyond capability of experience, and thus cannot affect us in any way, as that would be experienced, and thus really doesn't exist by any meaningful definition. I suppose you mean the first, which supports transcendence as obtaining new knowledge or sight of the yet unknown world.

What you're talking about is immanence.

That too, sure.

 

[Hadoblado]

I get the definitions by googling "define _____" and posting the first thing that fits the structure of my post. I'm not using it as a definitive authority, just as a loose point of reference. So long as we're using terms to mean the same thing then I'm happy.

Spectrum is variance in balance between the two. The point being that we are all capable of both sides.

Hmmm I might not have been specific enough about this. When I said "binary, gradient, or spectrum" I meant:

Binary: Gender includes males and females and that is it
Gradient: Gender includes males and females and everything in between
Spectrum: Gender includes males and females and varying aspects of everything in between and all sorts of open-ended potentials [insert stock image of helicopter here].

For example, autism is a spectrum, but you aren't just more or less autistic. There is a cluster of symptoms and autists diverge wildly in which ones they have and to what extent. Just like how colour is a spectrum and while it (I assume) moves linearly from left to right scaling by wavelength, what we are perceiving is not a linear scale from one extreme to another. Unlike autism, gender is an umbrella term and not a specific subset. Unlike colour, gender has no objective units of measurement.

I am talking about gender as if it's the full spectrum of colour. I think you're talking about it like a colour gradient:

When you talk about self-conflicting definitions of gender, I'm a little bit confused. Can you explain it to me like I'm five? I think I'm missing something. I'm also confused about your take on the 'alignment' part of that definition.

Are you saying that gender affirmation surgery implictly assumes that sex organs are definitive of gender by trying to align sex organs with gender?

If this is the case, how do you explain people that are born with and retain their male sex organs all throughout life, but identify and present as a woman?

I agree reducing prejudice will reduce gender dysphoria. People want to feel supported and like they are treated fairly.

 

[AntaresVII]

I get the definitions by googling "define _____" and posting the first thing that fits the structure of my post. I'm not using it as a definitive authority, just as a loose point of reference. So long as we're using terms to mean the same thing then I'm happy.

Oh ok. Just try to be careful working with definitions that are dependent on the definition of gender since we're using our own and the lay definition doesn't (can't) match the claims made about it.

Spectrum is variance in balance between the two. The point being that we are all capable of both sides.

Hmmm I might not have been specific enough about this. When I said "binary, gradient, or spectrum" I meant:

Binary: Gender includes males and females and that is it
Gradient: Gender includes males and females and everything in between
Spectrum: Gender includes males and females and varying aspects of everything in between and all sorts of open-ended potentials [insert stock image of helicopter here].

I am talking about gender as if it's the full spectrum of colour. I think you're talking about it like a colour gradient:

Ah, ok. In that case yes I mean gradient. (I had been thinking of gradient as a finite series of graduated points between masculinity and femininity)
The reason I'm not going for spectrum is because people can't cognitively emulate attack helicopters (I know, counter-intuitive, but hear me out). Because helicopters have no cognition (that we know of). And when it comes to emulating other human things, say, being a programmer, or introverted, etc., what we're talking about clearly isn't gender anymore, but personality and aspirations. Gender is not fixed to sex, but it is certainly a related thing. The masculine and feminine ideals arise from biological needs for someone to play those roles in the game of survival. Thus the archetypes exist within ourselves and are the products of biology, whereas other ideals are either constructed externally or not related to biological roles. So gender is defined not as any ideal you aspire to, but your aspirations in relation to the sex-originating and sex-typical, but not sex-fixed roles of humans.

When you talk about self-conflicting definitions of gender, I'm a little bit confused. Can you explain it to me like I'm five? I think I'm missing something. I'm also confused about your take on the 'alignment' part of that definition.

Ok, here goes:
*ahem*

"Wow, that's a big question! Basically, — wait, hold on, are your parents here? Kid, are you lost? What's your name? Do you know where your mom and dad are?"

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Anyway, I think the clearest way to explain this is in relation to the idea you mention below of "gender affirmation" surgery. The implications are clear just by the name: Gender is supposedly not fixed to sex, and should not be considered so, yet here we see the claimed need to "affirm" gender by (trying/pretending to) make sex "match".
This is called "alignment" between sex and gender. But if the two are not tied and thus should not be thought of as so, there is no "alignment", no "matching", no "affirmation", because your gender cannot be "out of line" with your sex if gender can go either way without making you more or less of a man or woman (sex wise).
If there is no "correct" gender identity to have based on your sex, there is no "misalignment". Misalignment is not possible, since the two factors aren't required to match in any specific way.
And again, the idea that one's sex and gender should "match" is precisely the prejudice we're trying to do away with. The argument about gender identity has essentially devolved to one side refusing to acknowledge the change in the definition of gender and disagreeing based on issues that come up when the old definition of gender is applied to arguments made using the new definition, and the other side, rather than recognizing this mistake, defend themselves by trying to escape from what they think is a logical prison (but isn't bc its a logical fallacy of equivocation on the part of the other side) by denying logic itself.
In short, logic left the scene early on, and has yet to return to clean up this dumpster fire of a societal debate. I guess that's what we're trying to do here.

Well, there's no way I'd have explained things that way to a 5 year-old, but hopefully that's clear nonetheless

Are you saying that gender affirmation surgery implictly assumes that sex organs are definitive of gender by trying to align sex organs with gender?

By the fact that it's called "gender affirmation" surgery while its purpose is to create the illusion of a change of sex, it necessarily implies the belief that gender is tied to sex by claiming the need to "affirm" atypical gender identification by pretending to change sex to "match".
Again, this is the attitude that is supposedly being fought against, and thus part of the contradiction in the definition of gender.

If this is the case, how do you explain people that are born with and retain their male sex organs all throughout life, but identify and present as a woman?

If we're still talking about identifying gender female and not sex-female, what's there to explain? They don't have a prejudice against themselves. Great.
If they claim biological identification with the opposite sex, thats another issue. You don't get to choose or change your sex, and se la vie — that's life.

I agree reducing prejudice will reduce gender dysphoria. People want to feel supported and like they are treated fairly.

Right, of course.
My specific point though is that gender dysphoria is based in prejudice against atypical gender identity, and should thus be treated as such, the main solutions for dealing with prejudice being to try and remove the prejudice, not indulge it with illusion.

 

[Hadoblado]

I've gotta cut this convo for a bit so I can focus on work. I hope to be back later.

I strongly disagree with your conclusions and think that they could be potentially harmful. However, I think you are approaching this honestly and while in my view you have preconceptions that shape the direction of your logic, you appear genuinely open to me so I think it's a conversation worth pursuing. The back and forth keeps opening back up with no finale in sight, I just need to be able to focus rn, sorry. o/

 

[AntaresVII]

No problem.
I too think certain conclusions I see as wrong could be harmful, but I also believe in objective truth & reality, and I am both aware that I have preconceptions which determine the course of my logic, and wary that they may be wrong.
I do intend to be open and try to be logical, and I see nought but that you approach the discussion the same way, which I do appreciate.
I'll end here to stop providing you the distraction. In the mean time, fare thee well.

 

[Black Rose]

I think gender does first orient in sex, specifically sexual dimorphism. Brain body and everything else. Hermaphrodites are born with both sex organs but prefer one gender to the other. Some men look female even with having male sex organs yet they refer to themselves as men and can pass as female looking. So there are parts to what makes up male and female. But they are biological differences. Biologically we know in ourselves what is masculine or feminine. The drive to change gender comes from knowing what those are. I am female I should have female parts. or I am female but I do not necessarily care about having male features, having a male body.

Sexual dimorphism is where gender becomes a spectrum.

 

[onesteptwostep]

First off, you're a hedonist.

No, I'm not, because

Secondly, Christian values and hedonism are incompatible. "Finding joy in life" is just flowery language to say that the point of life is to experience pleasure.

meaningful existence is not pleasure. The joy of life is not pleasing yourself. My claim is that the joy in life is living. One does not live for joy. One joys for life.
Life itself is the end and aim, and

There is a difference between living for God and living for your own.

my claim is that it is the aim of all existing things, including God.

Lastly, you do not seem to understand what transcendence is.

That may be

Transcendence is something that goes beyond our natural world; beyond reason, beyond life, beyond our experiences.

but our "natural" (which really just means 'understood') world is simply the part of the whole that we currently know. Transcendence then is moving into the unknown, but not outside the world itself, as the world is defined as all that is, and thus whatever might be transcended to is already part of the world. So transcendence is based on coming to know things, as once they are know they are no longer transcendent.
Beyond life meaning mortal life, sure, but if we don't assume that existence ends at mortal death then there is nothing that is beyond life.
Beyond our experiences either means simply that the experience is new to us, or that it is beyond capability of experience, and thus cannot affect us in any way, as that would be experienced, and thus really doesn't exist by any meaningful definition. I suppose you mean the first, which supports transcendence as obtaining new knowledge or sight of the yet unknown world.

What you're talking about is immanence.

That too, sure.

What you're doing is just engaging in semantics.

"Meaningful existence" and "the joy of life" is simply a subjective reflection (or perspective) of hedonism. Hedonism doesn't always mean worldly pleasures like food, sex or wealth, it means what exactly you are referring to, a 'satisfaction', or 'joy of life' with life. I don't mean to denigrate what you are saying, I'm merely trying to categorize its ontology.

Also let me try to clarify what transcendence is.

Transcendence is something which we long for when we are fed up with life. People go and try to find solace in things like philosophy, deities, and moments of reverie, like that moment after a hard day's work and enjoying a beer while reflecting on life- those kinds of moments- moments of calm, reflection, and epiphany. Those are the bits of experiences which we can say that are the shadow of something greater- something which we can say are the 'joys of life' like you previously mention. That is transcendence, something we humans all grasp at.

It is not something that is outside the natural realm (by which I mean philosophical naturalism). But we try and seek something that is beyond our understanding, something that is outside the natural world, because it gives a sense of narrative and certain comfort.

What you were referring to before is immanence, that God is imbued with the natural world, something Christians, at least the mainline Protestants and Catholics, do not believe. We believe that God is wholly transcendent of the natural world (the universe). As theologian Karl Barth said, God is "Wholly Other", not of this world, not of anything in creation.

 

[Black Rose]

As theologian Karl Barth said, God is "Wholly Other", not of this world, not of anything in creation.

That would be the inherent emptiness of things. Buddha-nature.

What happens when all material layers are stripped away.

We could not be God's children if we were purely material beings.

We share an immaterial nature with God.

creation falls into emptiness to create a free will because we are the void.

creation always follows the path of least resistance.

least resistance is the will.

 

[AntaresVII]

What you're doing is just engaging in semantics.

"Meaningful existence" and "the joy of life" is simply a subjective reflection (or perspective) of hedonism. Hedonism doesn't always mean worldly pleasures like food, sex or wealth, it means what exactly you are referring to, a 'satisfaction', or 'joy of life' with life. I don't mean to denigrate what you are saying, I'm merely trying to categorize its ontology.

Hedonism:
the pursuit of pleasure; sensual self-indulgence.
In Philosophy:
the ethical theory that pleasure (in the sense of the satisfaction of desires) is the highest good and proper aim of human life.

Both cases being clearly about satisfying sensual desires.
There's a reason we engage in semantics: it's so we can't be dragged into false logical traps (intentional or otherwise) by conflating key definitions.
Also "categorizing its ontology" is a clever way of saying "semantically defining", though, again, I don't see a problem with being semantic (clear in definition) about key terms.

Also let me try to clarify what transcendence is.

Transcendence is something which we long for when we are fed up with life. People go and try to find solace in things like philosophy, deities, and moments of reverie, like that moment after a hard day's work and enjoying a beer while reflecting on life- those kinds of moments- moments of calm, reflection, and epiphany. Those are the bits of experiences which we can say that are the shadow of something greater

This is a slightly looser definition than I gave, but it isn't otherwise contrary. Specifically, "shadow of something greater" is my point exactly about the transcendent being the yet unknown.

-something which we can say are the 'joys of life' like you previously mention. That is transcendence, something we humans all grasp at.

Which means that we agree that our aim as humans is to experience these things.
If you want to call it hedonism (though it isn't) then you would classify yourself as a hedonist as well.

It is not something that is outside the natural realm (by which I mean philosophical naturalism). But we try and seek something that is beyond our understanding,

Which is exactly what I was saying, the only conflict coming from differing usage of "natural". (Again, this is why semantics)

What you were referring to before is immanence, that God is imbued with the natural world, something Christians, at least the mainline Protestants and Catholics, do not believe. We believe that God is wholly transcendent of the natural world (the universe).

My definition of "natural" being "real" or "existing" escapes this issue by defining nature as "what is". By my definition, if God exists, God is part of nature. But what is understood is that my nature includes that which you call transcendent, only classifying it as nature yet unknown (and possibly unknowable, if you need that provision).

As theologian Karl Barth said, God is "Wholly Other", not of this world, not of anything in creation.

If God is held to be the universal creator, then of course God cannot be "of" creation.

 

[AntaresVII]

creation always follows the path of least resistance.

creation as in the created or the act of creating? or both?

 

[onesteptwostep]

What you're doing is just engaging in semantics.

"Meaningful existence" and "the joy of life" is simply a subjective reflection (or perspective) of hedonism. Hedonism doesn't always mean worldly pleasures like food, sex or wealth, it means what exactly you are referring to, a 'satisfaction', or 'joy of life' with life. I don't mean to denigrate what you are saying, I'm merely trying to categorize its ontology.

Hedonism:
the pursuit of pleasure; sensual self-indulgence.
In Philosophy:
the ethical theory that pleasure (in the sense of the satisfaction of desires) is the highest good and proper aim of human life.

Both cases being clearly about satisfying sensual desires.
There's a reason we engage in semantics: it's so we can't be dragged into false logical traps (intentional or otherwise) by conflating key definitions.
Also "categorizing its ontology" is a clever way of saying "semantically defining", though, again, I don't see a problem with being semantic (clear in definition) about key terms.

Also let me try to clarify what transcendence is.

Transcendence is something which we long for when we are fed up with life. People go and try to find solace in things like philosophy, deities, and moments of reverie, like that moment after a hard day's work and enjoying a beer while reflecting on life- those kinds of moments- moments of calm, reflection, and epiphany. Those are the bits of experiences which we can say that are the shadow of something greater

This is a slightly looser definition than I gave, but it isn't otherwise contrary. Specifically, "shadow of something greater" is my point exactly about the transcendent being the yet unknown.

-something which we can say are the 'joys of life' like you previously mention. That is transcendence, something we humans all grasp at.

Which means that we agree that our aim as humans is to experience these things.
If you want to call it hedonism (though it isn't) then you would classify yourself as a hedonist as well.

It is not something that is outside the natural realm (by which I mean philosophical naturalism). But we try and seek something that is beyond our understanding,

Which is exactly what I was saying, the only conflict coming from differing usage of "natural". (Again, this is why semantics)

What you were referring to before is immanence, that God is imbued with the natural world, something Christians, at least the mainline Protestants and Catholics, do not believe. We believe that God is wholly transcendent of the natural world (the universe).

My definition of "natural" being "real" or "existing" escapes this issue by defining nature as "what is". By my definition, if God exists, God is part of nature. But what is understood is that my nature includes that which you call transcendent, only classifying it as nature yet unknown (and possibly unknowable, if you need that provision).

As theologian Karl Barth said, God is "Wholly Other", not of this world, not of anything in creation.

If God is held to be the universal creator, then of course God cannot be "of" creation.

Not quite. If you reread the philosophical definition, it says satisfaction of desires. Desires are not always simply sensual, it can be a desire for a state of mind, or a state of emotion, like joy. The 'joy of life' to me seems more like a state of mind, something you seem to aim for, which is desire. Desire isn't always about the empirical senses.

"By my definition, if God exists, God is part of nature. "

That's simply just a wrong understanding of the Christian God.

The God Christians believe in Christianity is not a part of this world. That would mean that God would be a part of creation, that he subsides in something in the natural world. In Christianity that would be called idolism, or idolatry. The first commandment says 'you shall have no other gods before Me'. That literally means you shall have no gods whatsoever, whether that be a philosophy, a state of mind, an emotion, or just simply materialistic things like the sun, nature, family, the country, or abstract things like peace or power. So when you point out that we believe in the same thing, or that we aim for the same thing.. not quite.

 

[onesteptwostep]

As theologian Karl Barth said, God is "Wholly Other", not of this world, not of anything in creation.

That would be the inherent emptiness of things. Buddha-nature.

What happens when all material layers are stripped away.

We could not be God's children if we were purely material beings.

We share an immaterial nature with God.

creation falls into emptiness to create a free will because we are the void.

creation always follows the path of least resistance.

least resistance is the will.

We have no idea what the substance of what God is, but to say that is emptiness is conjecture, not reasoned theology.

Also, the philosophy you seem to be talking about is Schopenhauerian. In his "The World as Will and Representation" Schopenhauer goes on about some Hindu-eastern related philosophy that simply states: only the will exists, and that will is the thing-in-it-of-itself, the substance which Kant had talked about prior to Schopenhauer.

Of course, Schopenhauer was a disgruntled old academic who failed to make any friends or lasting contributions, and was largely over shadowed by Hegel who had a much more inclusive and encompassing worldview and philosophical system. Hegel baby!

 

[AntaresVII]

Not quite. If you reread the philosophical definition, it says satisfaction of desires.

Actually, it says "in the sense of satisfaction of desires"
This being a lay dictionary, and the lay understanding of "the sense of satisfaction of desires" being satisfaction of sensual desires, the real issue here is that your being pedantic in the actual negative sense, reading a definition intended to be understood on lay terms as if it were pedantic.

"By my definition, if God exists, God is part of nature. "

That's simply just a wrong understanding of the Christian God.

The God Christians believe in Christianity is not a part of this world.

No, it's just a different definition of what constitutes "this world".
I'm not limiting the world to "what has been created by God" but to "what is".

'you shall have no other gods before Me'. That literally means you shall have no gods whatsoever, whether that be a philosophy, a state of mind, an emotion, or just simply materialistic things like the sun, nature, family, the country, or abstract things like peace or power.

What about transcendence? As I understand it, you would say transcendence is the experience of God, so it can't come before God.
And since transcendence what we're both calling the aim of human life, we're both saying the same thing, and you're just specifying that the experience of existence is the direct product of God.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Not quite. If you reread the philosophical definition, it says satisfaction of desires.

Actually, it says "in the sense of satisfaction of desires"
This being a lay dictionary, and the lay understanding of "the sense of satisfaction of desires" being satisfaction of sensual desires, the real issue here is that your being pedantic in the actual negative sense, reading a definition intended to be understood on lay terms as if it were pedantic.

"By my definition, if God exists, God is part of nature. "

That's simply just a wrong understanding of the Christian God.

The God Christians believe in Christianity is not a part of this world.

No, it's just a different definition of what constitutes "this world".
I'm not limiting the world to "what has been created by God" but to "what is".

'you shall have no other gods before Me'. That literally means you shall have no gods whatsoever, whether that be a philosophy, a state of mind, an emotion, or just simply materialistic things like the sun, nature, family, the country, or abstract things like peace or power.

What about transcendence? As I understand it, you would say transcendence is the experience of God, so it can't come before God.
And since transcendence what we're both calling the aim of human life, we're both saying the same thing, and you're just specifying that the experience of existence is the direct product of God.

I'm not being pedantic here. If you go on wiki and search up hedonism, and look up how the Greeks had saw it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonism#Classical_Greek_philosophy
it was basically what you proport, that life should be about "seeking joy" or something like, what it says in the wiki "contentment or cheerfulness".

I don't think using a lay dictionary to talk about philosophical hedonism is particularly wise.

Also, that "what is" is to me, what God has created. "What is" is 'creation'.

Transcendence is not the experience of God, it is an experience of other worldliness. You can get that from "God", sure, but you can also get that sense from smoking pot or sex, or through power like being in a position of authority.

Transcendence is also not the aim of life of a Christian either.

 

[AntaresVII]

I'm not being pedantic here. If you go on wiki and search up hedonism, and look up how the Greeks had saw it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonism#Classical_Greek_philosophy
it was basically what you proport, that life should be about "seeking joy" or something like, what it says in the wiki "contentment or cheerfulness".

I don't think using a lay dictionary to talk about philosophical hedonism is particularly wise.

If you're talking about how hedonism was used 2000 years ago, sure, ok.
I've been using the modern sense.
But either way, you classified yourself by your own definition as a hedonist.

Also, that "what is" is to me, what God has created. "What is" is 'creation'.

So God is not? You're going to say God does not exist?
I'm not even trying to claim God does exist, just that my claims don't exclude the possibility of God, but you're trying to prove that my claims violate the concept of God by denying by definition the possibility of God's existence, with the reasoning being that God cannot be part of Gods own creation, and yet simultaneously does not exist, and therefore did not create anything, and so can exist as part of "creation" since it wasn't created, so can exist, but not as creator, which by your definition means not as God?
Heck, by that logic, I could be God. Or a rock. Or anything, or nothing.

Transcendence is not the experience of God, it is an experience of other worldliness.

Wherein, and only wherein, God exists, according to you. Is there then in your view more than God and God's creation? Is God separate from the known world but exists not alone but with the experience of smoking pot or sex or power from position, all things that only exist by your view because of God?

You can get that from "God", sure, but you can also get that sense from smoking pot or sex, or through power like being in a position of authority.

So again, these things that grant transcendence, which are creations of God, are in fact experiences on an equal plane of existence with God, and are not God?

Transcendence is also not the aim of life of a Christian either.

Funny, because according to you,

That [the definition of transcendence] is transcendence, something we humans all grasp at.

Or did you mean, "all humans except Christians"?
And even if so, you can still only say mainstream Christians.
And, you might remember, I claimed that my idea doesn't conflict with world religions' fundamental concepts, not also every single orthodoxy heaped up on them.
I'm not trying to account for every niche belief that sort of implies something contrary to my idea, but even at that level you haven't provided a concrete objection.

 

[onesteptwostep]

I'm not being pedantic here. If you go on wiki and search up hedonism, and look up how the Greeks had saw it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonism#Classical_Greek_philosophy
it was basically what you proport, that life should be about "seeking joy" or something like, what it says in the wiki "contentment or cheerfulness".

I don't think using a lay dictionary to talk about philosophical hedonism is particularly wise.

If you're talking about how hedonism was used 2000 years ago, sure, ok.
I've been using the modern sense.
But either way, you classified yourself by your own definition as a hedonist.

Also, that "what is" is to me, what God has created. "What is" is 'creation'.

So God is not? You're going to say God does not exist?
I'm not even trying to claim God does exist, just that my claims don't exclude the possibility of God, but you're trying to prove that my claims violate the concept of God by denying by definition the possibility of God's existence, with the reasoning being that God cannot be part of Gods own creation, and yet simultaneously does not exist, and therefore did not create anything, and so can exist as part of "creation" since it wasn't created, so can exist, but not as creator, which by your definition means not as God?
Heck, by that logic, I could be God. Or a rock. Or anything, or nothing.

Transcendence is not the experience of God, it is an experience of other worldliness.

Wherein, and only wherein, God exists, according to you. Is there then in your view more than God and God's creation? Is God separate from the known world but exists not alone but with the experience of smoking pot or sex or power from position, all things that only exist by your view because of God?

You can get that from "God", sure, but you can also get that sense from smoking pot or sex, or through power like being in a position of authority.

So again, these things that grant transcendence, which are creations of God, are in fact experiences on an equal plane of existence with God, and are not God?

Transcendence is also not the aim of life of a Christian either.

Funny, because according to you,

That [the definition of transcendence] is transcendence, something we humans all grasp at.

Or did you mean, "all humans except Christians"?
And even if so, you can still only say mainstream Christians.
And, you might remember, I claimed that my idea doesn't conflict with world religions' fundamental concepts, not also every single orthodoxy heaped up on them.
I'm not trying to account for every niche belief that sort of implies something contrary to my idea, but even at that level you haven't provided a concrete objection.

The lay usage of the word hedonism comes from a caricature version of hedonism as a philosophy. It's not the "2000 year old" version, hedonism is the school of thought in ancient Greece that has been around before Socrates, and even after. This is not a matter of semantics, but your lack of Grecian history.

Also, God is not something 'that is'. I lost you here:

and yet simultaneously does not exist, and therefore did not create anything, and so can exist as part of "creation" since it wasn't created, so can exist, but not as creator, which by your definition means not as God?

God in Christianity is not a part of creation, he's transcendent over it.

Transcendence is not a state of divinity like you seem to imply, transcendence is just transcendence. Nirvana can be placed within the category of transcendence, a sense of duty can be placed in the realm of transcendence, even patriotism can be placed within it.

But the category God is in is wholly different. Biblically, he has ownership, or theologically speaking, sovereignty over everything and anything we can come up with. I think it would be best to think that God is above all, all of creation.

As for humans grasping at transcendence, this is fact, provided by our own subjective experiences. Fulfillment within the capitalist system, fulfillment with filial duty, fulfillment through service, these are things we all grasp and long for.

The reason I say hedonism, ultimately, clashes with Christianity is because hedonism places the person at the center of focus rather than God. We begin from a predisposition of the person I. That's what's fundamentally different; Christians try to see from where God sees, the irreligious usually starts with the self. You begin with a question, no? But to ask that question, the self must exist. The inquiry begins with a predisposition of the being, of the self. In Christianity, the questions begin with the self placed infront of God, naked and in total and complete transparency, without a place to take refuge. There is no shade in the shadow of the Cross. In front of God, the self is nothing. That is where the Christian starts.

 

[Black Rose]

Of course, Schopenhauer was a disgruntled old academic who failed to make any friends or lasting contributions, and was largely over shadowed by Hegel who had a much more inclusive and encompassing worldview and philosophical system. Hegel baby!

Hegel? what does he say?

The hard problem of consciousness is not solved yet. If transcendence is beyond the body we can't explain it. we can only explain what the body does. We understand mechanism but not consciousness.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Hegel? Hegel bagel.

 

[Black Rose]

Gender is inside the self. A gender is a nature. Mother nature. Human nature. Gender nature.

Christ is the nature of Christian transcendence. Christ is a golden spirit.

Now we have a body and we have a Gender nature. We also to an extent have a Christian nature. Golden inside. Perfection is to become more golden. more like the other.

We let the golden spirit guild. Gods will. God makes creation do what it does.

Gender becomes pure. The body is pure. The Spirit is pure.

Most of all the heart is pure.

Perfection is transcendent.

Right with God.

Hegel bagel.

 

[AntaresVII]

Also, God is not something 'that is'.

So, again, God does not exist? What warped definition of "is" are you using to say that God exists but isn't? It's sure not the one I or most everyone else am using.

I lost you here:

and yet simultaneously does not exist, and therefore did not create anything, and so can exist as part of "creation" since it wasn't created, so can exist, but not as creator, which by your definition means not as God?

That you lost me in my following the logical followings of your own claim is probably the fault of your claim being ridiculous:
Claim: God cannot exist, because existing means being part of the creation of God, which God is not.
You statement is obviously not true, existing does not imply existing in the known, created world, but if we pretend that it is and does we get this:
If God does not exist, the stuff called "creation" is not the creation of God, since God doesn't exist.
But if the stuff isn't the creation of God, by your definition God can exist in it, just not as its creator, which means, by your definition, not as God. Which is basically just saying that if God exists God isn't God as conceived by you (and hence could be anyone or anything).

God in Christianity is not a part of creation, he's transcendent over it.

Brilliant. I sure didn't deal with this objection multiple times by pointing out that I include more than creation in my definition of "world". I never at any point claimed that God would have to exist as part of creation. I said that if God exists, by my definition of "the world", being "that which exists", since that's about the only reasonable way to define "all things", then God is part of "the world", or "the universe", or "everything" if you prefer. The world you're saying God is not part of is what I'm calling the "known" world. That God exists separately from our known world is entirely possible, as I said.
And, yes, obviously, God exists outside and independent of God's own creation.

Transcendence is not a state of divinity like you seem to imply,

No, not even close to an implication of mine. Transcendence is seeing that which was not previously seen or known. It's looking beyond the known world. On that we've agreed.

transcendence is just transcendence.

The depth of this statement is staggering.

 

[AntaresVII]

we have a Gender nature

Would you say that nature is fixed? Or possibly changeable based on development of character and life situations?

 

[Black Rose]

Would you say that nature is fixed? Or possibly changeable based on development of character and life situations?

any change in biology caused by whatever means

 

[onesteptwostep]

Also, God is not something 'that is'.

So, again, God does not exist? What warped definition of "is" are you using to say that God exists but isn't? It's sure not the one I or most everyone else am using.

I lost you here:

and yet simultaneously does not exist, and therefore did not create anything, and so can exist as part of "creation" since it wasn't created, so can exist, but not as creator, which by your definition means not as God?

That you lost me in my following the logical followings of your own claim is probably the fault of your claim being ridiculous:
Claim: God cannot exist, because existing means being part of the creation of God, which God is not.
You statement is obviously not true, existing does not imply existing in the known, created world, but if we pretend that it is and does we get this:
If God does not exist, the stuff called "creation" is not the creation of God, since God doesn't exist.
But if the stuff isn't the creation of God, by your definition God can exist in it, just not as its creator, which means, by your definition, not as God. Which is basically just saying that if God exists God isn't God as conceived by you (and hence could be anyone or anything).

God in Christianity is not a part of creation, he's transcendent over it.

Brilliant. I sure didn't deal with this objection multiple times by pointing out that I include more than creation in my definition of "world". I never at any point claimed that God would have to exist as part of creation. I said that if God exists, by my definition of "the world", being "that which exists", since that's about the only reasonable way to define "all things", then God is part of "the world", or "the universe", or "everything" if you prefer. The world you're saying God is not part of is what I'm calling the "known" world. That God exists separately from our known world is entirely possible, as I said.
And, yes, obviously, God exists outside and independent of God's own creation.

Transcendence is not a state of divinity like you seem to imply,

No, not even close to an implication of mine. Transcendence is seeing that which was not previously seen or known. It's looking beyond the known world. On that we've agreed.

transcendence is just transcendence.

The depth of this statement is staggering.

I think the issue here is that you think if God exists, it must be an entity that is subsiding within our natural (i.e. naturalism) world. Basically, existence precedes the essence of God.

But that's not how "God" works. For God, his essence is his existence. There's a good way of saying this, and I think the Catholics have it right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actus_purus

God is even above existence, because his essence is something that necessitates it. "Existence", to be in creation, is something God also has made. This is what it means to be transcendent over creation.

Your idea is that for something to exist, existence must come first. Sartre was famous was saying that existence proceeds essence- this is basically the postmodern epistemological framework that we live in.

 

[Black Rose]

Sartre was famous was saying that existence proceeds essence- this is basically the postmodern epistemological framework that we live in.

consciousness and the body only correlate. it is unsure if they are the same thing.