ANOTHER TRANNY BASHING THREAD

[Skepdick]

OK. Supposing you can (though I'm not so sure that is true)? Therefore what? How does it relate to transsexuality or even to your view that language is "broken"?

Language can't be grounded. The relationship between words and referents cannot be solidified.

And so inevitably one person can use the word "gender" to point to one referent; and another person uses the same word to point to a different referent. There's no mechanism, authority or system which can determine or prescribe how a word should be used, and what referent it should refer to.

If I choose to use the word "woman" to refer to myself, there's no argument you can present to convince me otherwise.

This is called the Symbol grounding problem. It's deeply seated at the root of all human mis-understanding/mis-communication.

[Gary Childress]

My point is that words can be pointed at anything you want them to be pointed at. Which is immediately relevant to the topic of "gender". I can make the word "gender" point at anything I want it to point at.

And the open question that remains (which is where all the arguments/debates stem from) is: What SHOULD the word "gender" point at?

I think you're flirting with absurdity. Words have meanings tied to them which are shared between people and which facilitate mutual understanding. Sure you could make "cat" refer to what people normally call "dog" if you go back and retrain us all from kindergarten on up. But why would you want to create that much confusion among all of us? Just to allow a male who thinks he's a female to teach around children?

[Skepdick]

I think you're flirting with absurdity.

Flirting - yes, but I am still on the right side of that fence.

Words have meanings tied to them which are shared between people and which facilitate mutual understanding.

So why are we disagreeing about "telepathy", and "existence" then?

You are using the word "telepathy" differently to me.
You are using the word "exists" differently to me.

How can you say that words have meaning when you and I have different meanings for the same word?
How can you make this claim when I am arguing for meaning-making?

[Skepdick]

Words have meanings tied to them.

I have a much better question to ask you:

Where does the meaning of the word "apple" reside? Is it in the word itself, or is it in your head?

If this meaning is "tied up" to the word, where does this "tying up" between a word and its meaning take place?

[Gary Childress]

I think you're flirting with absurdity.

Flirting - yes, but I am still on the right side of that fence.

You think it's the "right" side but maybe it's not. You're asking everyone else to adopt an absurd view. Ask yourself what society would look like if we all just dressed ANY way we wanted and behaved in ANY way we wanted. Or take the example of computers (something you seem to have an affinity with). Maybe you could design Windows 11 in such a way that every person who knew anything about Windows 10 would need to retrain themselves from the ground up in order to use the new system. Don't you think that would cause an unprecedented amount of upheaval and stress on society? It's insanity. And megalomania.

[Skepdick]

You think it's the "right" side but maybe it's not.

Maybe it's not, maybe it is.

You're asking everyone else to adopt an absurd view.

I am not doing any of that. And I find it difficult to make any assertions about the "absurdity" of my view, until you tell me what the word "absurd" means.

Ask yourself what society would look like if we all just dressed ANY way we wanted and behaved in ANY way we wanted.

I don't see the problem? I dress the way I want to dress and I behave the way I want to be have. Don't you?

As long as it's not harming anybody I see no problem...

Or take the example of computers (something you seem to have an affinity with). Maybe you could design Windows 11 in such a way that every person who knew anything about Windows 10 would need to retrain themselves from the ground up in order to use the new system. Don't you think that would cause an unprecedented amount of upheaval and stress on society? It's insanity. And megalomania.

That's a great analogy, Gary! Because it is exactly what is happening.

There is a system which everybody is using. Me, you, everybody. And we like that system - it works for us because we built it for us (we constructed it that way!), but there is a whole lot of people for whom the system doesn't work because those people have different needs/wants/lifestyles to you and me. Those people were never part of the design process for the system - they had no chance to voice their needs when the system was being built.

Those people are stuck with a system that doesn't work for them and they are experiencing an unprecedented amount of upheaval and stress! And it is people who cling onto the status quo who stand in the way of the current system being improved to include the needs/wants/desires of those for whom the system doesn't currently work.

You call it "megalomania" - I call it "Think Big". And I don't think it's "insane" to want to improve society.

[Gary Childress]

You think it's the "right" side but maybe it's not.

Maybe it's not, maybe it is.

You're asking everyone else to adopt an absurd view.

I am not doing any of that. And I find it difficult to make any assertions about the "absurdity" of my view, until you tell me what the word "absurd" means.

Ask yourself what society would look like if we all just dressed ANY way we wanted and behaved in ANY way we wanted.

I don't see the problem? I dress the way I want to dress and I behave the way I want to be have. Don't you?

As long as it's not harming anybody I see no problem...

Or take the example of computers (something you seem to have an affinity with). Maybe you could design Windows 11 in such a way that every person who knew anything about Windows 10 would need to retrain themselves from the ground up in order to use the new system. Don't you think that would cause an unprecedented amount of upheaval and stress on society? It's insanity. And megalomania.

That's a great analogy, Gary! Because it is exactly what is happening.

There is a system which everybody is using. Me, you, everybody. And we like that system - it works for us because we built it for us (we constructed it that way!), but there is a whole lot of people for whom the system doesn't work because those people have different needs/wants to you and me.

Those people (stuck with a system that doesn't work for them) are experiencing an unprecedented amount of upheaval and stress! Because we don't want to change the current system to include their needs/wants/desires.

I have psychotic episodes which make it impossible for me to competently do some things when I'm having them. Should we create a new set of rules whereby a person who has psychotic episodes can be as successful as someone who does not--without taking meds? I mean, hey. Let's do it. It would benefit me. Of course, it would drive everyone around me insane when I barge into their offices and tell them to get of my office or something. Or like I was doing to my mother one time, continually unplugging the vacuum cleaner every time she tried to vacuum, causing her to have to go back continually and replug it. By all means, let's do this! I'm ready to go off my meds at any time. They make me emotionally dull, tired and gain weight.

[Skepdick]

I have psychotic episodes which make it impossible for me to competently do some things when I'm having them. Should we create a new set of rules whereby a person who has psychotic episodes can be as successful as someone who does not--without taking meds? I mean, hey. Let's do it.

Why "without taking meds"? The meds ARE part of the system we are building - they help you manage your own mental health.

It is thanks to society that you actually have the meds, but I am sure if I had to sit down with you for a few hours you can give me a book full of ideas on what other systems/mechanisms could be put in place to make your life easier despite your condition.

It would benefit me. Of course, it would drive everyone around me insane when I barge into their offices and tell them to get of my office or something. Or like I was doing to my mother one time, continually unplugging the vacuum cleaner every time she tried to vacuum, causing her to have to go back continually and replug it. By all means, let's do this! I'm ready to go off my meds at any time. They make me emotionally dull, tired and gain weight.

So what I've heard here is that between your medication, and your uncontrollable behaviour you prefer the meds.

I am terribly sorry that you have to make such a compromise at such a great personal expense, it sounds like it takes out the dullness out of life! Wouldn't you want society to come up with better medication though? Medication that has all the positive effects (of managing your episodes), without all the negative side-effects of dulling your emotions?

The only way we are going to get there is with neuroscience.

Mean while, if you figure out how to manage your episodes without medication - that's fine too! Society will welcome you with open hands - whether you succeed on your own volition, or with the necessary help.

[Gary Childress]

I have psychotic episodes which make it impossible for me to competently do some things when I'm having them. Should we create a new set of rules whereby a person who has psychotic episodes can be as successful as someone who does not--without taking meds? I mean, hey. Let's do it.

Why "without taking meds"? The meds ARE part of the system we are building - they help you manage your own mental health.

It is thanks to society that you actually have the meds, but I am sure if I had to sit down with you for a few hours you can give me a book full of ideas on what other systems/mechanisms could be put in place to make your life easier despite your condition.

It would benefit me. Of course, it would drive everyone around me insane when I barge into their offices and tell them to get of my office or something. Or like I was doing to my mother one time, continually unplugging the vacuum cleaner every time she tried to vacuum, causing her to have to go back continually and replug it. By all means, let's do this! I'm ready to go off my meds at any time. They make me emotionally dull, tired and gain weight.

So what I've heard here is that between your medication, and your uncontrollable behaviour you prefer the meds.

I am terribly sorry that you have to make such a compromise at such a great personal expense, it sounds like it takes out the dullness out of life! Wouldn't you want society to come up with better medication though? One that has all the positive effects (of managing your episodes), without all the negative side-effects of dulling your emotions?

The only way we are going to get there is with neuroscience.

The point I'm making is that medication sets me straight to where I'm behaving the way I ought to. Before successful medications came along people like me were usually locked up in institutions and never allowed to leave because that was actually more humane, in most cases, than leaving us on the street to starve or try to beg for a living. Or these days there's also disability for those who can't find gainful employment due to illness.

[Skepdick]

The point I'm making is that medication sets me straight to where I'm behaving the way I ought to.

But that's not completely true! Life ought not to be dull and emotionless?

The medication is improving one aspect, at the cost of another. That's a trade-off.

Before successful medications came along people like me were usually locked up in institutions and never allowed to leave because that was actually more humane, in most cases, than leaving us on the street to starve or try to beg for a living.

That's precisely my point though! Before meds - life for people like you was worse! Much, much worse.

Imagine you lived in a world without medication, because somebody said "Screw the insane! Locking them up is good enough a solution."

We had to reform the language first - from speaking about "insanity" to speaking about "mental health". Because "mental health" and "insanity" evoke different emotions in people.

And yet - that's what Henry (and his lik) are saying about people who choose to wear dresses while they have a penis. Screw them! Fit in or fuck off (or we will lock you up!).

Or these days there's also disability for those who can't find gainful employment due to illness.

Right! People are messed up like that. Everybody is against social grants for the jobless until they get ill/bankrupt/jobless trying to stay healthy.

When they become the people they ignored all their life, their tune always changes.

[Gary Childress]

The point I'm making is that medication sets me straight to where I'm behaving the way I ought to.

But that's not completely true!

Life ought not to be dull and emotionless?

Before successful medications came along people like me were usually locked up in institutions and never allowed to leave because that was actually more humane, in most cases, than leaving us on the street to starve or try to beg for a living.

That's precisely my point though! Before meds - life for people like you was worse! Much, much worse.

Imagine you lived in a world without medication, because somebody said "Screw the insane! Locking them up is good enough a solution."

We had to reform the language first - from speaking about "insanity" to speaking about "mental health". Because "mental health" and "insanity" evoke different emotions in people.

And yet - that's what Henry (and his lik) are saying about people who choose to wear dresses while they have a penis. Screw them! Fit in or fuck off (or we will lock you up!).

Or these days there's also disability for those who can't find gainful employment due to illness.

Right! People are messed up like that. Everybody is against social grants for the jobless until they get ill/bankrupt/jobless trying to stay healthy.

When they become the people they ignored all their life, their tune always changes.

I don't know. Maybe I'm just being a stodgy, narrow-minded person. But I see news where some parents and doctors are now allowing/giving kids hormone treatments of the opposite gender and the like when they have just barely reached puberty, even though they're too young to consent to so many other things. To me it's almost like giving me pills to induce delusions as opposed to curing them. Some guy with a beard is apparently telling the kids to address him as a female in one of our local schools. Where is all this going to end? Where are we going to draw a line and say, this is a little too far? Or are we?

[henry quirk]

...do you recall me, at any time, sayin' or hintin' that trannys ought to...

Fit in or fuck off (or we will lock you up!)?

Skep is flat-out lyin' to you.

Ask yourself 'why'?

[Immanuel Can]

It is utterly uninformative

This excuse doesn't fly in 2020. You live in the information age.

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=first+do+no+harm

Ah. So Google knows what "harm" is, you think, even though you don't know. Because, well, Google knows everything...

[Skepdick]

Ah. So Google knows what "harm" is, you think, even though you don't know. Because, well, Google knows everything...

Are you really this stupid? It's a convincing act.

You claim to be uninformed on the "no harm principle".
Google has the information that you seek.

It is the same information I would give you, were I willing to waste my time repeating things that are already in the public domain.

[Immanuel Can]

Ah. So Google knows what "harm" is, you think, even though you don't know. Because, well, Google knows everything...

Google has the information that you seek.

Yep. That's what the guy thinks.

You are funny.