Philosophy Now Forum

https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/jk-ro ... hp&pc=U531

Social media gets ugly once again.

I think transsexuality is largely frowned upon by many as not being appropriate, as amounting to some sort of deviation from the preferred or natural axis of development of a human being or something. I mean, when I think of someone who is transexual I think of someone with some sort of psychological flaw of some kind. I don't think of it as the way a human being should normally develop psychologically. But I suppose I would be viewed as being a bigot by some for believing that. I mean, is there not such a thing as an appropriate or "healthy" way for a human being to develop psychologically? It seems to me like there is. For example, if someone tends to get very angry and hostile toward others for no good reason all the time, I'd say that was a psychological flaw. I think it's not the end of the world to have a psychological flaw but it's maybe not healthy in some ways to insist that a psychological flaw is not a psychological flaw. Otherwise, it seems like living in denial.

On the other hand, how should others approach someone with a psychological flaw? For example, it may be realistic for a paraplegic not to be a firefighter but it's probably not a very healthy thing to run around telling paraplegics, "hey, you're paraplegic and you'll never amount to anything." I suppose it's not healthy to draw attention to a person's handicap and insist that they shouldn't think of themselves as not having one. Clearly, no one should have to dwell on a handicap as being the last word or say in whether their life is worthwhile to live.

What are your thoughts?

What a load of nasty, one-eyed crap that article is. The world is in big trouble because that kind of badly-written tripe is what passes as 'journalism' these days, although I could see why a desperate wannabe writer would despise a real writer who is read and adored all over the world and who has made a very tidy living from her wonderful talent.

it may be realistic for a paraplegic not to be a firefighter but it's probably not a very healthy thing to run around telling paraplegics, "hey, you're paraplegic and you'll never amount to anything."

No, but neither is it healthy to cater to the paraplegic who insists he can be a firefighter or who demands, by way of the courts, to be a firefighter, or that, in fact, he is a firefighter.

Joe Paraplegic may be a fine man, but he isn't, can't be, a firefighter, or a woman.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 6:46 pm What are your thoughts?

If being "transsexual" is possible, why is being "transracial" taboo? Rachel Dolezal claims to "identify" as a person of colour...why can't she?

And what about "transabled" people, who demand the "right" to have their legs paralyzed or their eyes gouged out, so they can "identify" as handicapped? Why aren't we just as enthused about that?

Or, for that matter, why can't one identify as "transspecies," as an monitor lizard, an eagle or a halibut?

Gary Childress wrote:
how should others approach someone with a psychological flaw

We all have psychological flaws - every single one of us
Some are more extreme than others but none of us is without them
So its not something only some have and not others for it is our flaws that actually make us human
And less someones seriously impacts upon you in a negative way then approaching them should not really be a problem
But if it is then minimising the degree of impact would be the obvious thing to do preferably to the point of none at all

Anyone in this thread should watch this rather sad true story, made into a 2018 film on the subject.

Erik & Erika (2018)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Schinegger

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 3:15 am If being "transsexual" is possible, why is being "transracial" taboo? Rachel Dolezal claims to "identify" as a person of colour...why can't she?

And what about "transabled" people, who demand the "right" to have their legs paralyzed or their eyes gouged out, so they can "identify" as handicapped? Why aren't we just as enthused about that?

Or, for that matter, why can't one identify as "transspecies," as an monitor lizard, an eagle or a halibut?

I don't think these are good-faith inquiries. They look to me like attempts to weaponise analogies to justify the oppression of trans people.

mickthinks wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:24 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 3:15 am If being "transsexual" is possible, why is being "transracial" taboo? Rachel Dolezal claims to "identify" as a person of colour...why can't she?

And what about "transabled" people, who demand the "right" to have their legs paralyzed or their eyes gouged out, so they can "identify" as handicapped? Why aren't we just as enthused about that?

Or, for that matter, why can't one identify as "transspecies," as an monitor lizard, an eagle or a halibut?

I don't think these are good-faith inquiries. They look to me like attempts to weaponise analogies to justify the oppression of trans people.

Right. I'm sure J K Rowling wants to 'oppress' 'transpersons'. Heaven forbid. Are you some sort of woke bot? You just don't ring true at all...

I suppose this woman was trying to 'oppress' 'transpersons' when she objected to one of them exposing his penis to women and children in the women's changing room of this spa:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyPyXMn ... nel=Viktor

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 5:30 am Anyone in this thread should watch this rather sad true story, made into a 2018 film on the subject.

Erik & Erika (2018)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Schinegger

Quite.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 5:03 am We all have psychological flaws - every single one of us

Speak for yourself! Who is us? You live in an asylum?

Beware the man who makes broad moral judgments.

a. The man who says, "everyone lies sometimes," is a liar.
b. The man who says, "everyone steals sometimes," is a thief.
c. The man who says, "everyone cheats sometimes," is a cheat.

And the man who says everyone is crazy is a nut.

Beware the man who makes broad moral judgments.

a. The man who says, "everyone lies sometimes," is a liar.
b. The man who says, "everyone steals sometimes," is a thief.
c. The man who says, "everyone cheats sometimes," is a cheat.

And the man who says everyone is crazy is a nut.


Hmmm ... that looks like four ad hominem fallacies primed and loaded.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 5:30 am Anyone in this thread should watch this rather sad true story, made into a 2018 film on the subject.

Erik & Erika (2018)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Schinegger

Schinegger was born in Agsdorf, Carinthia, and raised as a girl.

In 1967, as he was preparing for the 1968 Winter Olympics in Grenoble, a medical test by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) determined that Schinegger had XY chromosomes and internal male sex organs

A sad tale indeed that has almost nuthin' to do with delusional men believin' they're women.

Schinegger was/is a hermaphrodite: his transition was corrective, not mutilatin'.

Are you saying that Schinegger was not delusional when he believed he was a woman, Henry? If you are then how are you deciding who is delusional and who isn't?

Because that is also what this thread is about.

mickthinks wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:24 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 3:15 am If being "transsexual" is possible, why is being "transracial" taboo? Rachel Dolezal claims to "identify" as a person of colour...why can't she?

And what about "transabled" people, who demand the "right" to have their legs paralyzed or their eyes gouged out, so they can "identify" as handicapped? Why aren't we just as enthused about that?

Or, for that matter, why can't one identify as "transspecies," as an monitor lizard, an eagle or a halibut?

I don't think these are good-faith inquiries.

It really doesn't matter a whit.

The questions stand or fall on their own, not on the alleged motives of the questioner. If they're relevant, they're relevant.