= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
bbleeker comments on Stupid Questions July 2015 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (122)
From what I've read, being transgender isn't about clothes and stuff at all, or not mainly anyway. It seems that people are born with a 'body map' in their brains that sometimes doesn't correspond with their actual body, so that they feel there are parts missing that should be there, and other parts that feel like they've been sewn on by Dr. Frankenstein. Of course people who feel like that would want to dress the way that in their culture corresponds with the sex they feel they really are.
This is a rather dubious explanation. Firstly because it seems unlikely that such a process would mess up only the sexual characteristics that happen to be in the brain. Secondly, many of the high profile "transgendereds" claiming that appear to have been perfectly happy in the bodies they were born with until in became fashionable to declare oneself "transgender".
I don't know (don't know of, even) any high-profile transgender people. One of my husbands friends is transgender, but she doesn't like to talk about it, so I don't really know why she had years of hormone treatments (still has, I suppose; you have to take them indefinitely, don't you?) and traveled to Thailand to have major surgery. All I know is that it must have been very important to her to do all that; it's not something you do on a whim! And she's a perfectly normal woman now, not flamboyant at all. Heck, she doesn't even wear skirts most of the time. She still works at the same IT job, and is still as nerdy as before. She just feels more at home in her body, and has become less shy I think (I didn't know her that well before).
For me, the 'body map' explanation I've read about makes perfect sense. In fact, it's the only explanation that makes sense to me. Why else go through years of trouble with hormones and major surgery? Of your private parts? When you could cross-dress instead?
There are also people who have the same sort of feeling about other body parts. That's got to suck even worse; at least transsexuals are starting to become accepted now.
Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner.
Chelsea/Bradley Manning
Martin/Martine Rothblatt, Larry/Lana Wachovski.
Never heard of her, or the other ones you and Stingray have mentioned. Yeah, I am living under a rock (not watching TV/reading the newspaper). I find I'm happier that way.
Yet, you somehow know that transgenderism is the fashionable cause du jour.
Wendy/Walter Carlos
Examples?
Look here.
I know there are high-profile transgender people. I was enquiring about your claim that they were
For two of the examples you linked to this is contradicted by the person's own account. (The third link is just to a picture.)
Their behavior during this period suggests otherwise.
Here's a clue for you: people lie, especially these kinds of publicity hounds are notorious for rewriting their past if it will give them current publicity.
And the absence of sabotage proves the existence of a fifth column. Kthxbye.
I don't see the relevance of the linked article. In this case, a better analogy to your argument is "we have evidence of him attempting sabotage, but he says he isn't a traitor so he can't be a traitor".
Well, if you insist on trying to pass non sequiturs off as arguments, goodby.
Plus 3 gratituitous downvotes on unrelated comments of mine. Ptui.
What, the nonsense you wrote about how priors work in the Pre-history thread. Seriously, if you don't want to get downvoted, stop writing nonsense. Otherwise, don't complain when you are downvoted.
When I wasn't exposed to more transgender people and viewpoints, I didn't pay attention and connect the dots I had that pointed at my not being cis, since I'm non-binary with relatively mild dysphoria. So, I'm planning on getting top surgery in a year or two, and wouldn't have if I hadn't introspected and found myself to be not cis. This could be seen as being perfectly happy in the body I was born with until it became fashionable to be transgender, but the connotations are very different.
So why should I prefer your explanation to mine? Especially since mine makes much more sense from a biological point of view and doesn't require a free-floating XML tag (whether one is "really not cis").
I'm not exactly sure what your explanation is. That transgenderism is status-seeking? In that case, I suppose I'd ask about the existence of transgender people pre-SJ...?
In any case, I disagree with your assessment of cis-ness as unconnected to any real thing (that is what you're saying, no?). Hmm... maybe I'd put it akin to being a goth. Many non-goths would feel uncomfortable if suddenly they were forced to go about their lives clearly dressed as such. It communicates membership of a group they don't identify with.
Does that clarify anything?
Well let's take a look at that shall we. Hey, it appears that they were almost non-existent and largely confined to the subcultures that were the predecessors of SJ.
What about hijras, fa'afafines and the like?
I suppose that wasn't a good example, then. Of course, my answer is that their greater non-existence was because it was socially unacceptable to be transgender.
So those are like two side of a coin, no? I say that it was socially unacceptable and less so now, so more realize it and come forth, while you say it was sometimes high-status then and more so now, so more say they are this made-up thing. Why do you prefer your explanation, which necessitates a lot of people lying?
Your explanation necessitates even more people lying. The difference is that it is more socially acceptable to assert that people lied in the past than to admit that someone currently around is lying, which is the only reason your claim even sounds vaguely reasonable.
I'm not sure I follow. Is the logic that my claim necessitates more lying because people lied about not being transgender in the past (or as I would put it, were unaware or in the closet)? The fact of it being more widely low-status in the past explains that in my explanation as well as yours. Furthermore, if that is what you mean, then do you not also think that the higher amount of openly gay people these days is similar?
So basically what your saying is that it is possible for a man to "really" be a woman even though not only all the physical/biological evidence points that way, but he isn't even aware of it? This raises even more questions whether you definition of "really a woman" corresponds to anything in reality.
So you agree that the claim that my explanation "necessitates a lot of people lying" that you made in the grandparent is BS. That raises the question why did you make it?
It's similar, the difference being that "gay" properly refers to a person's behavior rather than an intrinsic property. And yes, the current attempt to claim that "gayness" is an intrinsic property is similarly problematic.
I've read that too. Is there evidence?
No, alas, I don't know of any official studies or anything, I've just read stories by transsexual people saying that's how they feel.